jaded

While some of us were wondering when would be the best time to make a move on the last piece of pumpkin pie, Geoff Edgers was working:

The Chinese jades created little buzz in the art world when they were shown at the Museum of Fine Arts a few years ago. But a decision by the New York collectors who own the pieces to sell them through Christie's is now turning heads - and drawing unwanted attention - outside the MFA.

Alan and Simone Hartman, the latter of whom is on the MFA's board of overseers, auctioned off half of their collection of carved jade pieces last November, bringing in $15 million. The second half of the collection will be auctioned on Tuesday in Hong Kong, and the sale is expected to garner in excess of $10 million.

A large collection of objects not exhibited at any other museum, it seems, moved from display at the MFA to auction with haste that struck some as unseemly.  The museum finds itself embarrassed by collectors it has embraced and now is forced to put the best face on it possible.  Since I've written about appropriate and inappropriate ways to display private collections or works therefrom, I feel like I should offer a few comments.  Obviously this was a gamble that didn't quite pay off, to say the least.  I do agree with the MFA that there can be value in displaying work from private collections that can outweigh the negatives--the public does benefit from seeing, even if briefly, privately owned work that is of lasting significance.  And it may be that, as MFA director Malcolm Rogers argues in the article, the museum's exhibition had no real affect on the price the objects have fetched at auction, although this doesn't quite seem to jibe with his statement that they represented an "unfashionable" (and thus presumably cheaper) area of jade work.  Besides, if the show didn't affect the market price, can it really be that it didn't have an effect on the very decision to sell?  It can't be coincidence that Christie's approached the collectors shortly after the close of the exhibition.  One can't fault the auction house for trying to bring work to market, but it seems obvious that the MFA's display helped them sniff out the opportunity.

One recurring suggestion in the article from various museum professionals and ethics types is that the MFA should have secured an agreement from the lenders that they would not sell the collection in close proximity to the exhibition, whatever "close" means in this case.  I'm not sure what good that would have done.  The article indicates that the museum did have some sort of assurance that the owners weren't planning to sell, but, well, plans change, don't they?  I'm not sure what sort of force any agreement would have beyond the capacity to shame the lender, and $25 million can assuage a lot of guilty feelings.  So sure, the MFA would be smart to get some sort of agreement in place for future loans; but don't expect it to help.

The sale must burn the museum on a number of levels, not least of which is that it had made one of the two collectors into an overseer of the institution.  No one has an obligation to donate art or money to an institution against one's own desires or interests, but with the honor of any sort of position of governance or advice come certain obligations.  The MFA had a right to expect that their interests would be taken into account, even if the desired donation wasn't forthcoming; in this case, not only did the institution lose out, it was put in a difficult position and had to accept it.  I still think there's value in displaying privately owned work, but it's good to remember these cautionary tales: you hold your exhibition and you takes your chances.