The Latest (Last!) Word in the Brooklyn Museum Brouhaha

"Because of the fact that the New York Times takes its articles off the Internet right away, the next day, and puts them in their archives, I have pasted the whole thing here, in two parts," wrote I, on August 3...

NOPE! THIS IS NOW DELETED!

WELL, FOLKS... I was unwittingly acting as a copyright criminal, because I did not have the expressed authority of the New York Times to put this article up. Therefore, I have deleted it, and will advise you that you can try to fetch it from the Times archives. It was dated August 3, 2000, and the writer was David Barstow. Fact is, the American Association of Museums has adopted a new set of guidelines, ethical guidelines. The main problem arose with the fact that it was the Saatchi collection being shown, and Saatchi put up a lot of the money to have his own collection shown at the Brooklyn Museum. Not too good an idea, and that is the crux of the article. So now the assocation has come up with guidelines regarding financing that all member museums will follow... or else. Maybe it was time to try again to divide the exalted museum world from the vulgarities of daily life, i.e. money. Or at least the sources of the money. Kind of like soft money slid over and under the table to politicians--- naughty, but nice... and now, verboten, at least for the museums... all 3,000 members of this association.

Here is the first paragraph:

August 3, 2000 from the New York Times

After Furor Over Financing, Museum Group Adopts Ethical Guidelines

By DAVID BARSTOW

"Responding to criticism over the financing of last year's 'Sensation' exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum of Art and shows like it, the American Association of Museums announced yesterday that it had adopted new ethical guidelines on how museums should oversee displays..."

Conflicts of interest are involved, financial backing is involved, the ideal of "transparency" is involved. Mr. Saatchi gave some $160,000 for this exhibit to be shown, and asked that his pledge be ANONYMOUS. This bothers me, frankly. There is certainly no doubt that he gained from that exposure, as did the value of his collection! The fact is that the director agreed to hide the source of that money, and that certainly gives the appearance of obfuscation. It was a conflict, definitely.

So, in this time when sports figures in the USA get million$$$ just for "signing," and who knows what on the side, the Brooklyn caused a groundswell of criticism for accepting Mr. Saatchi's contribution of $160,000.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic