One of my favorite art writers, Adrian Searle, has some issues with how a Picasso show has been presented.

The New York Times reports on how some very successful artists are using their art as collateral for loans in these troubling times. Ok it's another newspaper schadenfreude story but it reminds me why museums should act differently than artists do towards their own work. It's the artist's right to gamble with their work, a museum like The Rose isn't an asset to be liquidated. It is a museum holding work for the public in trust.

Jerry Saltz discusses White Column's contributions and mission on their anniversary.

i'm curious what you think of the new plan: a visual arts learning resource center (see the art law blog's commentary). the concept is interesting, and could actually prove really fruitful to Brandeis in the long run... but ERG, having to reduce the collection still sticks in my craw. i could see deciding to slow down collecting while you get things sorted out, but shoving things away in storage or threatening to deaccession them makes this learning center solution a bitter pill.

Because the Rose is financially healthy, unlike Brandeis... I suspect all of the people who have donated work and funds over the years will dig in legally. Brandeis seems to have underestimated the goodwill the Rose creates with its donor base so Im disinclined to give an inch to the University, keeping the museum as is is in their best interest.

Will they still go ahead?

This new plan is rumored to already be steamrolled ahead.

It would be amusing to see the Rose say- you want an arts-based learning center? Great! Build us an ANNEX with our money and we can have our cake and eat it too.

Because really, a learning center attached to a University museum makes a lot of sense. And linking it to a museum also makes a lot of sense. But they need to be separate-but-connected entities. (Hrm, PNCA & MoCC. Hrm.)