• Brian Richardson

    It is ironic that opponents think that selling art is OK for a museum if the proceeds are used for future acquisitions. Would an artist or family member donate art if they thought that it would later be sold to acquire work by another artist? It is likely that donors of art would be far more understanding if a museum later sold the donated art because it became financially strapped and needed the money to keep operating.

  • Robert Ekelund

    I agree with Brian Richardson. The self-styled “keepers of civilization” (AAM/ AAMD, etc. who gin up opposition to art sales) claim that selling art except to buy more art — for example sales to increase the size of exhibition space or to hire curators to show more art to more people — is anathema. The fact is that most museums (including the Berkshire) cannot show more than 1/3rd to 2 percent of the art they possess. This does not increase cultural capital for the public. Further, gifts of art to museums are premised more upon tax deductions and have little to do with having it shown. Most, other than the best of the best, will NEVER be shown. Perhaps opponents would prefer bankruptcy for smaller museums where ALL the art is sold.