In Detroit bankruptcy, what will happen to DIA?

[Baselinepunk]

Still not even close to being sold on the concept, nor the "supporting evidence" presented.

What opinion does the AAM have on this "concept"?

This "coaccession" guy doesn't happen to be the one who patented this idea, are they?

[Gistok]

This "coaccession" guy doesn't happen to be the one who patented this idea, are they?

BINGO!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTJjbCAKXeM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0hoU...eature=related

[Coaccession]

What opinion does the AAM have on this "concept"?

Baselinepunk, the AAM thinks it's eeeeevilllllll.

What does that matter, though, if the artworks belong to Detroit and not to a museum? For that matter, what would it matter if the National League of Cities had an opinion? Detroit's ownership means the artworks' disposition is up to Detroit, not anyone else -- unless Detroit stands pat and turns the decision over to an EFM or... a bankruptcy judge. And in the latter case, the important question will be how much money can Detroit get to its bondholders by selling the Monet.

[noise]

Baselinepunk, the AAM thinks it's eeeeevilllllll.

In other words, it's a pointless discussion. They will always listen to the AAM over a random poster on DYes.

[Coaccession]

In other words, it's a pointless discussion. They will always listen to the AAM over a random poster on DYes.

They, noise? If you're talking about the Founders Society, a contractor who runs the DIA for Detroit [[until 2018), yes, they will always listen to the AAM over a random DYeser. They've drunk the museum school Kool-Aid and will always try to one-up the next museum on the holier-than-thou scale. If you're talking about the City of Detroit, though, you'll likely see them choosing the best practical advice, rather than choosing the holiest source.

For example, if a museum fails, the AAM says it should give its collection to a healthy museum. It doesn't say sell the collection, it says make a gift of it. If Detroit goes bankrupt so a bankruptcy judge decides what to do with the collection, do you think the bondholders and union members and residents won't argue that the AAM is wrong, and the financial value of Detroit's DIA collection should benefit the people who loaned to and worked for and lived in Detroit. A judge will break up the collection. The AAM is idealistic. The world is practical.

Another example: if a museum is in financial trouble, the AAM says beg harder for money. It says using your collection's financial value to head off financial problems is eeeeevillll! If begging harder doesn't work, it's OK. Just gift your collection to healthy museum. I'm sure Bloomfield Hills or Gross Pointe would be happy to set up a healthy museum to receive the DIA's collection. If Detroit is out billions and billions of dollars in financial value, the AAM says, that's OK. The important thing is not taking care of Detroit's residents, the important thing is safekeeping for the collection.

Let's just head off the bankruptcy, OK. Detroit's illiquid, but it's not insolvent. It's got billions and billions of dollars in the DIA, and could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenues with that value, if not billions in new revenues.

I didn't invent Coaccession to get rich. I invented Coaccession to get archaeologists and collectors to quit fighting and start working together to preserve archaeological sites and antiquities. By sharing ownership, archaeologists get what they want -- research, exhibits, conservation -- and collectors get what they want -- the joy of possessing antiquites and a shot at capital appreciation. Heck, you can even keep the antiquities at the museum, and investors will pay for a shot at capital appreciation. Most of the financial value is in what collectors and investors want, most of the cultural value is in what archaeologists want. Thus, museums can have what they want, and collectors finance the digs and the museums. The AAM may think that's eeeevilll, but I think it's quite practical. As I lived with the concept, many other applications occurred to me, and I've come to think of shared ownership as very practical for all kinds of collections and all kinds of communities -- artworks supporting the arts, antiquities supporting archaeology, specimens supporting the sciences, rare books supporting libraries, archives supporting history, etc., etc. It's certainly practical for Detroit, which could use the support for its arts, sciences and humanities, and could also support essential services since the DIA's collection is so hugely valuable, financially as well as culturally.

Consider the concept, not the source. Study nature, not books. Otherwise, we'll just be trapped in a maze of scholasticism and our practical understanding of the world won't progress.

[Baselinepunk]

"What does that matter, though, if the artworks belong to Detroit and not to a museum?"

This statement, alone, is very illustrative of just how flawed this concept is at its foundation.

My honest hope is that this guy doesn't get a hold of some smaller museum that's hard up for money and has an important piece or two. May the Gods have pity on them if they ever shack up to this concept.

[Richard]

Baselinepunk, the AAM thinks it's eeeeevilllllll.

What does that matter, though, if the artworks belong to Detroit and not to a museum? For that matter, what would it matter if the National League of Cities had an opinion? Detroit's ownership means the artworks' disposition is up to Detroit, not anyone else -- unless Detroit stands pat and turns the decision over to an EFM or... a bankruptcy judge. And in the latter case, the important question will be how much money can Detroit get to its bondholders by selling the Monet.

Start selling her assets and see how fast bondholders move to force bankruptcy ,they are worth more unsold then sold.

[noise]

They, noise? If you're talking about the Founders Society, a contractor who runs the DIA for Detroit [[until 2018), yes, they will always listen to the AAM over a random DYeser. They've drunk the museum school Kool-Aid and will always try to one-up the next museum on the holier-than-thou scale. If you're talking about the City of Detroit, though, you'll likely see them choosing the best practical advice, rather than choosing the holiest source.

For example, if a museum fails, the AAM says it should give its collection to a healthy museum. It doesn't say sell the collection, it says make a gift of it. If Detroit goes bankrupt so a bankruptcy judge decides what to do with the collection, do you think the bondholders and union members and residents won't argue that the AAM is wrong, and the financial value of Detroit's DIA collection should benefit the people who loaned to and worked for and lived in Detroit. A judge will break up the collection. The AAM is idealistic. The world is practical.

Another example: if a museum is in financial trouble, the AAM says beg harder for money. It says using your collection's financial value to head off financial problems is eeeeevillll! If begging harder doesn't work, it's OK. Just gift your collection to healthy museum. I'm sure Bloomfield Hills or Gross Pointe would be happy to set up a healthy museum to receive the DIA's collection. If Detroit is out billions and billions of dollars in financial value, the AAM says, that's OK. The important thing is not taking care of Detroit's residents, the important thing is safekeeping for the collection.

Let's just head off the bankruptcy, OK. Detroit's illiquid, but it's not insolvent. It's got billions and billions of dollars in the DIA, and could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenues with that value, if not billions in new revenues.

I didn't invent Coaccession to get rich. I invented Coaccession to get archaeologists and collectors to quit fighting and start working together to preserve archaeological sites and antiquities. By sharing ownership, archaeologists get what they want -- research, exhibits, conservation -- and collectors get what they want -- the joy of possessing antiquites and a shot at capital appreciation. Heck, you can even keep the antiquities at the museum, and investors will pay for a shot at capital appreciation. Most of the financial value is in what collectors and investors want, most of the cultural value is in what archaeologists want. Thus, museums can have what they want, and collectors finance the digs and the museums. The AAM may think that's eeeevilll, but I think it's quite practical. As I lived with the concept, many other applications occurred to me, and I've come to think of shared ownership as very practical for all kinds of collections and all kinds of communities -- artworks supporting the arts, antiquities supporting archaeology, specimens supporting the sciences, rare books supporting libraries, archives supporting history, etc., etc. It's certainly practical for Detroit, which could use the support for its arts, sciences and humanities, and could also support essential services since the DIA's collection is so hugely valuable, financially as well as culturally.

Consider the concept, not the source. Study nature, not books. Otherwise, we'll just be trapped in a maze of scholasticism and our practical understanding of the world won't progress.

Well, good luck getting the City of Detroit to ignore their museum experts and start listening to a loner with a website.

[Coaccession]

With the dire straits that Detroit finances are in... if this idea is EVER implemented... Detroit would be a likely candidate. But that's a big IF...

Dire straits, indeed, Gistok.

My honest hope is that this guy doesn't get a hold of some smaller museum that's hard up for money and has an important piece or two. May the Gods have pity on them if they ever shack up to this concept.

You must love Fresno's outcome, Baselinepunk, the way you keep trying to set Detroit up for the same. No, the AAM doesn't like talking about that one, beyond a tut-tut.

Start selling her assets and see how fast bondholders move to force bankruptcy, they are worth more unsold then sold.

Uh, pretty hard for anyone to force bankruptcy on an entity that's got the cash and a willingness to pay its bills, Richard. Just saying. Of course, no one is seriously talking sale here, despite its frequent appearance as a strawman.

Well, good luck getting the City of Detroit to ignore their museum experts and start listening to a loner with a website.

The long version was clearly too much, noise, so here's a condensed one: Museum experts tell Detroit to get lost, making the AAM happy, or loner with website* tells Detroit to get whole, making residents, union members, bondholders, museum-goers [[yes), artists, writers, etc., etc., etc. happy. Go ahead, keep backing the loser!


*and finance PhD earned with experimental research supervised by Economics Nobel laureate

[noise]

Yet here you are, unable to convince anyone your idea is worthwhile. At least you think highly of yourself. Don't let anybody take that away from you.

[Coaccession]

Yet here you are, unable to convince anyone your idea is worthwhile.

It's a tough thread, no doubt. But this thread's not the world. It's not even Detroit. But, it's a nice slice.

At least you think highly of yourself. Don't let anybody take that away from you.

Actually, my own shortcomings are legion, starting with my difficulties in convincing people on this thread. What earns my highest admiration is this inspiration that popped into my brain, which is such a neat division of cultural rights and financial returns that it lets museums have major collections without tying up much capital and gives collectors and investors attractive ways to maximize the social responsibility of their savings. When I compare it to alternatives, I always marvel at the value it creates via the value it unleashes.

[Baselinepunk]

"Actually, my own shortcomings are legion, starting with my difficulties in convincing people on this thread. What earns my highest admiration is this inspiration that popped into my brain, which is such a neat division of cultural rights and financial returns that it lets museums have major collections without tying up much capital and gives collectors and investors attractive ways to maximize the social responsibility of their savings. When I compare it to alternatives, I always marvel at the value it creates via the value it unleashes."


Holy shit. This is gotta be a line straight out of some B-Rated '80s film.

Don't stop believing, eh?

[Coaccession]

...

"If you can't keep up with the conversation, better not join in at all." With HL's advice, Fresno, you avoid removing all doubt.

[Coaccession]

Maybe it really is a wrap for this 2011-2012 revival of the original 2009 thread, but...

I predict that 20 years from now, DetroitYESers will be debating whether the long-abandoned DIA should be turned back into an art museum or converted into a mass transit station or a backdrop for movies and outdoor concerts.

With lilpup and 1953 posting that some of the collection at the DIA already belongs to the Founders Society rather than the Detroit Arts Department, and AAM/AAMD museum ethics guidelines saying Detroit should gift its part of the collection to another museum if it goes bankrupt, perhaps Detroiters will soon have to hike up to the Bloomfield Hills Institute of Arts to see their Monet [[or will it be the Gross Pointe Institute of Arts?), and DetroitYESers will revive this thread again in 2029 to have the debate Retroit predicted. Still, you have to hope that Detroit's municipal code has a stronger say in all this than AAMD's ethical code [[that's the point of the Linda Sugin article I linked earlier). If that's the case, then Detroit would still have its art collection and the DIA would never have been abandoned... at least as long as Detroit does the sensible thing and has its Monet and money too... the money it needs to avoid bankruptcy, that is.

[1953]

More on why selling the DIA is a nonstarter:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...ve-worth-much#

[Coaccession]

More on why selling the DIA is a nonstarter:

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...ve-worth-much#

More? More of the same is more like it, 1953... Pam Marcil and Bob Berg trotting out the same old tired arguments that turned up on this DetroitYES thread weeks ago. Although I also oppose any sales of artworks -- why deaccession when you can Coaccession for about the same money??? -- this article makes it quite clear that no current law stands in the way. Otherwise the Founders Society PR people would have given Nancy Kaffer chapter and verse in response to her 1/8/12 Crains Detroit article* that mentions the DIA as a possible source of cash for a Detroit restructuring.

Crain's Nancy Kaffer reports: "With state approval, [Bettie Buss of the Citizens Research Council] said, city-owned land, buildings, equipment, furnishings, and collections would all be eligible for sale, as long as the health and welfare of residents and legal rights of bondholders and other lenders are protected.
...
Wait … what was that about the city's collections?"

Check! Despite some wishful thinking along the way, that's pretty much where this thread was on that issue.

"The DIA is one of the top art museums in the country. A city report from 2004, when the DIA was still a city department [sic - the DIA is still a city department, with Graham Beal as the Arts Department director; the last status change was 1998, when Dennis Archer had the Founders Society take over the rest of DIA's management] valued the museum's collection at more than $1 billion."


Way, way, way more than $1 billion now -- many, many billions more. Then, too. The Founders Society is not going to tell Detroit just how much money Detroit really has tied up in the DIA collection unless Detroit makes it tell. And, you've got to wonder whether the DIA uses FASB 116 correctly to keep the collection's financial value off the books when the collection ultimately belongs to the City of Detroit, not an independent museum. If I had a bond indenture or union contract with Detroit, I'd certainly insist that financial value go on the books, and all the more so when the City is running out of cash!


"And the value of that collection has been popping up more and more in these conversations about the city's cash problem."


Not only was the value of the collection popping up in conversations, it popped up 10% in last year's art markets too. That was, most likely, more than $1 billion in capital appreciation in the last year alone.


"But could the city sell off pieces from the DIA?


Technically, yes."


Technically? Technically?? Let's not mince words. The answer is yes... and it's a bad idea the City ought to avoid. Unfortunately, in a financial emergency or bankruptcy, the City government no longer makes that decision. So, let's mobilize the DIA collection's financial value to head off a financial emergency or bankruptcy! Why take chances?


"When the city transferred governance of the museum to the nonprofit authority [i.e., the Founders Society] that currently runs the joint, Detroit retained ownership of the collection, the building and the grounds, said Pam Marcil, the DIA's director of public relations.

She referred further questions to PR heavy hitter Bob Berg of Berg Muirhead. [[See? I told you we started a panic.)


'The DIA's art collection is held in trust for the benefit of the public,' Berg said. 'Works of art may not be sold except to purchase further art for the DIA's collection.'"


If that were in current federal law, Michigan state law, Detroit municipal code, or the Operating Agreement for the Detroit Institute of Arts [[i.e., the contract between the Founders Society and the City of Detroit, overseen by the Arts Commission), then Marcil and Berg would have pointed it out. If I were a bondholder, union employee or city resident, I'd watch my senators, representatives and aldermen very carefully to make sure none of them introduce any legal changes that would take away Detroit's rights to its art collections and other collections, thereby avoiding any questions about fraudulent conveyance if Detroit does face a bankruptcy.


"In the museum world, selling art for money is a big no-no – as in, if you did it, you'd lose your standing as respected museum, no one would ever again donate any work of art more valuable than a cocktail napkin doodle. And furthermore, wealthy people would stop leaving money to the institution. Basically, it'd be the same as sending in a wrecking crew."


Museums sell art for money day in and day out, but they do it to let today's curators overrule the decisions or deals or promises that yesterday's curators made. And Donn Zaretsky hoists the museum world with this petard of theirs day in and day out at theartlawblog.blogspot.com. My particular favorite Zaretskyism is Schrodinger's Deaccession**, which is both ethical and unethical at the same time -- you don't find out which until you open the box! The Founders Society decided to quit buying art with their art acquisition funds -- taking money that belongs to Detroit's citizens and using it to pay their own salaries*** -- but that wasn't a big no-no because they, in their superior wisdom, just decided it wasn't. And so wealthy people won't stop leaving money to the institution and it's not the same as sending in a wrecking crew. I guess that's why Marcil and Berg didn't call Nancy Kaffer and Sherri Welch to highlight that bit of news.


"Then there's the legal nightmare. Say I'm rich, with great taste in art. Say I'm also a really nice person. So I decide to leave my collection of Albrecht Durer engravings [[hey, a girl can dream) to a museum. And then the museum sells them. Most likely, I or my heirs sue that museum – selling the pieces would clearly not have been what I had in mind when I made the donation."


Yes, ask UM what a nightmare it's been dealing with Frederick Stearns's heirs over the 1970s loss, theft and destruction of hundreds of the historically-important musical instruments that he gave the University over 112 years ago.*** If at least they had sold the instruments to raise an operating endowment for the exhibition, research and care of the remaining instruments, that might have made some sense, but no, the UM found the instruments inconvenient on campus and packed them off to an unheated barn off campus. Stearns was prescient when he wrote: "Under no consideration whatever however would I turn the collection over to the university except with the understanding that it should be immediately housed and installed. I would not consent to it being packed away for some future regent to mount to suit themselves or to neglect entirely." He should have gotten a better lawyer to work on his deed of gift, though, and if anyone wanted to keep the DIA from selling or Coaccessioning their donated artworks, they needed to put that in their deed of gift as well. I'm sure the Detroit won't invite trouble by going against any explicit restrictions.


"It's just a nonstarter."


For selling, that's true, but certainly not for the reasons Kaffer got from Marcil and Berg.


"[[For the record, I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of selling art, even if it were possible. But I've heard the concept mentioned [[in tones of fear and horror, not anticipation) often enough lately that it seemed worthwhile to figure out whether it was an option.)"


Well, for the record I agree, and think it's very important to head off Detroit's financial problems before an emergency financial manager or bankruptcy judge makes the entirely-possible decision to sell some of Detroit's art. As far as figuring out goes, if Nancy's going to go to biased sources -- and that's pretty hard to avoid -- she ought to work hard to find sources with a variety of biases. Or, she could just come to DetroitYES where many points of view are already under discussion.



* http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...e-lots-of-cash

** http://theartlawblog.blogspot.com/20...accession.html

*** http://www.theartnewspaper.com/artic...-deficit/24228

*** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1207543.html

[Detroitnerd]

Oooh, sounds like somebody just can't WAIT to get their hands on the city's art collection. Why not call Sherry Washington? Hahahahaha.

[Coaccession]

Oooh, sounds like somebody just can't WAIT to get their hands on the city's art collection. Why not call Sherry Washington? Hahahahaha.

Why call Sherry Washington when Al Taubman's already out of prison?

[Detroitnerd]

Why call Sherry Washington when Al Taubman's already out of prison?

Good one.

We certainly need some billionaires to step up and start buying Detroit's assets. Moroun could buy the water department. Maybe Taubman could buy the DIA collection. Then it can be privatized, and people can enjoy paying private lords for the privilege of drinking water or seeing art. After all, what good is all this stuff if you can't make money off it?

[Coaccession]

Good one.

Thanks.

We certainly need some billionaires to step up and start buying Detroit's assets. Moroun could buy the water department. Maybe Taubman could buy the DIA collection. Then it can be privatized, and people can enjoy paying private lords for the privilege of drinking water or seeing art. After all, what good is all this stuff if you can't make money off it?

How about you and me buying a few shares in the Monet, Detroitnerd? Detroit's art endowment gets the dividends and interest on our money to make socially-responsible investments in new art commissions, making our share purchases socially-responsible, as well as hiring arts, sciences and humanities teachers, opening museum branches [[jointly with library branches, so the funds bring both art and books to Detroit residents), reopening the Detroit Science Center and rehiring laid-off police officers and fire fighters, and so on. Detroit owns many, many billions in art, and while it's nice to just have the art at DIA, with some on exhibit, it would be even nicer if the art Detroit keeps at the DIA did double duty, acting as a store of value for savings as well as a source of inspiration for culture. Letting Detroit's art collection act as a store of value brings all these other benefits that the Founders Society doesn't offer with the way they run the place now, and would also offer millions of people -- folks like you and me -- a better place to keep some of their savings as part of a balanced portfolio.

Anyway, Taubman doesn't have the kind of money to buy up all the DIA's artworks. If all the Waltons got together, or Bill Gates and Warren Buffett teamed up, the you'd be talking that kind of money. I doubt the whole DIA board of directors together has anything like the money it would take to buy the DIA's collection today.

[Coaccession]

Speaking of buying up art, it's funny how folks ostensibly on the side of the artist embrace policies that empower the capitalist. Artists ought to retain rights to their creative works, but the common law traditionally treated the sale of an artwork no differently than that of a sack of potatoes. That's changed a bit with continental notions of moral rights and resale royalties working their way into the law via legislation, and individual efforts like the Projansky/Siegelaub contract, but the final sale doctrine pretty much leaves moneyed interests in control, with a crumb or two left for the creatives. Making Coaccession a standard tool for museums and artists would certainly change the balance of power. For better or for worse, it would put Detroit's representatives firmly in control of the DIA because the collection itself would generate the funds to run the place -- artworks funding the arts. The pressure on the DIA's board would be to make the best creative decisions, not to come up with more money every year.

In his brilliant discussion of intellectual property, Adrian Johns fished up a great quote that John Percy had noted: "Capitalists have frequently availed themselves of the brains of poor inventors, without bestowing an adequate reward, if, perchance, they have bestowed any. I have heard one of these gentlemen, himself engaged, as moneyed partner, in large metallurgical operations, cooly declare that brains are more abundant in the world than capital, and ought, therefore, to be had cheap." Substitute talents of artists for brains of inventors and you pretty well describe how the world runs with the traditions that the Founders Society embraces. Perhaps the 99% ought to Occupy DIA and liberate the value of its art for the people.

[Coaccession]

Does anyone know if Detroit still self-insures its arts collection at the DIA? It covered its art before the Founders Society took over DIA's management with the 1998 operating agreement, and if it still does, the collection is essentially bare. Not only does Detroit have on the order of $20 billion in liabilities, but I'm told the latest CAFR shows negative assets [[!!!) -- at least for what's actually on the books, which the art collection most definitely is not. Best's would not be impressed if the only assets Detroit has to cover its art collection is its art collection.

[Coaccession]

When Bob Berg of Berg Muirhead says "The DIA's art collection is held in trust for the benefit of the public. Works of art may not be sold except to purchase further art for the DIA's collection," he is repeating the AAM/AAMD line [[that's American Association of Museums/Association of Art Museum Directors). The Founders Society that runs the DIA for Detroit has had it in these associations for a long time, but that's voluntary. DIA is obliged to follow federal law, state law, county code, municipal code and its contract with Detroit, and none of those say DIA may only sell artworks [[i.e., reverse decisions taken by earlier curators, donors, etc.) to buy more artworks [[enshrine decisions by current curators, until someone new comes along). But let's say the Founders Society gets to play by its own museum rules rather than actual laws and contracts. If Detroit goes bankrupt, that may put the DIA collection up in the air. Where would it land under AAM/AAMD rules?

Reporter Amy Rogers Nazarov put together a nice description -- Death With Dignity -- of different fates for various defunct museums:

http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/dwdignity.cfm

Note that the AAM/AAMD doesn't step in to help museums in extremis. If you haven't got the money to keep your museum going, don't come whining to them. No, find yourself a healthy museum and give your collection to them. The 1% get richer, the 99% lose more assets. That's why lawyer Mark Gold questions the ethics of the "No Deaccession" rule [[well, the "No Deaccession Except to Reshape Your Collection" rule):

http://www.aam-us.org/pubs/mn/nothingethicalaboutit.cfm

What museum is healthy enough to support Detroit's DIA art collection? The Cranbrook? Would they get it all, or would Gross Pointe start up a healthy museum so they could split Detroit's collection with Bloomfield Hills? The only thing the AAM/AAMD rule tells us is that whoever gets the collection, they don't have to pay Detroit a penny for it. Bye-bye billions! It was nice having you in the neighborhood for a while.

When the Barnes Foundation moved from suburban Philadelphia to downtown Philadelphia, the Friends of the Barnes called it the Steal of the Century because downtown Philly foundations only put up about $150 million to capture $25 billion in artworks. If the DIA moves from Midtown to Bloomfield Hills or Gross Pointe [[or both), they'll have to call it the Steal of the Millennium -- the Barnes only has 2500+ objects, while the DIA has 60,000+. Meanwhile, Detroit's juggling payroll and vendors and only has to line up 48 unions to keep the DIA away from an EFM or bankruptcy judge.

AAM/AAMD rules? Those are ethical!

Putting the DIA billions to work to fund a Detroit Arts Endowment that makes Detroit even more of an arts destination and keeps Detroit police officers and firefighters and paramedics on the payroll in open police precincts and firehouses while moving the paintings now on the walls in Midtown not a single inch? EEEEVILLLLL!!!!!!

Gotta love those AAM/AAMD rules. They may not save anybody's lives, but they let museum people feel really righteous.

[Coaccession]

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 society is almost entirely funded by sources outside of the city.

It's worth emphasizing that AAM/AAMD rules would indeed likely spin off the museum to the Founders Society, as 1953 says, and that Founders Society funding does indeed come almost entirely from Bloomfield Hills and Gross Pointe. Nonetheless, AAM and AAMD are voluntary associations and their rules don't determine what happens to city-owned assets, so the collection won't go to the suburbs. What will likely happen is bankruptcy judge will start selling artworks and will keep selling artworks until all debts and obligations of the City of Detroit are fully paid up. If any of the 48 city unions hold out on Bing's negotiations, you could see the Van Goghs go in a van for delivery to the highest bidder.

Paying off the $20 billion in city debts and obligations -- all accelerated by bankruptcy -- would go through about a third or so of the DIA collection's financial value. That wouldn't be a pretty process, so here's hoping Detroit takes steps to avoid it. It's got the assets -- it just need the character to use them.

[Coaccession]

Here's one future for the Detroit Science Center:


John Miller, former acting president of the [Detroit] Science Center, said liquidation could begin in 30-45 days.


"Imagine saws and blowtorches coming in there and disassembling exhibits and selling them for nickels on the dollar in order for the bank to recover some of its debt," said Miller, who resigned from his voluntary [Detroit] Science Center post and left the board in early January because of other commitments.*

A better future is possible if Detroit mobilizes the financial value of the assets it owns to supports the arts, sciences and humanities. The value is there -- the 2011 capital appreciation of 10.2% on Detroit's DIA collection was likely well in excess of $1 billion -- and various methods will mobilize that value. A Detroit Arts Endowment could easily fund worthy institutions like the Detroit Science Center with actual capital income -- interest and dividends on investments Detroit could make with the DIA collection's value -- that comes from mobilizing Detroit's unrealized capital appreciation -- the increase in value of Detroit's DIA collection, an increase that doesn't pay any bills for Detroit now. Detroit doesn't have to keep that financial value in its DIA idle. Detroit could put that value to work. If it does, culture will benefit, as well as essential services.


Nah, bring in the saws and blowtorches. The AAM and AAMD say so.



*http://www.freep.com/article/2012012...ut-foreclosure