This is a complex issue with many considerations of course. It is a shame that the public will probably no longer have the benefit of being able to see this Marshall work especially because he is a Chicago artist who has become so important important internationally. Though, while probably not easily portable, this is a particularly valuable asset that may not be secured and/or cared for as carefully in the library as its stature and value warrant. I think what is of primary importance here is that there is honest and serious consideration given to the underlying goals of the public art program. If the sale of this asset can go to sustain many more services, art and engagements in the community for which the work was originally commissioned, this is a noble and valuable goal that is in line with what most programs aim to achieve.
The more concerning situations are those where private parties are enriched from the sale of work originally intended for the public benefit as in the situation we saw in
LA earlier this year. Two sculptures, a Miro and a DuBuffet, were sold by the private property owners for an expected profit of around $10M. There is no requirement that the profits be reinvested in the sites so the public loses two treasures and gets absolutely nothing to replace them. The private sale of the works also seems diametrically opposed to what the public art in private development programs are designed to provide to the public.
Both of these situations, however, emphasize the need to think about the future of public art and consider consequences in the deaccessioning process. Prospectively crafting both the goals of public art programs as well as thinking through maintenance, conservation and deaccession policies is key to being able to approach these situations with a clearer idea of what is truly in the best interest of the stakeholders.
Thanks for raising this issue, Sallyann—it’s really an important discussion!
Sarah Conley Odenkirk
Art Attorney | Founder
This E-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please immediately notify me at the number above and destroy the original and any printout thereof.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE. Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.
On October 1, 2018 at 8:00:19 PM, Sallyann Kluz (skluz@pittsburghartscouncil.org) wrote:
