Kerfuffle Erupts Over Possible Sale of 'Klutzy' Van Gogh, Art World's Head Explodes

The possible sale of Vincent Van Gogh’s “Vase with Carnation” is causing a stir in the art world. (Photo by Nelken1 via Wikimedia / Creative Commons)

» Get Patch’s daily newsletter and real-time news alerts.

Perhaps you heard that the Detroit Institute of Art is thinking of selling off one of its five Van Goghs, part of a multi-billion dollar collection that some creditors wanted Detroit to parlay into cash during the city’s historic federal bankruptcy proceedings.

That’s not exactly true.

At least, it’s not true right now.

And even if it were true now, selling the 1886 still-life to fund the acquisition of classic modern art was what donor Catherine Kresge Dewey directed when she donated it to the DIA 1990, the Detroit Free Press said.

Selling off art that is inferior in quality, or is no longer consistent with the museum’s mission, to build an acquisition fund is a fairly common practice, known in the art world as deaccessioning.

So what set off the kerfuffle about the possible sale of “Vase with Carnation,” which is considered one of artist Vincent Van Gogh’s least impressive works and whose authenticity has even been questioned?

That question was answered a couple of years ago during the $18 billion Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings. The DIA argued at the time that selling off even one treasure from the world-class, 65,000-piece art collection would shatter the museum’s reputation.

Also on Patch:

• Politicians Irked By Double-Digit Raises for DIA Chiefs
• Some Oakland Commissioners Give DIA Ultimatum Over Bonuses
• DIA Admits ‘Mistake,’ Returns $90K in 2012 Bonuses to Top Execs

The collection, appraised in 2014 at $8.5 billion, was ultimately saved in the “grand bargain,” in which the museum agreed to kick in $100 million in debt reduction rather than sell off its art and its objet d’art piece-by-piece to keep street lights burning.

The deal to save the city’s treasures was touted as an example of community-wide cooperation and resolve to keep the city’s valuable assets intact. To help the museum make good on its end of the bargain, Wayne, Macomb and Oakland counties agreed to chip as much as $23 million a year through a voter-approved millage to support museum operations. The suburbs’ support came with a caveat, though: If works of art were sold to satisfy debt, the tax millage would go away.

Full Speed Ahead with Deaccessioning?

So, Detroit emerged from bankruptcy with its art treasures intact, and it was back to business-as-usual at the DIA – until, that is, a headline in a British online publication, The Art Newspaper, caused a whiplash in the art world.

The headline announced “Detroit to sell Van Gogh’s ‘klutzy’ still-life,” then explained in the deck, “Trading up resumes after victory against forced sales.”

The story quoted DIA director Graham Beal, who said the museum couldn’t sell any of its works until now “because it would have caused such a confusion,” according to an account in The Detroit News.

Before the federal bankruptcy, the museum’s deaccessioning plan was “going forward like a production line,” Beal said. The Van Gogh in question, which Beal dismissed as “an early, klutzy flower painting,” was among works the museum planned to sell to build its acquisition fund, a practice known as “trading up.”

The plan was far enough in motion that Beal had approached the Sotheby’s and Christie’s auction houses about the best marketing approach, The Art Newspaper said.

Other works were also “bound” for sale, though Beal told The Art Newspaper he wouldn’t identify them until DIA trustees had a chance to visit with descendants of the donors.

The Art Newspaper said that while trading up is much different than the threatened forced sales before grand bargain deal was reached, “the decision to deaccession works is bound to raise eyebrows.”

That’s putting it mildly.

In his Art Law Report blog, Boston lawyer Nicholas O’Donnell questioned why the DIA would propose selling any art “when so much coverage had been addressed to the idea of not selling.”

He wrote that deaccession likely would pass muster under ethical standards guiding sales by the American Alliance of Museums and Association of Art Museum Directors guidelines because proceeds wouldn’t be used to fund operations.

Who Said What?

But it would still fuel the museum’s gadflies, he mused.

“This approach has sharp critics, however, and it will be interesting to see whether others join the fray with respect to Detroit specifically,” O’Donnell wrote. “After all, in staving off calls to monetize the collection or even sell it off, DIA drew a fairly categorical line, not that it could only deaccession pursuant to AAMD/AAM guidelines, but that it could not deaccession at all.”

In a response, Beal said that’s not what he said.

“I have just read your piece commenting on our intention to deaccession an early Van Gogh and asserting that I had categorically stated that we should not deaccession for any reason,” Beal wrote. “I am as certain as I can be of anything that I have never made such a statement.

“In fact, I was careful throughout to say that we could not deaccession for any other reason than to by art. We stopped deaccessioning art for sale because we knew that this would send a confusing message to some of our public and possibly give the emergency manager’s team material that could be used to muddy the water.”

Tell Us:

• Should the Detroit Institute of Arts resume the practice of “trading up” – that is, selling off undesirable pieces to fund the acquisition of art that better suits its mission?

Beal also cited an opinion by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette’s staff on the circumstances under which parts of the collection can be sold.

“.. If you read the AG’s opinion carefully, he states that art cannot be sold to satisfy debt and nowhere equates public trust with a total ban on deaccessioning,” Beal wrote.

So that means the Van Gogh is for sale, right?

Not right now.

“This painting is not for sale and has never been offered for sale,” Beal said in a statement published Thursday by the Detroit Free Press.

But, the newspaper wrote, the statement didn’t say the Van Gogh would never be sold.

One thing is clear.

Whether to resume the deaccession plan isn’t going to be Beal’s problem. He’s retiring June 30 after 16 years with the DIA. His successor has not yet been named.