The problem is that the alumni and friends of the Art Museum didn't say "fine" when the idea of selling for much needed dorm improvements came up. Instead there was a hue and cry from those folks including suing the University over what they perceived to be a violation of the intent of the original Trust established to purchase and protect art pieces.
As for the museum being 86'ed, there are over 5000 pieces in the collection.
Yes, congratulations to the alumni and friends for correctly pointing out legal and ethical problems with selling the art, issues on which they have been vindicated. Their ethical objections were validated by national art museum organizations and their legal questions are now verified by the university's petition to the court for permission "to modify the trust." Also, the fact that the museum has so much more art worth multi-millions of dollars contradicts the administration's false claim of expenses needed for desk staff (students) and security (campus police) simply because of the three artworks they want to sell.
The administration has not been admirable throughout this whole process, deceptive and dishonest since the beginning when they tried to sell the art without notifying those in charge of managing the museum's collection, including the newly appointed museum director. They then carted the artworks off surreptitiously in the middle of the night, hiding them somewhere unknown, and have deprived the community from viewing them. Now, they have stooped to shamefully attacking Richard Brauer, whom the university has publicly praised repeatedly for more than 50 years as a great and selfless Valpo figure, who has devoted his life to the university, and even honored by naming the museum after him. I didn't think the administration could sink so low.
I would like alternatives to raising cash for much-needed efforts to improve campus life then. Once again, I disagree with how the school handled the art sale, but its just 3 paintings in a collection that spans over 5000 pieces of artwork. The friends of art can afford to let these pieces go if it means the school can afford to make renovations that will surely increase enrollment and students staying on campus (as we have seen this is an issue that turns prospective students away). I would also be upset if this money was going towards athletics, but that is not the case. This money is going towards improvements to student life. If the university folds, who will run the museum then? In that case, the friends of the art museum would lose all 5000+ pieces rather than just the 3 proposed. In my opinion, this is a petty squabble on both sides and both sides need to discuss this civilly. However I firmly believe that these 3 pieces can be let go given the circumstances.
How did Brauer get specifically slammed by the university? Was he called a liar, a name? Also, tough decisions have to be made to keep Valparaiso University afloat. I thought this discussion was done and Valparaiso University can move on. IMO Padilla made a tough but necessary decision.
I was going to add that this has been beaten to death in previous discussions. Valpopal can fill us in on Brauer but insults can go both ways in pissing contests.
My view is that an art piece with that type of value deserves to be in a place where it can be admired by many more folks. It doesn't belong in Valpo's art collection.
I do not understand what "Ethical" concerns there are surrounding art and the sale of art. Frankly, I feel as if the AAM and the AAMG are very loosely using the term ethical to push a narrative that the sale of art is wrong entirely. I would agree with not selling works to poor owners who will not take proper care of these pieces, but selling the works to other facilities who would properly take care of the art is nothing to be ashamed of and surely does not fall under the definition of unethical.
Sell these two pieces now and bet on the future of a great university or hold onto them and then wind up selling them in a “going out of business” sale in a couple of years when the university is forced to close it’s doors because it failed to compete and has to discount everything it holds including the paintings .
Makes sense to use whatever you have now to bet on the future.
Yet, I understand the nostalgia of the good old times when things moved much more slowly. But this not 1990 or even 2010. Today an O’Keefe painting hanging in the Brauer will not attract an additional 500 applicants like upgraded dorms and updated facilities. The majority of eighteen year-old HS grads don’t give a fig about what’s hanging in a campus museum (once on campus that might change however).
This is a game changing business decision with the long term future of a university we all love.
Pal has been upset about this for awhile and my feeling is that he wants confirmation of his belief. Ok, that’s fine but Valparaiso and many other similar schools are financially challenged. Padilla did the right thing and showed courage and proper leadership. The art sale is legal, and who knows by whatever interpretation if the sale was unethical. An art association or society will always back the integrity perspective and not so much the practical or financial perspective.
my specific question is how Valparaiso University ripped Brauer.
Agree with usc4valpo, though I am not sure that the art associations and those opposed to the art sale own the integrity perspective. The mission of the university is, and always has been, to develop young people to lead successful and meaningful lives - not to collect art.
From reading all of this (and yes, this topic was discussed extensively on the prior board), I am left to wonder whether the following option should be considered. If we assume that the average value (which I am sure varies widely) of the other 5000 pieces of art is $10,000, that is a $50M asset that is not being used toward the university's mission (of course, I am also assuming that the terms of the trust would allow this). Add another $10M from the three pieces under debate and you have $60M in value. Should Valpo consider selling all of the art, rolling two-thirds of the $60M to fund capital projects (dorms, nursing building, business building) and the other one-third to bring faculty and staff salaries closer to competitive levels?
I do not understand what "Ethical" concerns there are surrounding art and the sale of art. Frankly, I feel as if the AAM and the AAMG are very loosely using the term ethical to push a narrative that the sale of art is wrong entirely. I would agree with not selling works to poor owners who will not take proper care of these pieces, but selling the works to other facilities who would properly take care of the art is nothing to be ashamed of and surely does not fall under the definition of unethical.
pal just fainted.
Richard Brauer has served Valparaiso University selflessly for more than 60 years. He is revered by those on campus and in the community, and he is regarded as one of the most notable figures in Valparaiso University history. Throughout the decades, Valparaiso University has repeatedly honored him for his tireless labor and monetary contributions, personally and professionally devoting his life to the university, especially recognizing his development of the art collection that placed Valpo on the world map as a respected cultural institution.
Brauer has been praised by the university over the years for his insight and wisdom, especially in purchasing the O'Keeffe painting and other masterpieces. Indeed, the university named one of its most valuable and most successful endeavors, the art museum, after Richard Brauer. Further, when it listed the most precious parts of the university in its own Valpo Magazine in 2015, "objects that elucidate our distinctive character, our unique traditions, and the remarkable people who have and continue to shape our ethos," Valparaiso University boasted of the following as a treasure:
"Did you know that Valpo houses artwork from some of the world’s most renowned artists? One of the most notable is “Rust Red Hills,” a landscape painting of the Southwest by Georgia O’Keeffe. Founding museum director Richard Brauer acquired the painting for the museum in 1962. Other important works include “The Silver Veil and the Golden Gate” by Childe Hassam, which was also acquired by Richard Brauer; “Classical Composition” by Asher Durand, a gift of Phyllis Buehner ’54 Duesenberg and Richard W. Duesenberg ’51; and “Cool Morning on the Prairie” by Junius R. Sloan, a gift of the artist’s son, Percy H. Sloan, who donated approximately 400 works of art and the endowment funds that made the Brauer Museum’s founding possible."
Now, Valpo has been forced to admit selling the artwork for purposes other than enhancement of the collection violates the trust under which it was obtained. Consequently, as predicted the university decided to seek a possible legal loophole for the court to agree to amend the trust. Therefore, the administration has disgracefully turned on a 96-year-old Richard Brauer, publicly attempting to humiliate him and trying to discredit those actions that the university had lauded for 50 years as great achievements, accusing him in the court papers of knowingly and improperly purchasing the O'Keeffe and other works.
So Brauer was not personally insulted rather the sale of the works he obtained is how you view he was insulted. My point still stands. If you and your fellow faculty members are so against the sale of art, how do you propose the school pay for campus improvements?
So Brauer was not personally insulted rather the sale of the works he obtained is how you view he was insulted.
The administration is publicly accusing Brauer of knowingly acting illegally when he bought the artworks, an action for which the university has praised and honored him throughout the past half century, and you do not regard that as a personal insult?
I appreciate the well stated thoughts and feelings of Valpopal and the manner in which his views about the possible art sale are expressed. I am extremely displeased with Padilla's and the Board's actions in this situation. In my mind this proposed action undermines the entire value of previous donations of art to the University. It also jeopardizes the basic sustainability of the museum. Obviously the donors wished and trusted that art that they most likely worked hard to collect was to be treasured by the university and made available for student learning, appreciation and inspiration. The sale is a betrayal of that trust, if not legally, most certainly ethically. Furthermore, taking an asset that maintains or increases in value over time and exchanging it for limited building renovations that immediately start to depreciate once finished is not a sound use of resources in my mind. A dorm remodel probably has a useful life of 20 to 30 years, if that. There has to be better ways of accomplishing the needed dorm remodeling.
I am a 1973 graduate of Valpo and have planned on contributing art to the museum as I have amassed some pieces from one of the USA's art meccas - Santa Fe, NM. where I live. I have also planned on making a significant donation to the engineering college from my estate. I have to say that both these plans are on hold and in doubt if the sale of these three art pieces goes through. This whole episode is disgusting and upsetting. There are many worthy causes that can demonstrate more respect for their donations than selling them. I apologize for feeling this way, but I have to be honest.
How and when did the university administration mention that Brauer was acting illegally? Even with the best intentions, could there have been something remotely illegal in previous artwork purchases and accumulation? Also, what did Valparaiso University do illegally in their actions?
at least it sounds pretty clear. like nothing insulting was directed at Brauer.
it sucks Valpo has to sell these pieces, but this school needs upgrades and money to stay afloat. Padilla is making the right yet painful decision.
