The exterior facade of the National Liberty Museum in Philadelphia, which opened in 2000.
The museum world is a bastion of visual culture, and, for the most part, ethics. A sanctuary far removed from the crass commerce of the marketplace, this is where the most important artwork is bequeathed for the greater public good, where it will be available to enrich the lives of generations of citizens for years to come. Of course, museums don’t always behave according to the rules, and the work doesn’t always stay in one place. In 2010, the Guggenheim Museum in New York auctioned off the majority of an exhibition that had been on view for only two months, stirring controversy. Another breach of the wall between the gallery and museum worlds took place when high-profile art dealer Jeffrey Deitch was appointed director of the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (though only after he agreed to close his wildly successful New York City gallery). Which brings us to the National Liberty Museum in Philadelphia, which has raised the ire of several glass dealers with their selling of a collection the museum recently acquired from a couple from Atlanta. The Burke collection has ended up at the Liberty Museum either by purchase, by donation, or by some combination of the two—exact details are hard to come by. Reached by telephone, collector Wayne Burke would confirm to the GLASS Quarterly Hot Sheet only that his former glass art collection was now at the Liberty Museum. He declined to offer any details or comment further. Scott Patria, an art dealer currently serving as director of glass at the Liberty Museum, responded to a series of questions from the GLASS Quarterly Hot Sheet by declining to comment out of respect for the collectors’ privacy. Instead, he sent a reiteration of the museum’s mission statement and said that, “The Museum’s relationship to glass art has been and will continue to remain strong. Many collectors (and galleries) are aware of this and often will donate pieces from their collection to the Museum.” Arlene Silvers, chief operating officer of the Liberty Museum, did not respond to repeated telephone messages seeking clarification about the sale of the Burke collection.
While eager to discuss the general goals of the Liberty Museum, Patria did not respond to the specific emailed question of whether or not he continues to work as an art dealer alongside his duties at the National Liberty Museum. Patria was named a director at the museum in October 2011. In the nine months since, he’s closed the PRISM gallery (which he founded), though, according to his LinkedIn page, seems to have maintained connections to Function + Art (which he also founded) in addition to managing another gallery, Patrajdas Contemporary Art. When reached by phone, Patria requested questions in emailed form and then declined to comment about whether or not he continues to work as an art dealer, the terms of the acquisition, the National Liberty Museum’s apparently new strategy of acquiring and selling artwork, and what feedback he might have received about this bold move.
This work by Frantisek Vizner, Bowl Form with Raised Central Point (1984), is one of the items the National Liberty Museum is promoting in a PDF catalog it has been mailing to collectors.
What is known comes from a PDF catalog entitled “Special Collection for Sale” that has been emailed to glass collectors showcasing 50 works available for purchase. Text included in the electronic catalog reads: “We have complemented our world-class glass art collection with approximately 200 additional pieces. … We plan to display some of these works in new and changing exhibits at the Museum. Others will be used to support our important charitable work by being made available to collectors as an extension of our fundraising efforts … “
The selling activity of Patria and Silvers (collectors report receiving a series of emails about specific pieces with steadily dropping prices) has enraged art dealers who have been carefully cultivating the secondary market in glass art, establishing the resale prices for pieces by many of the same artists in the National Liberty Museum’s online sales catalog.
“I’m alarmed by it,” says Ferd Hampson of Habatat Galleries. “We’re all trying to coexist, and we need to do so if we’re going to move forward and become a viable market. Every non-profit and for-profit is trying to maximize what they can do to that end, but I don’t think they’re using any forethought with what they’ve done.”
The sale of these pieces (which includes artists such as Dale Chihuly, Lino Tagliapietra, Harvey Littleton, Dan Dailey, Toots Zynsky, Laura De Santillana, Richard Jolley, and Joel Philip Myers) are walking a fine ethical line, according to experts in this area. Julie Hart is the senior director for museum standards and excellence at the American Association of Museums; regarding the sale of the collection she said, “With this kind of situation the question becomes, were these items acquired or donated with the intention they go into the museum’s collection, then the museum turned around and sold them? Or was it the donor’s intention that they be used as assets to fund other collecting or activities?”
Museum of Art and Design curator Jennifer Scanlan said, “There are legal issues: you can either donate something to be part of the collection, and there are tax laws that apply for that; or you can donate something to be put up for auction, and then there are laws for that as well.”
Lewis Wexler of his eponymous gallery in Philadelphia said that, “I have questions as to the ethical nature of a museum buying work for the sole purpose of reselling it, especially in such large quantities. It seems to me that that would be the role of a dealer, not the role of a museum, and most museums that do deal others’ work do so in a discreet manner, usually through auctions or private dealers.”
David Rago of Rago Arts said that in his 40 years of business “This is a first.”
According to the AAM’s guidelines (which, if the NLM were an accredited museum, it would be obliged to follow) a museum can operate in a commercial capacity so long as this is to further its stated mission. NLM’s mission statement (which Hampson called “tenuous at best”) says that glass is what they “use in [their] mission to promote non-violence and acceptance of others by showing visitors that freedom is ‘fragile’… like glass.” Though, with the sale of two hundred pieces that would substantially complement their current collection, it does beg the question—as Wexler commented, “Is the mission of the museum to be an art dealer, and if so are they as a non-profit dealing on a level playing field with the rest of us?”
—Isabella Webbe
As an appraiser (and sometimes dealer), I wouldn’t touch this Burke gift (if it is indeed a gift) appraisal on ethical grounds alone. But ethics aside, those selling this collection at reduced prices are simply giving me lower comparables for the next donors to accredited institutions in the near future, and that is very unfortunate. This is what we call killing the market; Maybe that’s what they mean by “fragile freedom.”
I’d appreciate it if someone would forward me the “catalog.”
I am baffled by this. Why would a museum want to be so directly involved in commerce? If the intent of the gifting was that the work be sold to provide revenue for the museum, why not have professionals handle that part of it first with the resulting funds given to the museum? This way, the integrity of the market is more likely maintained, the artists are not harmed by having work dispensed sold via a ‘falling price’ scheme and in the end the museum has the financial donation. Any portion of the sales retained as a fee by the dealer or the auction house would most likely be less than the loss suffered through amateur handling.
Since their inception, the National Liberty Museum has relentlessly solicited donations from glass artists to further their “mission”, which, laudable though it may be, has NOTHING to do with art, artists, or their careers and reputations. They recognized that glass is a desirable commodity for fundraising purposes and went after that “market”: people who open their wallets to get art at a discount in the guise of charitable donation. This poorly conceived sale is just the latest iteration of their glass = cash policy.
Thank you Glass Quarterly for finally publicly acknowledging the long-time mishandling of glass art by this “museum”. This latest online sale is just a testament to the real atrocity of this organization which is the yearly auction. For years, artist have been blindly donating to the auction. In good faith we assume an institution called The National Liberty Museum would be an honorable and worthy cause. It wasn’t until I attended the auction several years ago and was awakened to the appalling bargain basement prices. My own piece was sold at half my asking price. A value that would be insufficient for me to even create this work. It was then that I decided to actually visit the NLM to see first-hand what this institution was all about. I can honestly say this is the strangest and most shoddily displayed “museum” I have ever experienced. Most of their displays are nothing more than cheaply framed head shots of “heroes”. The entire top floor is a diorama display tracing the early history of Judaism. which is not mentioned at all in any of their online advertising.
The medium of glass is highly unique in the strength of our community. And as a community I urge you to not feel guilty saying NO to their continued request for donated works. It is time we stop lining the pockets of the same people who are devaluing our work and killing our already fragile market.
I was contacted by this “museum” relentlessly for donations after my residency at Pilchuck a several years ago. Glass is not my primary medium, so I thought it a bit odd, especially since I am a Native Artist and the concept of this museum had me a bit confused. I asked information about them from those in the glass art world better versed than I, and did not hear positive information. They have been undermining those who donate to them, in many cases as I was told to a pool of collectors they have who pick up donated artists works at their fire sale priced auction and sale. So, I did a check of them on the internet and they certainly don’t have the highest charitable rating either : http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6833
I applaud Glass Quarterly for writing this article, and shame on this museum for their practices and bottom feeding behavior. It damages artists, galleries and legitimate art auctions that have to fight to raise much needed funds for purposes that better the glass art community.
Kudos to Isabella Webb for this article, and to editors at The Hot Sheet for providing Ms. Webb the opportunity to bring some of the issues related to The National Liberty Museum to the community’s attention.
I’ve been getting calls from the NLM for many years, soliciting my work for donation. The issues outlined above are of concern to me, but I have other concerns as well.
A common murmur within the local Philadelphia glass community is that the museum has a history of asking local glass makers / fabricators / cold workers to alter work in the museum\’s collection to better fit the museum\’s mandate, or because museum representatives thought the work would more clearly serve the museum\’s intent if it were altered.
I don\’t KNOW whether this is true, not being one of the locals asked to alter existing work, but I have heard similar rumors from multiple, trusted colleagues and stakeholders is the community.
The museum\’s lack of transparency is troublesome in this regard.
I don\’t know, and have no way of knowing if current museum ethics and best practices are not being practiced by this institution.
I would feel far more comfortable about the museum\’s interests and intent if they would respond to the concerns outlined in the article above with transparency and integrity. As a non-profit, they have a responsibility to the larger community and their refusal to provide information or respond to requests for clarification about donations is suspicious.
I have donated to the NLM in the past, but have not felt comfortable with NLM since learning more about their interactions with the community after moving to the area, and no longer donate my work. I find them their lack of support to the artists that make the work they so happily sell at auction appalling. They do not appear to understand that I donate work despite and in spite of the personal cost. The most recent work of mine that was sold at auction made several thousand dollars for the museum (a little over its stated value).
Great, right? Well, no.
I\’m an object maker and artist. That was $ that would have supported my studio practice had I sold the work through a gallery.
Current tax laws benefit everyone involved in the donation of work, except the artist. Having donated a valuable piece (that I made), I can not claim the value of that work. I can claim only the direct cost of materials and fabrication.
As an artist, I\’d have been far more interested in continuing to donate work to the NLM had there been any additional benefit to my creative practice than the common platitude that \’all the important collectors will see your work!\’.
When the NLM declined my offer to open my studio to their roaming collectors tours after I\’d donated work that had added many thousands of dollars to the museum\’s bank accounts in the preceding years, I decided to withdraw my support.
I will re-consider donating to the museum again, but only if the concerns that contributed to my decision are addressed.
Appearances are everything…
…and the NLM appears to be making a point of keeping collectors away from local galleries and studios during the auction weekend. Are they concerned that collectors might purchase work from local galleries and artists instead of the auction? Does this explain the implementation of tours that focus on visiting private collections and participating in hands-on glass making experiences?
Is the NLM hoarding collectors so that there\’s no \’competition\’?
Is this an ethical approach to the community that contributes so significantly to the institution?
The questions posed by Webb and subsequent commentators are poignant and worth asking again.
Does the NLM \’take advantage\’ of the value of glass for the sake of fundraising?
Is the NLM a good museum? Are they \”preserving freedom and democracy by fostering good character and understanding for all people through education.\” http://www.libertymuseum.org/
Is the museum engaging in activities that are unethical, harmful to the institution or to the glass community?
How should \’we\’ respond?
How will \’you\’ respond?
Other institutions support donating artists far better than the NLM. Pilchuck comes to mind due to my involvement over the years . I will continue donating to Pilchuck, and not only because I have been the recipient of scholarship funds, but because Pilchuck is true to their mandate, Pilchuck supports our community, and Pilchuck supports me.
I can’t say the same for The National Liberty Museum.