In Detroit bankruptcy, what will happen to DIA?

[Danny]

YES! regionalize the DIA. It's the only way to save the Detroit's arts and humanities.

[Retroit]

Did I leave anything out?

Wealth and intelligence?

[Coaccession]

Since Detroit owns the art collection at DIA, it's one of the wealthier cities in the USA. All that financial value is off the books -- that's how museums keep their books, with FASB 116 blessing -- but we're not talking the hundreds of millions of dollars cman710 mentioned. The number is way, way up in the billions -- enough to generate cash income on an endowment that would fully fund Detroit's arts and culture budget and essential services to boot. If Detroit mobilizes that value, the structural deficit goes away and there's no need for any bankruptcy.

[jerrytimes]

Wealth and intelligence?

Common sense is another.

[Novine]

"The number is way, way up in the billions -- enough to generate cash income on an endowment that would fully fund Detroit's arts and culture budget and essential services to boot. If Detroit mobilizes that value, the structural deficit goes away and there's no need for any bankruptcy."

Huh? Are you trying to say that if the city sold off the art, it could avoid bankruptcy? If the artwork is sold off, what's the point of having the museum or an endowment to fund it?

[JBMcB]

Did I leave anything out?

Water. It's already happening - a consortium of Macomb and Oakland counties took over control of the OMI after it was found to be in *extreme* disrepair [[it had already collapsed at 15 mile)

I think the main arteries and processing plants should be regionally owned and managed, with cities taking care of the "last mile" infrastructure.

[Coaccession]

Huh? Are you trying to say that if the city sold off the art, it could avoid bankruptcy? If the artwork is sold off, what's the point of having the museum or an endowment to fund it?

Novine, you wouldn't have to sell off the art. There are other ways to mobilize its financial value, and at least one would let Detroit fund an endowment with the artworks' market value without moving exhibits an inch. Like gold in a vault, investors will want their artworks in a museum.

On the other hand, if the City goes bankrupt, who's going to protect the museum and its art?

[Islandman]

So, both of your posts so far have to do with selling off or mobilizing it value. Please expound on this.

[Coaccession]

Islandman, if you knew me, you'd know how dangerous it is to invite me to expound. You should visit my blog -- linked on my profile -- and Google Coaccession. If you still want me to expound after that, well, I might slip my self-restraints.

[townonenorth]

Having looked at the blog, it's not a bad idea, but with a few flaws. First, insurance for works is problematic. Who pays? Better yet, who provides security? Also, what is the criterion for someone to have a work of art in one's home, office or school? Background checks?

[1953]

I previously worked at the DIA. The building and some of the collection is owned by the city. The collection is managed by the Founders Society, which also owns some of collection. Many pieces were donated with restrictions as to what can happen to them. The museum does not make a practice of selling pieces in its collection [[with some exceptions), because it is a member of the American Museum Association. If the city were to go into bankruptcy or receivership, I am pretty certain that the museum would be spun off entirely to the founder's soceity and no one else; the founder's soceity is almost entirely funded by sources outside of the city.

[Gistok]

Well, it is an interesting idea.... but....

Alex Manoogian is one of the nations top art collectors. As head of the DIA Founders Society, and owner of a large number of important artwork in the DIA, as well as in the Masco Corp. HQ in Taylor, Mr. Manoogian would be an expert on the subject of Capital Appreciation. Wonder what his take on this idea is?

So the concept here involves wealthy people being able to write off the Capital Appreciation on their taxes... of artwork that they don't really own, but have in their temporary possession... not exactly a popular notion in this day and age. Less taxes for the rich... higher federal deficit. Hmmmm....

On a different note, Richard Manoogian back in the 1980s bought George Caleb Bingham's THE JOLLY FLATBOATMEN, an iconic 19th century American painting that one art critic called "one of the dozen most important American paintings of all time". This painting [[on long term loan to the National Gallery in Washington), was sold privately to Manoogian for [[at that time record for a USA painting) $6 million, with the stipulation that it was to remain at the National Gallery for a set number of years. The painting went on tour last year for the bicentennial of Bingham's birth [[1811)... and I see a comment on a website that mentions it's in the Manoogian Collection... Taylor MI.

So has the famous painting finally left the National Gallery and come home to Michigan??

[rb336]

If they put in an EFM, the snyder and his troglodyte minions would clamor for the Great Art Sell-off

[Coaccession]

1953, DIA's annual report states and cman710 quotes: The City continues to own the museum's permanent art collection, including works of art acquired prior to or subsequent to the operating agreement, as well as the building museum and grounds. Do you know how much of the City's collection is impermanent? Or restricted? Has the City let the Founders Society accept restricted donations on its behalf, or was this all pre-1919? Others have also said that the City doesn't own all the works at the DIA, but the DIA's annual report seems pretty clear about the City owning every object of the 60,000+ in the permanent collection. If the Van Goghs are going to suddenly go in a van, I expect Detroit residents will want to know all about it beforehand. Is the annual report hiding anything else besides the market value of the art collection that belongs to the residents of Detroit?

Write-offs for the rich? Uh, Gistok, you actually pay taxes on realized capital appreciation, at least if you're a private individual. Not, of course, if you're a non-profit museum. Once individuals start realizing capital appreciation on museum artworks, those taxes will go up. That will be offset when museums start getting capital income on investments funded by their artworks instead of individuals getting [[and paying taxes on) those interest and dividends, but then, museums having more money for more hours, more guides, more exhibits, more catalogs, more programs, more curators, more research, more conservators, more outreach, more arts education, etc., etc. is a good thing, right? With artworks and archives and science specimens generously funding the arts and humanities and sciences, governments and foundations and individual donors can turn to other priorities.

townonenorth, you mention some difficult issues I've wrestled with. My various legal, financial and arts advisors agree that my practical solutions resolve them quite well. I'm hoping Detroit will want to apply my tools to maximize both the cultural returns and financial returns that the City's art collections and other collections can sustain, and not just because that will give me some agreeable work to do. It's because I'm pretty sure that the other solutions floating around out there are not nearly as good as mine. I'll have to tell Detroit my specific solutions if the City uses me, but I don't want to share them publicly yet. Thanks, though, for the praise on my basic idea. The realization that traditional collection management practices like the DIA's leave vast resources in capital appreciation completely idle has compelled me, at significant personal sacrifice, to develop these tools as fully as I can without much institutional support. It will be a great reward to see them create significant new value on top of the value that Detroit already gets from its collections.

[Coaccession]

If they put in an EFM, the snyder and his troglodyte minions would clamor for the Great Art Sell-off

All the more reason, rb336, to intelligently, even ingeniously, mobilize the DIA's vast financial value before the City runs too low on cash. EFM? Bankruptcy? Detroit? Don't you know Detroit is one of America's richest cities? Why, Detroit supports the arts, humanities and sciences better than anywhere else in the world because they REALLY KNOW what great investments they are!

[Hypestyles]

i hope the DIA gets to stay open, gets more funding [[from whoever), marketed as a regional and state asset, and a destination for outstate/out-of-state visitors..

[rex]

A three county property tax was proposed to save the DIA, just like the Zoo and the SMART bus system. Do you think this should have passed?

This vote failed but was close and many people would like to see this on the ballot again.

Like how they sandwiched SMART in between the zoo and the DIA.

[Danny]

Thr DIA got some money from other private folks! They will stay open for a while. In the meantime the Detroit Science Center will remain closed for a long time.

Well! who needs science when we can see more Andy Warhol to Picasso's crayola pop art.

[1953]

I cannot give you a number regarding how much of the 60,000 piece collection is owned by the city and how much is controlled differently, but I know that, for some time, the museum has been accessioning works differently than it did in years past - I believe this protects a great deal of the recent acquisitions from receivership, though many of the most storied pieces would not be covered by this. Arguably, the city could balance its books against the value of that museum. However, this would be entirely unprecedented in the nation's history and, perhaps, in the history of art.

[English]

I cannot give you a number regarding how much of the 60,000 piece collection is owned by the city and how much is controlled differently, but I know that, for some time, the museum has been accessioning works differently than it did in years past - I believe this protects a great deal of the recent acquisitions from receivership, though many of the most storied pieces would not be covered by this. Arguably, the city could balance its books against the value of that museum. However, this would be entirely unprecedented in the nation's history and, perhaps, in the history of art.

You're absolutely right. The city of Detroit would become [[even more of) an international pariah.

[Gistok]

I had heard on a different DYES thread that the DIA sold off the donated furniture from the Rose Terrace [[Dodge) drawing room [[18th century French)... is that right?

[Coaccession]

...I know that, for some time, the museum has been accessioning works differently than it did in years past - I believe this protects a great deal of the recent acquisitions from receivership...

You'd think, 1953, that the DIA's annual report wouldn't still say that accessions belong to the City, then.

Arguably, the city could balance its books against the value of that museum. However, this would be entirely unprecedented in the nation's history and, perhaps, in the history of art.

Well, not that many cities own art museums, and of those that do, not many are having to juggle payroll with vendors to avoid bouncing checks. Detroit is likely unique in having so much art and so little cash. Of course, other cities subsidize art museums they don't own. If Detroit sets a precedent showing how wealthy art museums can pay their own way and offer tremendous outreach as well -- a couple hours of arts instruction available every day in every one of Detroit's classrooms, for starters, so we don't lose the potential of any budding geniuses -- that might do some real good for the city, the nation and the history of art. As long as the Van Goghs don't go in a van, having your Monet and money too should help cities with art museums.

[Coaccession]

You're absolutely right [1953]. The city of Detroit would become [[even more of) an international pariah {[[by) balanc[[ing) its books against the value of that museum}.

Better Detroit should go bankrupt first, English, and take its chances with its creditors' tender mercies? It can avoid that risk by letting its cultural property do double duty, adding new financial benefits to existing cultural benefits. By using those financial benefits to support the arts, sciences and humanities -- does reopening the Detroit Science Center appeal to you? -- the city would then reinvest in the [[now highly visible) sources of its wealth. Far from being an international pariah, Detroit would be an international hero for setting such a very valuable precedent.

[Coaccession]

The Chinese are waiting in the wings.....

More than you know, truthseeker, unless you are quite well informed

[daisy]

I believe it would be a misguided decision to leverage [[mobilize is the terminology used by coaccession) the assets of the DIA to address the issues facing the city. There are structural deficits in the delivery of essential city services, departments and government. It is not only a monetary issue. Do we leverage DIA assets to bail out a broken system? If we place the assets of the DIA on the table to resolve our financial issues I believe that the contributions to this great museum will significantly decrease.