Save Art Now VI

Well, the DM Register came through in a big way with a nice article (and a great op-ed!) on the debate over the attempt to sell the magnificent Pollock piece, Mural at the University of Iowa to pay for flood repairs. The Regent pushing the sale Michael Gartner is saying:

The Iowa Board of Regents decided at its last meeting to research how much the painting would fetch if sold to a museum, an idea floated by Regent Michael Gartner of Des Moines.

Iowans and art lovers across the country are weighing in on the idea. Nixon's Facebook group boasted 200 members on Friday. Gartner said he is not pushing for the sale.

Gartner is not pushing the sale? Hmmm... strictly speaking that's right- he's only asking for a study to see how much it's worth and how much it could get if they did sell it to a Museum- but then again, if Gartner doesn't want to sell- then why have the study in the first place? I smell a fairly large rat.

The smell gets worse when you take into account an interesting twist brought up by art blogger Tyler Green- rumors surfaced on the Facebook site that Gartner's wife was on the board of the Des Moines Arts Center. Apparently, they're true.

To me, that's an obvious conflict of interest that should, at least in the interest of keeping this pointless debate free of potential shady behavior, stop this study right now. But- it's the Des Moines Arts Center- DMAC has already come out and said that they couldn't afford Mural if they wanted to do- and they're probably right. But Gartner's latest suggestion- to sell it to a Museum that would 'arrange occasional viewings at the U of I' strikes me as strange, especially given the DMAC connection. Des Moines being close enough to share on a regular basis.

Hmmm... either way- I don't know why this debate is ongoing. If Gartner isn't pushing the sale, why do the study? Given the DMAC connection, then why propose a sharing arrangement? Why promote a narrative in the media that suggests that the sale of the painting can be used to pay for flood damage- when in fact it can't! The only thing the sale of the Mural will get is more art. You might be able to get a building or a new museum- but it doesn't sound like it.

Like I said: the real question is what to do now. If the Museum can't stay down by the River, then where does it go? Given the spectacular nature of the University's collection- why haven't the Regents given it the facility it deserves to bring in people and revenue to the University of Iowa (yes, I think with the right facility a UIMA could bring in revenue. Maybe not football revenue and maybe it won't be the biggest draw to Iowa City- but it could be a pretty decent draw.) I think if they can't swing downtown Iowa City, then maybe somewhere out near the Marriot in Coralville? They're looking for an attraction anyway, given the flame out of the Rainforest thing- and a new Museum might not be able to be built that close to the River, but there's higher ground out there too.