Prognosis for Brandeis and Rose Art Museum not good

Louis Brandeis, after whom the University was named, believed n finding the best way to do something, and then to do it. It is doubtful he would consider dismantling a museum to pay for the temporary shortfall and failures of the current administration and trustees.

When Michael Rush, the Director of the Rose Art Museum says "it's over" should we take him at his word, or is he under orders to parrot the party line of the university bosses? From the Boston Globe:

Michael Rush, the museum’s director, was greeted with applause as soon as he stepped to the microphone but had a dire prognosis for the museum.

“The Rose is over,” he said. “The Rose as we’ve known it is over.”

Even if there were hope of saving the museum, no donors would be willing to give money or art after what has unfolded this week, he said.

Following that story, perhaps the best comment ever comes from David Shapira: "More than Madoff and Rubin, Reinharz and the trustees bankrupted Brandeis - financially, academically, and morally - by betraying the trust of generations of past donors, removing a collection which brought the art world's scholars from afar, and most tragically, by forever removing one the great incentives for future donors worldwide to choose Brandeis as the guardian of their treasures."

"Now, unless the Rose is made a perpetual museum beyond the reach of administration shylocks - Brandeis future donations will plunge permanently - destroying the great opportunity of a diverse Jewish voice in the wilderness."

A voice in the wilderness? AAM’s President Ford Bell urges a different course of action for Brandeis.

In my previous entry, I hinted at the preferred policy of the IRS when disbanding large institutions like an arts museum. They do not like to see collections sold, and prefer to see them handed over to another nonprofit that can safeguard their future. This concept was underlined in a statement from the American Association of Museums:

"If it cannot afford to maintain and exhibit its collection, we urge Brandeis University to seek another steward of it. There are many fine museums in the region capable of caring for these works, even on a temporary basis, while the university explores other options. In choosing an alternate solution to the sale and irrevocable loss of the collection that was entrusted to its care, the university would serve as a role model for its students, faculty and community."

Of course the issue is not that Brandeis can or can not afford to maintain the museum, it certainly has not been a drain on the university, quite the opposite. The problem is that the trustees and administration appear to view it as nothing more than a convenient cash cow to be plundered to cover their own shortcomings.

Brandeis Makes a "Bone Headed Decision" to Close the Rose Art Museum

The Rose Art Museum by Harrison Abramovitz Architects (1962). Photo from the Saatchi Gallery, UK.

The decision by the Trustees of Brandeis University to close the Rose Art Museum and sell off its huge art collection is just the most recent example of the financial panic taking place in boardrooms across America. Following the announcement yesterday, Brandeis students are in an uproar, the arts community in shock.

More and more details are becoming clear as other bloggers ferret out the details. Some to check out are ArtFagCity, ModernArtNotes, The ArtLawBlog and NewsGrist.

And there is a petition you can sign.

The story so far. First, the $700 million dollar endowment of the university has declined from its earlier heights. Then the board faced a stubborn $10 million dollar budget shortfall for 2009. Solution? This drastic measure. By selling the Rose Museum's valuable collection they both erase the deficit and restore the endowment without having to go out and do the hard work of fundraising in a troubled economy.

But many think this is both lazy and the coward's way out. It is the wrong solution because the long term consequences are actually quite dire. Like ex-President Bush they leave the mess for someone else to clean up. Ask any development director. This supposed easy fix is going to poison their relationship with donors for decades to come.

The museum holds well over 6,000 works by artists such as Robert Rauschenberg, Jasper Johns, Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein. Their combined value is believed to be in excess of $350 million - though in a declining art market it could well be less.

Someone has to point this out, too: it really isn't necessary. The University won't fold without it, most of it is just going to be plowed right back into that deflated endowment, perhaps to be pissed away on more poor investment choices. The Board's operation is not very transparent but if the endowment declined, it was the trustees who ok'd the unsuccessful investment strategy.

Sebastian Smee, art critic at the Boston Globe sees it as panic, and calls it "unconscionable."

No stranger to controversy himself, former Boston arts maven David A. Ross calls it a "boneheaded decision." He sure got that right. Here's his take on it:

"The Rose represented a critically important aspect of the American Jewish identity. How sad that a board blinded by fear would act so foolishly. I hope that Michael Rush, Lois Foster, John Lee and all their friends in the American art community, will continue to raise their collective voices in opposition to this bone-headed decision. It is both stupid and wrong in so many ways.

As ICA director in the 1980's I was always thrilled to visit the Rose, and see the lively exhibition program, and its unique and important collection. The Rose is a vital part of the New England cultural ecology, and its disappearance will impoverish the region and the nation. "

Rose Museum Director Michael Rush, inexplicably cut out of the process. Photo by Charles Giuliano.

Jehuda Reinharz, president of Brandeis, said that financial challenges facing the university forced the museum closing. Rose Museum supporters said they were simply cut out of the process. Even director Michael Rush only learned of the move late Monday afternoon, when he was informed by provost Marty Krauss.

On the Brandeis website, the Rose describes the works it holds as a "Permanent Collection". The Trustees have broken that trust by now making it a "Disposable Collection."

Trust between the donor and the institution is needed to make such collections possible. No doubt in the past there were promises made and assurances given to donors. With this announcement, these bonds have been broken. One can only imagine the hurt and humiliation felt by generous supporters who not only gave millions of dollars to Brandeis, but their most treasured possessions as well. In pursuing this course, the Trustees didn't consult with the Rose Museum's Board, Staff or Donors. This arrogant act is an embarrassment to such a fine educational institution. Such lack of respect for the donors and their feelings is a major gaffe.

There is little question that they will now enter into a series of lawsuits to unravel the codicils and conditions that came with the donations. How much is that going to cost them?

Alexis' Rockman's solo exhibit "The Weight of Air" at the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis featured paintings that depicted weather-related phenomena, including "Grey Twister, Green Field."

Initially, the Brandeis leadership answered questions of legality by declaring that this sale was ok'd by the Massachusetts Attorney General and its division of Public Charities. Turns out that this was quite presumptuous.

Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's office, said that Brandeis notified the agency Monday afternoon of its plans, after the trustees voted unanimously to shut down the museum. While Brandeis spokesman Dennis Nealon said at the time that the attorney general's office "has not balked at this at all," a university attorney amended that statement yesterday morning. And LaGrassa confirmed that the office has not offered an opinion on any aspect of the proposed sale.

So it appears that this was more wishful thinking on the part of the Brandeis Trustees than fact. This is far from a done deal.

No doubt it won't be long before some outraged donor sends off a letter to the IRS asking that they review these actions as well. This should be the real concern. IRS regulations are complex, and have specific rules that apply to closing an institution and disposing of its assets. Brandeis can not even rely on court precedents. The IRS often does not follow such legal rulings - or even its own precedents - in situations like this, but holds itself apart from them. Many challenges are argued anew, each decision unique.

Meanwhile, Brandeis is taking a beating among its various constituencies. No doubt it will see its applications decline, its gifts and bequests diminish. Controversy does not build donations.

The effects of this decision will spread far beyond their campus. Anyone who is considering donating art to a University is now likely to think twice. Already there is talk about only loaning works of art, or putting serious limitations on how it may be sold or traded. Colleges and universities with museums will pay the price for this decision in both fewer, and more complicated gifts of art.

Dana Schutz has had a retrospective of his work shown at the Rose Art Museum.

Part of the justification used to explain the decision of the trustees was that education is more important than running an art museum, and that education, not art, was their primary responsibility. If that's the logic, then do the trustees know that they also have a building chock full of books - is their mission to operate a library? Or a theater?

Their rationale clearly does not hold up if they continue to teach about the arts and arts administration.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who love both art and Brandeis worked for fifty years to make the Rose Art Museum the treasure that it is. Indeed the Museum had its own board, benefactors and mission.

That the University Trustees view the Museum as nothing more than a treasury to be raided is a crime. Perhaps they have joined those who see higher education as a sort of glorified vocational school, preparing people for jobs, not for life. How typical of our times.

As Mark Favermann comments in his Berkshire Fine Arts report:

"At Brandeis University, the Philistines are not just at the gate but are actually running the institution."

Here are the names of the Trustees. It is not known which of these made the actual decision:

Officers
Malcolm L. Sherman, Chair
Jack M. Connors Jr., Vice Chair
Gershon Kekst, Vice Chair
Perry Traquina '78, Secretary
Rhonda Zinner, Treasurer
Jehuda Reinharz, PhD'72, President

Members
Henry Aboodi '86
Allen B. Alter '71
Leonard J. Asper '86
Alex Barkas '68
Charles Bronfman
D. Ronald Daniel
Jonathan G. Davis '75
Donald G. Drapkin '68
Daniel J. Elkaim '81
William S. Friedman '65
Morton Ginsberg '56
Thomas P. Glynn, PhD'77
Vartan Gregorian
Sylvia Hassenfeld
Jonathon S. Jacobson
Daniel J. Jick '79
Kenneth S. Kaiserman '60
Stephen B. Kay (former chair)
Carol Kern
Dolores Kohl '55
Meyer Koplow '72
Myra H. Kraft '64
Thomas H. Lee
Jeanette Lerman '69
Stuart Lewtan '84
Barbara A. Mandel
Walter S. Mossberg '69
Louis Perlmutter '56 (former chair)
Ronald A. Ratner '69
Stephen R. Reiner '61
Robert S. Rifkind
E. John Rosenwald Jr.
Carol R. Saivetz '69
Lynn Schusterman
Michael H. Steinhardt
John Usdan
Linda Whitlock
Barton J. Winokur (former chair)
Paul M. Zlotoff '72

The First Week of President Obama: Quick, Dull, and Authoritarian

It is too early to evaluate President Barack Obama, because it is just a week since he was inaugurated on January 20. Despite this, I would like to mention some job performances by Obama.

The New President is quick to overturn policies by his predecessor, Former President George W. Bush. However, Obama is too dull to respond crisis that requires US commitment. On the other hand, it seems to me that President Obama tries to control opinions and thoughts in order to precede his change.

Just as I mentioned in a previous post, Barack Obama was quick to nominate his cabinet staff. Few presidents were so bold to reverse their predecessors at such an early stage. Obama has announced to close Guantánamo terrorist prison (“McCain: Closing Guantanamo Bay is the easy part”; CNN; January 22. 2009), tolerate abortion (“Obama Ends Global Family Planning Restrictions”; NPR; January 23, 2009), and strengthen auto emission standards against global warming (“Obama Issues Orders Toward More Fuel-Efficient Cars”; Washington Post; January 27, 2009 and “Obama counters Bush on auto standards”; Boston Globe; January 27, 2009).

Such quick actions impress that the change has come true, and the New President is a competent chief executive. Hasty reform can bolster his reputation, if everything goes successful. However, it does not seem to be appropriate to reverse everything associated with the Bush legacy. In an interview with CNN on January 22, Obama’s presidential archrival, Senator John McCain, comments that it is easy to apologize for inconveniences caused by the predecessor Bush, and close the prison. However, McCain says that if the prisoner camp were to move into the United States, the administration would face a NIMBY problem. People do not like the “notorious” camp built in their neighborhood. See the video.

On the other hand, Obama was too dull to respond against the Ukrainian crisis. I have mentioned this in the last post. Even though it was just before his inauguration, Barack Obama showed little interest in helping people in Ukraine and Eastern Europe who were intimidated by the fierce Russian bear. They are eager to join NATO and the EU, because they want close ties with the West. Whoever the President is, it is an absolute must to demonstrate “America is always with you!” Pro-American nations in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union crave for such staunch endorsement in their pursuit for post-communist democracy and confrontation with Russian threat.

On such a critical occasion, Barack Obama went on the razzle-dazzle with popular entertainers who need no help from any leaders in the government. It is extremely regretful, and the media should have questioned his behavior, because NATO and EU expansion eastward is a key issue in US foreign policy.

In addition to quick actions and dull responses, it is a must to mention dictatorial remark by the President. Obama warned Republican Senators and Representatives not to listen to Rush Limbaugh, a popular conservative radio personality (“Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done”; FOX News; January 23, 2009). Barack Obama emphasizes that bipartisan cooperation is necessary for his economic stimulus package.

President Obama’s remark has spurred a controversy, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tries to soothe Republican backlash (“PREZ ZINGS GOP FOE IN A $TIMULATING TALK”; New York Post; January 26, 2009). Meanwhile, Limbaugh caricatured Obama, “Now this is the great unifier. This is the man who's going to unify everybody and usher in a new era of bipartisanship and love.” (“Limbaugh Bristles at Obama Remark”; Washington Post; January 26, 2009)

No one can grade the President now. Though his quick actions are impressive, some remarks and behaviors are problematic. The media must comment them critically. We must not simply hail President Barack Obama, just because he is popular both in the United States and overseas.

In The Heights: This Week's Discounted Broadway Pick

Here's another top Broadway show at a discount.

In the Heights is a Tony Award winning musical that is a journey into one of Manhattan's most vibrant communities, where the coffee from the corner bodega is light and sweet, the windows are always open, and the breeze carries the rhythm of three generations of music. In The Heights is the musical that feels like a visit with new friends.
Acting: Olga Merediz and Mandy Gonzalez.
Lin-Manuel Miranda.
Dancing: Robin De Jesus and Marcy Harriell.

We have found a great ticket dea with seats as low as $41.50 for Rear Mezzanine seats at all performancesin rows G-H; and at $50.24 for Mezzanine A-F rows (except Saturday night). There are also seats at $73,50 for Orchestra and Front Mezzanine Tuesday to Thursday and Sunday evening. Friday and Saturday evenings, and Sunday matinee are $85.50.

To get this deal, which is about 40% off the regular prices, you have to call 212-307-4100 and use code NYT33. This offer is good for performances through March 15 only.

The show is playing at the Richard Rogers Theatre, 226 West 46th Street.

The original model for the set of In The Heights
What the Actual Set Looks Like

Blithe Spirit Returns with an All-Star Cast and We Have DIscounts!

Noel Coward wrote the play which first debuted on Broadway in 1941.

Announced to begin previews on February 26 and open March 15, Noel Coward's timeless Blithe Spirit is going to be the hot ticket on Broadway this Spring. With an incredible cast of previous Tony Winners, my prediction is that it will sweep up most of the Tony's in 2009 too. Just look who has been signed for the revival of this Noel Coward classic comedy:

Christine Ebersole plays Elvira
Christine Ebersole plays Elvira, the Blithe Spirit who is invoked at a séance. Not an etherial or floaty kind of ghost, but more of a petulant brat, she does not float gracefully about, but delights in teasing her now remarried husband Charles (Rupert Everett) and antagonizing Ruth - the current wife - to be played by Jane Atkinson.

Jayne Atkinson plays the current wife Ruth
I saw Atkinson this past summer as Candida in the superb Berkshire Theatre Festival production of the GBS play which is reviewed here. If you are near the Berkshires where Atkinson resides, she will appear at the Mahaiwe Performing Arts Center in Great Barrington, MA on January 31 at 3pm as part of Symphony Space's Selected Shorts program. “Starting Over: Stories for a New Year.” This hit radio series will be presented live on the Mahaiwe stage with host Isaiah Sheffer, and actors Jayne Atkinson and David Strathairn reading funny and moving stories by Susan Sontag, Laurie Colwin and Percival Everett, about making a new start.

Angela Lansbury as Madame Arcati might look a little like this...
Madame Arcati, who loses control of the session with the spirits is, of course, played by the fabulous Angela Lansbury. Michael Blakemore who directed Lansbury in 2007's Deuce, directs. The only relatively calm and sane characters are the Bradmans, neighbors and friends of the Condomines played by Simon Jones and Deborah Rush.

The Noel Coward story is a classic. Novelist Charles Condomine, living with his second wife, Ruth, invites a local medium, Madame Arcati, to his house. His intention is to do some research into the spirit world for his new book. But he gets more than he bargained for when Arcati conjures up the ghost of Charles first wife, Elvira. Caught between one live wife and one dead wife — both jealous of the other — Charles thinks matters couldn't be worse.

Rupert Everett makes his Broadway debut as the husband Charles, confronted with two wives.

This production will be housed at the historic Shubert Theatre at 225 West 44rd Street just off Broadway. This link to Blithe Spirit discount seats - as low as $36.50 - must be ordered ASAP since they will go fast. This offer is good through April 12. On sale are Orchestra and Front Mezzanine seats at $59.50 for Tuesday to Thursday performances. These same locations rise to $69.50 for weekend performances. Rear Balcony seats for all performances are just $36.50.

To order you can call 212-947-8844 and mention the code BSNYTW6. You can also visit BroadwayOffers.com and use the same code.

Finally the Truth: Inauguration Quartet was Faking It

Not real music.

When Yo Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman, Gabriela Montero and Anthony McGill began playing "Air and Simple Gifts" it was clear that this was a fake performance - the sync of the vibrato and rubato were off. From the sham "piece written for the occasion by John Williams" which was more like a copied and cribbed version of the Aaron Copland ballet, Appalachian Spring, to the quartet itself, it was all fake and phony.

Turns out that all the intense feelings on the faces of the players was nothing more than acting. The inner workings of the piano had been disassembled, and Yo Yo Ma had silenced his cello by putting soap on the hairs of his bow. All of this trickery is detailed in an article by Eric Felten in the Wall Streeet Journal.

"They were forced to perform to tape because of the weather" said Carole Florman, a spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Yet the Marine Band and chorus that performed that day played without needing a recorded backup. The quartet had recorded the music the previous Sunday at the Marine Barracks in Washington, and those who run these kinds of events would have you think it was used as a "last resort". The players weren't exactly lip synching, but timed their bowing, blowing and pounding to complete the effect.

Yo Yo Ma put soap on the hairs of his bow to make sure no sound at all came from his "pretend" playing.

Now, having played a violin outdoors a few times myself, I know how quickly strings can go sour under such conditions. Then there is the huge disappointment I felt when after hearing that John Williams had composed something for the inauguration, and expecting perhaps something like Fanfare for the Common Man we get a rehash of a rehash. After all, even Aaron Copland had cribbed his melody from an old Shaker hymn.

What we were left with was fakery, and I guess, a nod to classical music. But even CNN decided to talk over the performance, philistines that they are. Or maybe they knew it was not real music.

The arts community is in the midst of a major campaign to have a Cabinet Secretary of the Arts.

Are you kidding me?

Keep politics out of the arts. All it does is encourage mediocrity.

if you are curious as to what kind of music the new President really enjoys, and live music does seem to be in favor, you can read all about what music he and Michelle danced to on Inauguration Night, and employed around the city before and after his big day.

O.K. I'll shut up now.

Presidential Oath of Office, Take Two

Take Two

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts

...and it might also be said that they occasionally blow their lines, as President-elect Obama and Chief Justice Roberts did at the inauguration ceremony."Take One" was anything but flawless, they both stumbled over their script.

In the first go-around, Chief Justice John Roberts botched the wording, deviating from the language in the Constitution. Following along, Obama repeated the mistake.

The New York Times had fund with this, speculating: "How could a famous stickler for grammar have bungled that 35-word passage, among the best-known words in the Constitution? Conspiracy theorists and connoisseurs of Freudian slips have surmised that it was unconscious retaliation for Senator Obama’s vote against the chief justice’s confirmation in 2005. But a simpler explanation is that the wayward adverb in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling."
Take One
"Out of an abundance of caution," White House Counsel Greg Craig said in a statement, Obama decided to retake the oath Wednesday.

The world of politics is such that some evil soul somewhere would challenge the legitimacy of the inauguration. So Chief Justice John Roberts, black robe in hand, was ushered into the Map Room at the White House Wednesday night to re-administer the oath of office to President Barack Obama. All because one word was out of sequence.

"OK, Mr. President, that's a take!"