Battling Institutions: A Controversial State of Affairs for the Global Museum Circuit

Last week I discussed the impact of the economic downturn on the creative community, focusing on artistic institutions and their employees. In looking at the Coburn Amendment and its later revision, I sought to examine the state of the economy as it applies to the arts and highlight the necessity of government funding and community donations. This week’s entry continues my investigation into the art market, turning specifically to the museum circuit and its current state of affairs. While museums in the United States and abroad continue to suffer from the collapse of the financial markets, institutions in developing economies are faring slightly better. To reflect these trends, this week's post investigates Brandeis’ controversial decision to move ahead with the closure of its Rose Museum and Iraq’s disputed resolution to reopen its National Museum. In examining the public response to both of these developments, I chose to consider certain arguments put forth by other members of the blogosphere. Donn Zaretsky of the Art Law Blog recently posted an article entitled A Rose is a Rose…Or is it?, investigating current scholarship regarding the closing of the Rose Museum and specifically criticizing an article aimed at attacking Brandeis board members. Similarly, David E. Nye of After the American Century published an article this week concerning the Iraq National Museum, attempting to illuminate some of the controversy surrounding yesterday’s opening.  Focusing specifically on United States' involvement with the institution, Nye's Rumsfeld Wing for Baghdad Museum traces the impact of the Bush administration on the history of the museum. My responses to both of these posts are provided below.

A Rose is a Rose...Or is it?
Comment:
Your article presents an intriguing and unique response to the negative reactions that the museum's closing has prompted (see below, left). While I certainly believe your evaluation of Holland Cotter’s arguments to be accurate, I wonder if you truly believe the assertion that the museum’s closing really “doesn’t seem so bad.” Your article seems to suggest that the closing of the Rose Museum is not entirely a negative development, yet this argument seems entirely based on Brandeis’ decision to maintain the facility as a “teaching instrument.” While a valid point, such an assessment ignores the negative impact the university will likely face as a result of the closure. Not only did the museum provide Brandeis students and its surrounding community with an incomparable collection of art, it also stood as a symbol of the school’s academic excellence and financial strength. The museum's closure indicates growing financial vulnerability, potentially leading to a decline in the school’s funding as donors worry about the security of their investments.  Any attempts at reopening or rededicating the Brandeis museum are similarly threatened with contributors less likely to donate to a university with an obvious ambivalence towards the arts. This lack of concern is reflected in Brandeis’ decision to unilaterally dissolve the Rose Museum, an avoidable conclusion had officials chosen to pull from various departments.

While Brandeis has aimed at compromise, the decision to transform the building into a “hands on” environment seems a weak attempt to reconcile the disastrous initial claim of absolute closure. Your assertion that the building will have “slightly fewer works available than it does now” is unlikely. Closing the museum thus fails to take into account the best interests of Brandeis students or its donors. Not only does the university’s decision stand as a violation of donor trust, but the move has outraged students, resulting in massive demonstrations and pleas for public support. With these sentiments in mind, it is both irresponsible and unconscionable to support the board’s conclusion. Not only does the move threaten the reputation of Brandeis University, but it sets a bad precedent for similar institutions as the world moves forward in the financial crisis. While Cotter’s views were perhaps not aptly expressed, the sentiments of the article are both valid and pointed. Until university museums are no longer viewed as “expendable commodities”, it is likely additional institutions will face similar closures in the weeks and months to come.

Rumsfeld Wing for Baghdad Museum
Comment:
This is a thorough and sensitive analysis of the United States’ involvement in the closing of the Iraq National Museum (see below, right). Underreported by many accounts, your article sheds new light on the 2003 looting spree and the consequences of American inaction.  While I largely agree that the museum has become a “symbol of the Bush era”, your article risks, however, oversimplifying the circumstances surrounding the embattled institution. According to several media reports, robberies were largely an internal issue, likely carried out by museum employees. As such, I would argue that Iraqis are at least equally responsible for the museum's current state of affairs.  Since your post highlights United States involvement, I am curious as to what degree you believe Iraqi officials should be held accountable in the matter. While I do not deny that America's lack of foresight resulted in immediate damage to the collection, the United States' guilt of inaction pales in comparison to Iraq's complicity . In focusing solely on the efforts of the United States, you fail to address the joint effort of Iraq and the U.S. in the handling of the museum. While the recent opening was only partial in its scope,  it seems to signal an attempt by both the United States’ and Iraqi governments to create the illusion of progress, equally in terms of the stability of the region and in the perseverance of its cultural institutions. With these efforts, the governments have been largely successful, many viewers and writers seeing the opening as a step forward in communicating the security of Baghdad.

Nevertheless, this assumed stability was called into question in the weeks leading up to the opening, a point which, though highly publicized, was entirely excluded from your analysis.  It is not insignificant that a group of Iraqi archaeologists recently urged for the cancellation of the opening, citing fears that the artifacts would be placed in an unstable and potentially destructive environment. This sentiment has been echoed by many government officials, anxious for the safety not only of the works, but of museum employees as well. With these objections, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the museum’s decision to move forward with the opening. Do you think officials’ determination will be seen as a sign of the region’s stability or do you think it is a preemptive move in a still precarious situation? As most of the protests have come from reputed scholars, it seems Iraqi officials have been too hasty with their decision and potentially reckless with the collection. While the fault might have initially been with the United States, this lack of concern on the part of the Iraqi government signals comparable culpability, a sentiment which your article fails to acknowledge wholly.