Fisk University’s shocking indifference to – hostility to – its ownership of some of the twentieth century’s greatest artworks has finally exhausted the patience of Dwight Lewis, an opinion writer at The Tennessean.
Fisk’s attorney has said that Georgia O’Keeffe’s gift of the spectacular Alfred Stieglitz collection was never of much interest to the university, because most of it was created by “‘Caucasians’ who weren’t Southern and ‘never came to Nashville.'” And now, even with a fund having been offered for the collection’s maintenance, Fisk still wants to sell it all.
Fisk officials said a proposal filed in Chancery Court by state Attorney General Bob Cooper is a “scheme which fails to address Fisk’s survival.’’
A scheme? What in the world is wrong with Fisk’s leadership? There was no scheme involved in Fisk alumna Carol Creswell-Betsch establishing a designated fund at the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee so that the Stieglitz Collection could be maintained and kept at Fisk without the university having to spend any money.
October 28th, 2010 at 10:16AM
I suppose it’s possible that the lawyer in charge of writing that proposal was British? They tend to use “scheme” in a non-pejorative sense.
October 28th, 2010 at 10:31AM
what an odd thing to say. it’s like suggesting that the Art Institute of Chicago get rid of its Monets because he was just some French dude who never came to Illinois. Is Fisk’s mission that narrow?
October 28th, 2010 at 11:43AM
Eric: Would they hire anyone not from Nashville?
October 28th, 2010 at 12:53PM
That just seems bizarre to me.
It’s as bfa said about Monet: are we really only going to care about stuff made by people just like us? That seems very small and very sad.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:35PM
I don’t agree with Fisk, but I see their point. The school is basically broke, and there’s this huge asset that they aren’t allowed to sell (a share of) – and while I deplore their arguments, they never really intended to run an art museum. (It’s not like this is the Barnes Foundation, either.)
October 28th, 2010 at 2:28PM
Margaret: I haven’t a clue; it sure seems unlikely Fisk would hire someone who wasn’t Southern… maybe they were from Southern England?
October 28th, 2010 at 3:14PM
There is a German saying “Reisende soll man nicht aufhalten” (Loosely translated “Don’t stop travelers”). So if Fisk is for some good or bad reasons becoming more narrow-minded, don’t try to reason with them: Its a waste of time.
With the proposed arrangement, it is guaranteed that people can enjoy the art – the people in Arkansas win, people in Tennessee loose. So the utility for the society as a whole remains the same.
October 28th, 2010 at 8:07PM
re: econprof
well, sort of. in the long term, this sort of thing weakens the protections around donors’ intentions, which makes future donors less likely to donate, because they don’t know if what they give to universities will stay there. it’s not as though we’re talking about a donation from 300 years ago that no longer has any relevance- this is a relatively recent gift, and the donor’s intentions are clear. I mean, would you say that businesses should be able to break contracts whenever they want as long as there’s an immediate benefit to somebody? it would cause chaos.
October 29th, 2010 at 2:23PM
re: bfa. I concur with you that the principle of “pacta sunt servanda” (even though this idea has an interesting history – and is of medieval, not Roman origins) is a basis for our society. So going back on something one promised is a bad idea.
I think that donors won’t be less intent on giving (what do you want to do with your artwork if you die – take it with you), but that they will be more selective whom to give. It will take more than a charismatic president to persuade donors like o’Keefe. The next donor of a collection will look for a culture of appreciation to her collection: There must be somebody at the university (a department, program) who actively profits from the gift.
I do not think this is a bad thing.
O’Keefe’s decision surely was well intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Obviously Fisk cannot make good use of the collection. Stupid, narrow minded – yes. The college itself sees its educational mission in another direction (Ok, I love science, in highschool I wanted to be a theoretical physicist, and I lobby for the admission of math, engineering and physics undergrads in our grad program. So I support scientific education.)
But Fisk’s whole policy is tragic: Having one of the best collections of 20th century American arts might be the foundation of a first class art, art history program (the Cranky Professor or somebody else might have a better opinion here).
So I think the original idea underlying the donation is dead. Should the corpse lying around, or should we bury it?
November 11th, 2010 at 1:34PM
[…] Background here. […]