Readers Rant: Why Jefferson Needs To Stop Raping Poor Old Dead Thomas Eakins And The City Of Philadelphia
From today’s Inquirer:
And now president Barchi says that The Gross Clinic might not be the last Eakins to go, which could leave Jefferson’s Eakins Gallery strangely lacking in anything by Eakins.
“We might seek to sell another painting,” Barchi said recently. “We said at the time we decided to sell The Gross Clinic that we certainly would entertain any opportunity to sell the other two.”
In art-world parlance, that’s a “for sale” sign.
Either of the remaining two Eakins works would likely sell for a figure in the double-digit millions, Berkowitz said. The $68 million fetched by The Gross Clinic – now co-owned by the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and the Philadelphia Museum of Art – was the highest price ever paid for a pre-World War II American artwork.
Says reader Sweet Johnny:
Okay. So Jeff has already blackmailed PAFA, the PMA, and local philanthropists out of almost $70 million, and now they’re thinking of selling two other important – and highly valuable – Eakins works? As much as I don’t want to believe this, I feel like this is going to turn into another round of “Austin Powers”-style ransom, with Robert Barchi reprising his role as Dr. Evil. It’s astonishing, damaging to Jeff’s public image, and frankly, it’s just plain tacky for an institution of higher learning to operate in such a way. One wonders what’s driving such behavior – is it a slow year for fundraising? Or is it just stone-cold greed? Barchi’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.
You ain’t whistlin’ dixie, Johnny.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
So Jefferson is going through it’s basement and having a yard sale. It’s not like anyone saw any of this stuff anyway. And as for blackmailing PAFA & PMA — they raised $20mil in a month based entirely on yuppie hatred of Wal Mart money. You don’t want these precious Eakins leaving the city? Then break open your trust fund and buy one.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Before I address your comment, Mike, an addendum to my original statement: colleges and universities often do questionable things in the name of serving their students or expanding their campuses. I don’t deny that.
That said, I can’t think of another example of a university doing anything quite like what Jeff did with “The Gross Clinic”. While it’s terrific that Jeff’s students will enjoy better financial aid and that Jeff will be able to recruit and retain key faculty members, those important consequences are overshadowed by, well, Jeff’s shadiness. It was one thing to sell the painting; Jeff has every right to sell its assets to raise funds for its institutional mission. It was quite another thing, however, to line up a buyer and then tell Philadelphia it had a month (or two months, whatever it was) to match that bid, or the painting was gone. That clause allowed Jeff to assuage whatever guilt it may have had about making the deal with an out-of-state group of buyers while ensuring that it still got the cold, hard cash it sought for the painting. It was disingenuous, to say the least. And it sent the message that Jeff maybe doesn’t care about being a good neighbor to Philadelphia, when I know that nothing could be further from the truth.
More important, at a time when colleges and universities are trying harder than ever to be good partners in their communities, “The Gross Clinic” sale harms not just Jeff’s public image, but that of every college and university in Philadelphia – and as you know, there are a lot of them. That’s what really stinks about the news that Jeff is thinking of selling two more paintings worth eight figures each. I hope they’ll think about the consequences before they try to hold the paintings for ransom like they did with “The Gross Clinic”.
As for my “trust fund”? Ha! I wish.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Sorry for projecting all my anti-art-snob feelings at you, sweetjohnny. You make some good points, although I feel like Jeff is still getting unfairly blasted for this.
For pure art value, their initial deal was better than what the city ended up with. Had they sold to Suzie Walton or whoever it was, Jeff would have made $68mil, PAFA & PMA would still have their Eakins’ and there’d be $20mil splashing around in art loving Philly pockets.
Instead we have the Gross Clinic, but we lose several lesser works. Those smaller sales have to bring in $40mil or so, and the $20mil everyone gave to “Save the Gross Clinic” isn’t there to spend on smaller, local art.
Jeff gets it’s $68mil either way. The problem is, instead of getting it all from the one place that can surely afford it, 1/3rd of it comes from local art patrons. As great as the Gross Clinic is, keeping it was a bad deal.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I’m a nature snob. (Daffodils? Please.)
March 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I don’t deny that keeping the painting here was without some bad consequences, but that only adds to my point. What else were PAFA and the PMA supposed to do? They’d be shirking their duties as leading cultural institutions of the region to just let “The Gross Clinic” go. Then they’d be looking as bad as – if not worse – than Jeff. The fact that PAFA has had to sell one work (so far) to help keep “The Gross Clinic” here makes Jeff look bad, not PAFA, especially when you consider that local museums had approached Jeff years ago about buying the painting, only to be rebuffed, it seems.
Besides, blaming PAFA for having to sell off other works to offset its “Gross Clinic” debt assumes that it’s always better to give up an iconic work for some less important ones. While a well-rounded collection is an obvious goal for any museum, one of the main draws to the Louvre, for example, is the “Mona Lisa” – never mind all the other wonderful and important art it has.
The point is: I’m not sure anyone can say if we’d have been better off had “The Gross Clinic” been sold to the National Gallery and Crystal Bridges. It’s clear, however, that Jeff is not looking too good after all of this.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
My response was just eaten, but here’s the gist of it.
You raise an important point. It is awful that PAFA has had to sell one other Eakins (so far) in order to keep “The Gross Clinic” here, but that only adds to my point. What else were the PMA and PAFA supposed to do? Let it go? They’d be shirking their duties as leading regional cultural institutions. The fact that PAFA is struggling to pay off its “Gross Clinic” debt makes Jeff look bad, not PAFA. Especially when you consider that local museums had tried years ago, it seems, to buy “The Gross Clinic,” only to be rebuffed.
Besides, it’s hard to say that several lesser works are worth more in the end than one iconic work. While having a well-rounded collection is a goal of any large museum, one of the main draws of the Louvre, for example, is the “Mona Lisa” ‚Äì never mind all of the other important and beautiful art there. Iconic works draw large numbers of visitors. So it’s not that simple, sadly. One thing, however, is clear: Jeff still looks bad.