With Detroit’s bankruptcy has come rumors that the
collection of paintings in the Detroit Institute of Arts will be sold to pay off
the debt. This is because all of the city’s assets must be “put on the table”
in any bankruptcy decision and because the collection is worth an estimated $18
billion at auction. Opponents of the sale make the case that the collection is
vital to the city. Not only does it bring in dollars from the 600,000+ annual
attendance, but it adds immeasurably to the prestige of the
city of Detroit. Detroit may be down for the count, but it still is a place on
the map for people who love fine art.
One reason this story is interesting to me is that so much
art is in the hands of the wealthy already, why make more available to their
rapacious and philistine intentions to own in it all? If sold, won’t most of the Detroit
collection go into the hands of the super wealthy, when sold at Sotheby’s or
Christie’s? Won’t the recently hatched Russian billionaires, to say nothing of the mature
billionaires in the software and dot.com industries, be lusting for the Van Goghs
(see below) or Louis’s?
I don’t believe I’m overly protective of our nation’s
heritage when I say: leave the Detroit collection alone. Even though it is legally
owned by an entity known as Detroit, isn’t is actually owned by the people who use
it and need it? You may question this last idea – that the people need art –
but I point out to you that art is about the ineffable, the sublime, and as
such it points the way to hope for something grand in the face of things going
bad. To something more significant than money.
Docent at the Institute discusses Van Gogh's "Portrait of Postman Roulin" with visitors.
