Michael Adams Sues over Proposed Auction of Ansel Prints

[mrladewig]

Interesting idea Jan, I never thought of the loan approach. Frankly I never thought that far ahead.

The O'Keefe Estate has had issues with a museum selling off part of a collection that Stieglitz had given them. I can't remember the name of the museum, but the estate prevailed and the museum did not sell off the collection.

To the best of my knowledge, the Okeefe's collection of her husbands work went to the National Gallery of Art in DC.

[Merg Ross]

To the best of my knowledge, the Okeefe's collection of her husbands work went to the National Gallery of Art in DC.

I believe the reference is to the Okeefe collection, given by her to Fisk University. Fisk's plan to sell a portion of the collection was challenged by the Okeefe Estate, and today a judge ruled that the collection must remain at Fisk.

[r.e.]

...today a judge ruled that the collection must remain at Fisk.

Where did you read that?

The actual court decisions are on-line, containing the whole story of how this mess happened, which as usual doesn't make anybody look good, but there is no decision saying that Fisk can't sell the collection. Indeed, the O'Keeffe Foundation's position has been dismissed. What has happened is that circumstances have changed and the whole thing is now up in the air.

[r.e.]

Michael-

I think you're referring to the Barnes Collection in suburban Philadelphia. That's a different kettle of fish. Mr. Barnes was a very wealthy art collector who built a museum designed to his specification to display his collection of Impressionist art, furniture, decorative ironwork, and sculpture in a very unique system of juxtaposition to call attention to repeated motifs that spanned the various media, cultures and centuries. The collection is too large now to display in its entirety in the current building, the building lacks facilities to accommodate the volume of visitors (they have precisely timed admissions with fixed quantities of people for each hour), and the building was not designed to handle the side-effects of the volume of visitors (humidity control is a big problem for them). There are also stipulations both in the will and in the local building codes that make it extremely difficult to modernize and/or expand the existing facility. Thus the desire to build a new building in downtown Philadelphia near the Philadelphia Museum of Art where the issues that trouble the current location can be addressed.

That's a pretty anodyne description of events that resulted in years and years of litigation and inflamed emotions to the point where the whole sordid affair has been the subject of both a film and a book, the film being The Art of the Steal, released a few months ago at the Toronto International Film Festival, and the book being Art Held Hostage: The Battle over the Barnes Collection

[Merg Ross]

[QUOTE=r.e.;567309] Where did you read that?

New York Times, March 8, 2010.

[r.e.]

[QUOTE=Merg Ross;567316]

Where did you read that?

New York Times, March 8, 2010.

Interesting, it doesn't appear to be in the on-line edition nor is it on the Tennessean website.

A few days ago, the Attorney General of Tennessee, who has a kind of public trustee role in this, effectively told the Fisk not to act on the court decision that dismissed the O'Keeffe Foundation claim. It is possible that someone is mixing up the AG with the court, or even that the AG or the Foundation followed up the AG's statement with getting an injunction yesterday, but that would a temporary order while the rest of the process gets sorted out. If a court actually reversed the previous order in Fisk's favour, not only has it not been widely reported, but nobody even reported that such a hearing was about to take place. Odd.

[Merg Ross]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/ar...yt&oref=slogin

[r.e.]

Merg, have a look at your URL link and the by-line on the story, which say that it was published not today but two years ago. The decision referred to in the story has been overruled.

[Merg Ross]

Merg, have a look at your URL link and the by-line on the story, which say that it was published not today but two years ago. The decision referred to in the story has been overruled.

Thanks for that. Perhaps just my wishful thinking.

[Scott Davis]

Very interesting background. I was out photographing and listening to NPR on the radio when I heard the story. If this is in fact a cut a dry case then why did I get the impression in listening to a report on the story that there is a contractual dispute?

I don't think it is cut and dry from a contractual or legal standpoint. Part of the issue is the Barnes Foundation bequest. If I recall correctly, the Barnes will that created the foundation had specific, very difficult to overturn stipulations about the display of the collection, so there's a battle going on within the board of trustees, and with the various communities that stand to gain and lose from the move.