Privatizing fine arts
IN THE LATE 1800s, nearly all of America's art collections were privately held by wealthy men. By the end of the century, many of them decided that the enjoyment of art should not be confined to the elite few. From St. Louis to Boston they created museums and filled them with their collections. While the museums would be private, nonprofit organizations, they would hold mankind's cultural heritage in a public trust, accessible to all. In a thoroughly American way, high culture was democratized.
The Museum of Fine Arts and its director Malcolm Rogers are working hard to put an end to all that. Twice in two years Rogers has determined that private cash should once again be the determinant of access, just as it was before museums such as the MFA were created.
Today institutions such as the MFA have America's greatest collections. Instead of sharing art as his forefathers did, Rogers has decided to remonetize his collection by renting it out. Earlier this month, the MFA rented 34 paintings to a subsidiary of an art-dealing corporation, PaceWildenstein. Pace operates the Bellagio Gallery of Fine Art in the Las Vegas casino of the same name, and is exhibiting the work as ''The Impressionist Landscape from Corot to Van Gogh."
The arrangement mimics the rental that sent 21 of the MFA's Monets to the Bellagio last year: This is a clear violation of standards laid down by the American Association of Museums and the Association of Art Museum Directors.
There are plenty of reasons why the MFA's deal is wrong:
No institution should better know this. In April 2004, during the Monet rental, the Bellagio's power blinked out for three and a half days. Throughout the outage, the temperature was in the mid-80s and the sun shone brightly. That is not conducive to the health of old paintings.
The Monets were probably not seriously damaged, but the incident should have served as a reminder why museums do not send out art to spaces that have not been accredited for art display.
Not only has the federal government given the MFA an exemption from federal taxes, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not receive tax revenue from the MFA's property or income either. By renting paintings to a gallery in a Nevada casino through a for-profit business, the MFA is dissing Boston and Massachusetts.
In answer to his critics, Rogers plays the populist. Last September, during a a speech at the MFA, Rogers rhapsodized about how wonderful it was to see the schoolchildren of Las Vegas flowing through the Monet exhibit. He also told his audience about watching a Nevada TV weatherman ask his audience why East Coast snobs thought Vegas should be denied Monets.
If the babes of the Vegas Strip are so important to Rogers, he should help create a museum that serves Nevadans. Alternately, he could loan the MFA's Monets to an accredited museum in Las Vegas, instead of renting them. At the very least Rogers should stop pretending that renting paintings so that a private business can charge $15 to see them is altruistic populism rather than profit-motivated enterprise.
The MFA's rental deals are wrong for lots of ethical and moral reasons. In recent years Congress and many state attorneys general have shown a willingness to investigate nonprofit institutions that misuse their tax-exempt status. The Senate Finance Committee, for example, recently concluded an investigation of The Nature Conservancy that led to changes in the group's operations. The MFA's dealings deserve the same scrutiny.
Tyler Green, the art critic for Bloomberg News, writes Modern Art Notes, an ArtsJournal blog at www.artsjournal.com. 
