Less than 8% of DIA's art is on display

[Detroitnerd]

Not everything in life is or should be profitable. The most important things aren't profitable at all. Sorry ... that's just the way things are.

[Ltdave]

I took a tour in Chattanooga, Tennessee today. The tour guide was naming off all the things around town to do including the art museum and he said that it was a great museum, but "nothing like the one in Detroit".

It was cool to see something that we're known for so far away from home.

we went to see my wifes family in denmark over the summer. we spent 4 days in paris and went to the louvre...

it was a BUST! i MUCH RATHER would have gone to the DIA because of the quality and diversity of the artwork at the DIA...

i sent them an email telling them just this but ive never heard back from them...

[Cliffy]

I swear you guys would lease your own mother for a dime.

[Honky Tonk]

One of the least supported and most subsidised museums by the City is the Wright MAAH. Maybe the City can sell it to a private banquet and entertainment management company, end the subsidies, get some money, and get it off of the books?

[Thruster315]

I swear you guys would lease your own mother for a dime.

Lease? Hell, some of the trolls here would do a "rent to own" and not blink.

I think the OP of this thread wanted us to be somehow shocked or dismayed at how sad and pathetic the DIA is in managing their artwork. Somehow 92% must and should be used [[read "sold") or it's mismanaged, right?

[majohnson]

When it comes to selling warehoused art to purchase police equipment, purchase toilet paper for students, create libraries at the schools, pay obligations that we agreed to in the past, yes, sell it off.

I expected some that would be against selling displayed art to agree that not every piece in storage is indispensable.

It seems that Detroit has limited resources and many problems. Blight, transit, police staffing cuts, fire station closings, etc. Seems as though warehoused art would fall behind police etc., but apparently not.

Indeed, why sacrifice the cultural heritage for basic necessities like police and fire?
Because warehoused art is holding Detroit together and without it, game over.
Whereas, Detroit's major flaw is not having one of the highest crime rates.

Meanwhile, in the real world, crime is forcing singles and families out of the city.
I live in Royal Oak. Why?
I don't even consider getting carjacked, assaulted, or robbed in RO. Ever. Did I mention car insurance?

Property is the accumulation of rights. Property in Detroit is worth less because the crime rate means you have fewer defacto rights. Warehoused art can't compensate for that.

I wanted to go to the movies the other day, but instead, I went to work.
And at one time, when I needed some money, instead of using my credit card or getting behind on my bills, I sold some of my books on Amazon.com.
Philistine, hardly.
Do I prioritize my wants before making decisions, yes.

[corktownyuppie]

When it comes to selling warehoused art to purchase police equipment, purchase toilet paper for students, create libraries at the schools, pay obligations that we agreed to in the past, yes, sell it off.

You had me until "pay past obligations". The whole purpose of bankruptcy is to allow us to unload these obligations so that we can purchase more police equipment, purchase toilet paper, create libraries. And if the amount of debt we are unloading is still not enough to allow that, then -- through prioritizing needs vs. wants -- we should consider selling priceless art to pay for necessary ongoing expenses.

If you'd like to make the argument that the amount of debt we are unloading will not be enough savings to provide city services, I will be all ears, and so will Judge Rhodes. He wants to make sure that this bankruptcy settlement doesn't lead to another bankruptcy filing down the road, and the only that can happen is to make sure that we stop the outflow of our tax base.

It seems that Detroit has limited resources and many problems. Blight, transit, police staffing cuts, fire station closings, etc. Seems as though warehoused art would fall behind police etc., but apparently not.

This argument is valid. But it doesn't correspond with what you were saying earlier. If you are talking about selling art to improve police, that is one thing. But selling art to pay off creditors? That doesn't make any sense. Paying off creditors will not improve any of our services.

And if this is about paying pensioners, it's heart-wrenching to say it, but paying pensioners does not help increase current services. Especially when many of those pensioners aren't even paying taxes to or doing business in Detroit.

If there is one area that there is a legitimate beef in my mind, it's the idea that pensioners are given equal weighting to other creditors. But, unfortunately, that is the law.

If we are talking about protecting pensioners -- and let's remember that doing so will not do a damn thing about increasing city services -- then we need to pass a federal law to do so. And concurrently, we need to determine just who exactly will make them whole.

The State of Michigan got put on downgrade watch because of the $195MM settlement. The effects will be negligible. But they've already drawn their line...if the State has to incur a liability every time a municipality goes bankrupt, their [[our) borrowing costs will go up.

[motz]

One of the least supported and most subsidised museums by the City is the Wright MAAH. Maybe the City can sell it to a private banquet and entertainment management company, end the subsidies, get some money, and get it off of the books?

Yeah, Museums should be profitable ventures run like businesses and not just cultural institutions that help enrich education and knowledge in regards to certain subjects. The Museum of African American History definitely is not needed in a city with one of the largest African American populations if it can't pull its own weight. Sell it off to a suburban banquet company!

[majohnson]

Let's set aside the pensioners for the moment.

So, what about it then corktown?
How about selling warehoused art to support police, fire, and education?

Why wasn't that being discussed by leadership as an option, either in the past or now?

[dtowncitylover]

I don't even consider getting carjacked, assaulted, or robbed in RO. Ever. Did I mention car insurance?

But I'm sure you lock your doors at night and lock your car when you're in downtown RO. I do, crime isn't discriminatory on geography, it can and does happen in RO too [[a woman a couple nights ago was robbed in her apartment complex in RO). But I digress...

[Honky Tonk]

Let's set aside the pensioners for the moment.

So, what about it then corktown?
How about selling warehoused art to support police, fire, and education?

Why wasn't that being discussed by leadership as an option, either in the past or now?

Let's quit playing around. Let's just sell the artwork, instead of addressing incompetency or seeking restitution. Some of the money will be spent on actual cops, mops, and toilet paper for the kiddies. The rest, of course, will line upper management's pockets. This should be good for what, a couple of years? Now what? What's your next plan? What else do we sell? DWSD? Invade people's homes in IV, BE, PW, take from them, because they have? What can we hock next? Go back and look through the threads, newsclippings, etc., about the millions that were wasted by DPS. Abandoning books, school materials, and computers. Pallets full of computers stolen and sold. People's fingers in the till, homes being built and maintained, [[in the burb's yet!) by DPS and other City organizations. GROSS neglegence and incompetency. And your solution is "let's just sell the artwork and Detroit will be in honky dory shape". No, with the present mentality in place, I don't think it will. I think we'll need another "fix" in a couple of years. By that time, there won't be anything else left to sell.

[Thruster315]

Let's play make believe here and we sell off a few pieces of art. In return we get a few police cars, a fire engine, and some vital services in the short term.

What we lost in the exchange is the DIA's credibility as an arts institution. It's reputation just took a huge monstrous nose dive- one which we can never retrieve if we open up that Pandora's Box. Even years from now when the city is financially sound and even let's say loaded, it's not like the DIA can easily go purchase these pieces back. Once the art is gone, don't expect it to come back EVER.

Also think about the DIA's reputation to prospective donors. People like the Taubmans, Manoogians, and other deep pocketed folks would like to donate art to the DIA, but who's going to re-assure them that the DIA [[with its effed up reputation then) is going to be a safe haven to entrust with the artwork? What donor or legitimate art organization will ever trust the DIA with their pieces if the DIA can't be relied upon to keep it for future generations?

I get it. Selling off the artwork now is a quick fix but beyond the monetary value, the damage done to reputation will linger for ages. The DIA will be damaged goods, much like a cheap street walker making the quick buck foregoing their own long term reputation amongst its peers and community groups.

[mwilbert]

When it comes to selling warehoused art to purchase police equipment, purchase toilet paper for students, create libraries at the schools, pay obligations that we agreed to in the past, yes, sell it off.

I expected some that would be against selling displayed art to agree that not every piece in storage is indispensable.

Your ideas do not reflect how things would actually work. People have explained this before, but I will put the things you seem not be taking into account in one place.

1) There is a taboo in the museum world about selling artwork. Ever. You can possibly trade one artwork for another, but that is about the extent of it. Violating this taboo makes your institution a pariah. It doesn't matter if you need the money, no donor will give you any art, no institution will lend you art for your temporary exhibitions, etc.

2) The undisplayed art is worth a small fraction of the overall value of the collection. Even if you could sell it, you couldn't get much for it. Very likely less than is currently being pledged by donors who want to keep the collection intact, and who would be very unlikely to make those donations if the collection were not maintained.

3) If, however improbably, you did get some extra money by these means, that money would almost certainly end up with the creditors. Not buying toilet paper or police services or anything else useful to the citizens of Detroit.

In short, your plan is all disadvantages. There is no reason to do it. It is a bad idea.

[corktownyuppie]

These are the biggest issues...

2) The undisplayed art is worth a small fraction of the overall value of the collection. Even if you could sell it, you couldn't get much for it. Very likely less than is currently being pledged by donors who want to keep the collection intact, and who would be very unlikely to make those donations if the collection were not maintained.

The "Grand Bargain", or as the retiree attorneys like to call it, the "Outside Money" is a very delicate agreement.

If you sell one painting for $1 Million, you will simultaneously lose the $800 million pledged by the donors. So really +1, - $800...now we are at $-799 million compared to where we are today.

3) If, however improbably, you did get some extra money by these means, that money would almost certainly end up with the creditors. Not buying toilet paper or police services or anything else useful to the citizens of Detroit.

And this is the other part of the agreement that elminates any possibility of selling the art. We've already established that we'd need to sell $800 million of art just to break even. So let's take the idea and assume we can find a way to sell $1 Billion worth of art.

$1 Billion minus $800 Million gives us $200 million more to work with. But that $200 million doesn't go to the city...it goes to banks, creditors, pensioners, etc.

So great...we sell a billion worth of art, and we have nothing to show for it in terms of increased services, more cops, better schools, etc.

Now one thing I will say is that if there were somehow $15 billion of art at the DIA [[which there isn't), then would I entertain the idea of selling off $5 billion after the bankruptcy is finalized, and then using that to triple our police force, etc., etc.? I certainly would open to talking about it.

But that's the thing. There isn't $15 billion worth of art there. Not even close. We've already had an appraisal done...I can't remember if it was Lloyd's or Sotheby's. But bottom line...it was worth a lot of money, but no where near the amount that would change the math signficantly.

[Honky Tonk]

We've already established that we'd need to sell $800 million of art just to break even. So let's take the idea and assume we can find a way to sell $1 Billion worth of art.

$1 Billion minus $800 Million gives us $200 million more to work with. But that $200 million doesn't go to the city...it goes to banks, creditors, pensioners, etc.

So great...we sell a billion worth of art, and we have nothing to show for it in terms of increased services, more cops, better schools, etc.

With thinking like that, you ought to run for City government.

[motz]

I get it. Selling off the artwork now is a quick fix but beyond the monetary value, the damage done to reputation will linger for ages. The DIA will be damaged goods, much like a cheap street walker making the quick buck foregoing their own long term reputation amongst its peers and community groups.

You're neglecting to understand that people's views of public policy have slowly become "WHAT CAN WE DO RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THINGS THE BEST RIGHT NOW" instead of "Can we do to fix this problem in the short term, while implementing long term fixes that preserve the best parts of this system?" The "SELL THE ART NOW" crowd thinks that a sudden, one-time cash infusion will magically make the police better, and fire fighting better, and schools better, etc. The problem is, they need long term plans and goals in order to be able to responsibly spend any money that comes in. And selling the artwork doesn't even touch on that. Bankruptcy while keeping the artwork is a way better idea, as we can implement necessary changes while ridding ourselves of some debt.

Stop suggesting we sell the art. It's a short-term, short-sighted policy that doesn't fix anything and robs our region of one of it's most valuable cultural assets. It's not going to happen, as many in power recognize that dismantling a cultural icon of a region is probably about as smart as cutting off both your legs and wondering how you're going to get around.

[Detroitnerd]

When there was a crisis over libraries in the U.K. a few years ago, author Philip Pullman wrote an eloquent appeal for why "fiscal conservatives" should keep their hands off valuable public institutions. Mainly: They didn't understand their value. They never will. They're brainwashed in a very specific way.

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/save...philip-pullman

Excerpt below:

Market fundamentalism, this madness that’s infected the human race, is like a greedy ghost that haunts the boardrooms and council chambers and committee rooms from which the world is run these days. ...

So decisions are made for the wrong reasons. The human joy and pleasure goes out of it; books are published not because they’re good books but because they’re just like the books that are in the bestseller lists now, because the only measure is profit.

The greedy ghost is everywhere. That office block isn’t making enough money: tear it down and put up a block of flats. The flats aren’t making enough money: rip them apart and put up a hotel. The hotel isn’t making enough money: smash it to the ground and put up a multiplex cinema. The cinema isn’t making enough money: demolish it and put up a shopping mall.

The greedy ghost understands profit all right. But that’s all he understands. What he doesn’t understand is enterprises that don’t make a profit, because they’re not set up to do that but to do something different. He doesn’t understand libraries at all, for instance. That branch – how much money did it make last year? Why aren’t you charging higher fines? Why don’t you charge for library cards? Why don’t you charge for every catalogue search? Reserving books – you should charge a lot more for that. Those bookshelves over there – what’s on them? Philosophy? And how many people looked at them last week? Three? Empty those shelves and fill them up with celebrity memoirs.

That’s all the greedy ghost thinks libraries are for.

[SDCC]

I see Anna Wintour is in town @ the DIA hanging with Bruce Weber. The real Devil Wears Prada comes to Detroit…

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/clip/102...bit-at-the-dia

Pretty sure the exhibit starts tomorrow...check it out...Support the Detroit Institute of Arts...

[rb336]

I am probably the only person here who hears "Bruce Weber" and thinks of a mandolin maker

[Thruster315]

Stop suggesting we sell the art. It's a short-term, short-sighted policy that doesn't fix anything and robs our region of one of it's most valuable cultural assets. It's not going to happen, as many in power recognize that dismantling a cultural icon of a region is probably about as smart as cutting off both your legs and wondering how you're going to get around.

Who suggested selling the art? Not me.

Perhaps you missed the first line of my post- " Let's play make believe here and we sell off a few pieces of art."

[corktownyuppie]

Or... we could keep on discussing selling the art and beating the dead horse?

It may be a dead horse to you and me, but there are still a lot of retirees out there who simply do not understand the mechanics of the deal.

In the last two weeks, I have had people ask me:

1) why are the auto companies giving $25 million to the DIA instead of to the pensioners? I explained that the money wasn't going to the DIA, and that it was, in fact, going to pensioners.

2) why can't the city just sell the art and protect pensioners with it? First because selling the set would pull $800 MM out of pension aid. Second because any money would be split among all creditors and can't be directed solely at pensioners. Third because title is cloudy on art work

3) why are pensioners being punished more than banks? Technically banks are being punished more than pensioners, and they are going to fight this settlement to the very end.

It sucks to rehash these questions, but we need to until everyone understands the parts of the issue that are non-arguable. Selling one painting for $100MM results in $800MM walking out the door. We can argue about whether or not that is right. Bu we can't argue about the terms which people have explicitly demanded in exchange of their money.

[Thruster315]

I'm inclined to think some of the retirees get it. Not all, but some.

IMO it's the creditors who are the ones fanning the flames of distrust. They're the ones with the most to lose- not the pensioners.

And ever notice how they use the DIA and its art as their personal whipping boy? How come they never mention selling off other assets like Belle Isle, the Detroit Zoo, and other city assets? Is it because the DIA, its collection, and the industry model they work under the low hanging fruit that a lot of the blue collar pensioners understand the least? I'm inclined to think so.

[Signman]

Yeah, Museums should be profitable ventures run like businesses and not just cultural institutions that help enrich education and knowledge in regards to certain subjects. The Museum of African American History definitely is not needed in a city with one of the largest African American populations if it can't pull its own weight. Sell it off to a suburban banquet company!

I am sensing a tiny bit of sarcasm here.

[emu steve]

That's normal for museums. Some of the art is rotated, and some of it is lent to other museums. I think the art in storage is also available for academic work. The rest is basically hoarded. The museum acquires what it can and tries to build the best collection it can.

In order to actually display all the art... Think of how big the DIA is, and then imagine that making it 10 times as big still wouldn't make it big enough to display all the art. They'd love to be able to display it all but it's not practical.

Good post.

I was gong to post a snarky comment that maybe Detroit needs 12.5 such museums.

[corktownyuppie]

I'm inclined to think some of the retirees get it. Not all, but some.

IMO it's the creditors who are the ones fanning the flames of distrust. They're the ones with the most to lose- not the pensioners.

And ever notice how they use the DIA and its art as their personal whipping boy? How come they never mention selling off other assets like Belle Isle, the Detroit Zoo, and other city assets? Is it because the DIA, its collection, and the industry model they work under the low hanging fruit that a lot of the blue collar pensioners understand the least? I'm inclined to think so.

Me too. It's amazing that many of the same people who are doubling down on selling art will not even entertain the possibility of selling Belle Isle or the DWSD.