Gartner said the regents should determine the value of the painting if sold to a museum - not a private collector - that would agree to occasional viewings at the U of I. Gartner also wants to know how much the U of I spends to insure the painting and how much is spent on security around the work.
And so an idiotic idea descends further into idiocy. What's the point of selling it if we're going to get some Museum to do 'occasional viewings' at the U of I? Why not just keep it so we can have every day, whenever we want viewings at the U of I? I have to wonder aloud- and maybe I'm wrong, but I have to wonder if Gartner has ever bothered to go and see Mural or even go and see the Museum of Art, because given how much he seems to be talking complete rubbish it wouldn't honestly surprise me to learn that he'd never seen the thing in person.
But he's a Regent, so I'm going to say he's probably seen it- even though he continues to push this nonsense. And what's with asking about the security? Talk to the U of I Police Department about it- they're in charge of it and they've spent at least the five years I worked security down there re-vamping and upgrading the entire security system- and that's just the stuff the general public can see- not even I, as a student employee was privy to everything about the security system- and I was a guard! Plus, Gartner should exercise some common sense: this isn't a painting one can merely put under a shirt and run away with- and by and large, when there is threat to artworks, it's usually from theft attempts not from vandalism. (People want to steal 'em and sell 'em. Splotches of red paint thrown on the canvas devalues the price a bit.) The Pollock is 8 by 20- it'd take multiple people to move it and it'd be pretty damn noticeable and hard to hide. The Regents should be thankful it is the size it is, because in a very real sense it secures itself from theft without even trying.
A team of people who can break into the Museum (which would set off alarms) and get it off the wall and out of the Museum before law enforcement gets there (and believe me, at the first alarm, they would come running, very, very fast) would pull off the Art Heist of the Century. Asking how much money we spend on security for it is foolish- and a smokescreen to push his ridiculous idea of selling the thing in the first place.
I don't think we can fool ourselves on this: Gartner wants to sell it. And he's an idiot for wanting to do it- and more importantly, if this is his idea of advocating and building quality academic programs at our state universities then he needs to get a new job fast. A person that advocates excising the University's art collection just to pay for flood recovery (sacrificing potentially, the Museum's standing and accreditation along with the actual painting) has no business being on the Board of Regents.
Unhappily, Gartner's penny-pinching idiocy has it's fans:
Gartner isn't the only Iowan who says the regents should consider selling the Pollock. Storm Lake Times columnist Art Cullen advocated the sale in a column last weekend.
"Sell that painting and we can rebuild the entire, flood-devastated fine-arts campus in Iowa City without asking the public for a dime," Cullen wrote. "There would be money left over to buy works of renowned Iowa artists such as Grant Wood, who actually attended the University of Iowa (unlike Pollock, who has no connection whatever to the Tall Corn State), or unrecognized Hawkeye artists."
Ah, idiocy loves company. I'd invite Art Cullen to visit the Art School and see the Art Museum before presuming to excise Iowa's greatest artistic treasure and throw it away. The loss of accreditation for the Museum would be a blow to the credibility of the Art School and the Museum- not to mention that given the fact that the Regents hand out money hand over fist for the hospital and athletics without a second thought, how can Cullen advocate this when so much money is (in my opinion) disproportionately spent on athletics. Surely at the heart of an academic institution of any kind should be the preservation and promotion of academic excellence. Unless Mr. Cullen has been advocating not wasting taxpayer money on football and basketball for years now and making universities pay more attention to academics (which is kinda what they're supposed to do) he should just shut up. Seriously now. If this was a football stadium, Cullen would be all for rebuilding as quickly as possible and Gartner and the Regents would have cut several checks by now. But because it's art and no one thinks art matters (it does) Garnter, Cullen and company are all for dismembering one of the University's proudest academic schools in the name of raising money.
It's so wrong, it's unbelievable. Push the Hospital renovations (it's one of the best in the country now- it's not going to start sucking if it doesn't get god knows how many more square feet), push the Carver renovations (when are we good at basketball anyway?) and maybe tell Ferentz he can take a pay cut if he doesn't get us to a bowl this year (not to mention get his house in order in general.) That might be a good way to get some money before gutting the arts programs.
Happily though: Sally Mason, President of the University of Iowa is totally against the idea. (Yay!) Pam White, Director of the UIMA is against the idea (Yay!) and Lt. Governor Patty Judge is also against the idea.
If the Lt. Governor is against the idea that should tell you something about what a bad idea it is. And let me repeat the obvious: the Regents are in a tricky position here because like I said- if it was Kinnick Stadium or the Hospital that had been flooded, the Regents would be cutting checks left and right, regardless of what the public thought- they seem to be forgetting that the idea isn't just to rebuild the University, but to preserve it's tradition of academic excellence.
And it seems obvious that the Regents (or at least Mr. Garnter) don't think the preservation of academic excellence is all that important right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment