In Detroit bankruptcy, what will happen to DIA?

[Gistok]

Thanks for the link...

The DIA would actually be having 8 Cezanne's... if the Edsel & Eleanor Ford House ever decides that the constant summer humidity in the non-air conditioned Ford House at Gaukler Pointe is being damaging to the artwork in the house. Ditto for their Degas.

Beside's Henry Ford II's selling off of his parents Renoir 30 years ago, all the Ford House paintings are still in the family possession, either on loan at the DIA, [[including Van Gogh's famous postman painting) or the 3 major paintings still at the mansion [[there's a Rivera there as well).

But I've always admired Cezanne's landscape painting of Mt. Sainte-Victoire at the Ford House. He painted that mountain nearly 60 times, and this one is considered one of his finest.

Those paintings [[such as the Van Gogh formerly in the Morning Room) that on loan to the DIA have duplicates at the house.

I image that many of the Richard Manoogian paintings at the DIA are on loan as well.

The one Manoogian owned painting I'm particularly fond of is "The Jolly Flatboatmen". Although George Caleb Bingham did an entire group of "Flatboatmen" series of paintings... the Manoogian owned painting is considered the first and finest of the series... and the painting is so iconic that it is considered one of the 1/2 dozen most important American paintings of the first half of the 19th century. I haven't been able to find out where the painting is currently located. It sat at the National Gallery on the Mall in DC for decades [[on loan) before being sold to Manoogian with the stipulation that it remain there for a set number of years. It went on tour, and I'm not sure if it made it back to DC or if it's in the Masco HQ in Taylor MI, where an impressive collection of Manoogian paintings are located as well. But it's not at the DIA.

But my favorite painting at the DIA is Frederick Church's "Cotopaxi".... probably the most valuable American painting there.

Coaccession, you may have to switch your catch phrase from Monet to Cezanne...

[Coaccession]

How lucky for you, Gistok, that the New York Public Library considered art collecting outside of its mission in 1945 and the DIA had some cash in its acquisition fund in 1976 for Church's Cotopaxi.

How much luckier it would be for Detroit -- and you -- if Detroit's arts collection -- Cotopaxi included -- funded a Detroit Arts Endowment that in turn could fund, besides essential services, more hours and more exhibitions and more curators and... more cash in its acquisition fund in 2012, 2013, 2014... Instead of tying up billions of dollars in its current art collection, Detroit ought to recycle many of those dollars in acquisitions to expand its collection, giving it more -- and better appreciated -- highly-secure stores of value to offer more collectors and investors, and a larger collection to choose from in mounting its own exhibits and research and lending to other public institutions. As for donations, the more civic-minded could donate the whole title to their paintings -- adding to Detroit's arts endowment as well as its public domain -- while the less generous could just donate a Cultural TItle, adding to the public domain while keeping their artworks' capital and its potential for capital appreciation for themselves. In making acquisitions, though, the DIA could buy far more art by keeping just the cultural rights in the Cultural Title, recycling any capital it temporarily tied up in buying whole title to an artwork. What a powerful first-mover advantage that would give the DIA until the rest of the museum world caught up enough to compete at art acquisitions!

And how unlucky for the artworks at the Ford House that their financial value doesn't fund a Ford Arts Endowment that ensures proper temperature and humidity controls with cash earnings from their second duty as a store of value for private collectors and investors... among other things it could fund. Every artwork comes with its own cash endowment embedded in its whole title, so poor exhibition and storage spaces really ought to be inexcusable, rather than the dirty little secret that the museum world keeps to itself because almost no museum is without sin.

Hmmm... a Cezanne catch phrase... It's so hard to beat Monet and money! Your Picasso and pesos too... Warhol and wampum... Waterhouse and wherewithal... Dali and dollars... Degas and doubloons... Bacon and banknotes... Greco and greenbacks... Johns and jingle... Rivera and rubles... Shaw and shekels... Titian and tender... Cezanne and sawbucks? Cezanne and simoleons? Any better than Scriven and scrip or Scriven and scratch? No, Monet and money too beats them all. Only Bruegel and bread come anywhere close... and that only because Detroit has THE Bruegel. Yes, Detroit should have its Bruegel and bread too, because the bread's capital income can fund far more municipal services than the Bruegel's capital appreciation. Believe me, investors will want to put their bread in the Bruegel if Detroit offers its capital appreciation to the public. Finding a safer, more socially-responsible investment than the capital appreciation on Detroit's DIA Bruegel would be well-nigh impossible. Heck, I'd suggest Detroit keep the capital appreciation if didn't need capital income so badly to fund essential municipal services, including upkeep and investment in its art collection.

Coaccession... because art does not live by appreciation alone