Art Controversy Exodus

The director of Randolph College's Maier Museum of Art, Karol Lawson, resigned yesterday after the college's trustees voted on Monday to sell four paintings from the museum's collection. For background, read this and this, but the basics are that the trustees claim they need to liquidate the artworks to alleviate financial woes, while opponents say the college is "robbing Peter to pay Paul."

Lawson is the third Randolph employee to leave her position in protest of the deaccessioning — the Maier's associate director, Ellen Agnew, and the head of the college's Museum Studies program, Laura Katzman, quit earlier this year.

What's most disturbing is this comment made by an alumna and former president of the college's board of trustees to Lynchburg, Virginia's News & Advance:

I think it's a smart and prudent move...I think it's a great idea to sell some of the things that are very valuable that deserve and can have a much wider audience while keeping the core of the collection.

First off, if every museum operated on the principle "sell some of the things that are very valuable," what we'd have is public arts institutions filled with whatever wasn't riding high in the art market at the time. Would there be anything left in the Museum of Modern Art in New York? Probably not.

Second, as I mentioned yesterday, I think it's highly unlikely that all (if any) of the pieces will end up on public view. It's rich private collectors who have the kind of cash the George Bellows painting is expected to command.

Third, even if I'm surprised and the works end up in a museum, it's disturbing that anyone would suggest it's better to take them away from students at a small college so that more people can see them. I'd imagine it's pretty insulting to Randolph students, too. Museums make loans, not sales, so that pieces can be seen by an audience that might not otherwise have the chance.