Those are big names on those works but none of them are great or of much import in the range of their creators and look hum drum and routine, not particulary inspired. It was fancy wall paper to the wealthy who acquired them. Buyers and sellers are aware of this and the relatively low prices projected in their sale reflect this. They are also likely to be the ones that gallery goers routinely would pass by in a museum. The gists of the arguments made against the sale read as nationalistic. You can buy and transport any work that comes on market in most countries and a lot of the best is going to where the money is. That's how they were acquired in the past otherwise they would be in other countries right now. This kind of national claim is merely just a way to neuter the essentially monetary nature of the art market. It takes a moral tone that is really self serving. None of these works are Irish but its a safe bet that the Irish workers did build that building with Irish materials. It looks like it could use a cleaning.
There is a lot of misinformation coming from the Alfred Beit Foundation (ABF) who want to sell these works. Firstly, there is no security threat in displaying these works at Russborough House. Currently, there are a number of very valuable pictures hanging on the walls of Russborough, including loans from the National Gallery of Ireland. Since the spate of robberies, a new very sophisticated alarm system was installed in the house. Secondly, the eight paintings which are to be sold by Christies were categorised as "non-core" assets by the ABF and removed from Russborough House many years ago. They have been stored in the vaults of the National Gallery of Ireland (NGI), awaiting the moment when they could be disposed of. This is the reason why they were never offered on long-term loan to the NGI, or displayed to the public there. The ABF has no funding model for Russborough beyond the systematic stripping of is assets - collections of Chinese porcelain and Italian Renaissance sculpture have already been sold at Christies. If the ABF do not make sufficient money in the July auction, one wonders where they might turn their attention next. Are the very bricks and mortar of Russborough safe?
Yes, the ABF is the legal owner of Russborough and is entitled to sell any of its assets as its trustees see fit. However, the Beits clearly intended Russborough and its collections to be enjoyed by this generation of Irish people and the next.
Yes, the ABF is the legal owner of Russborough and is entitled to sell any of its assets as its trustees see fit. However, the Beits clearly intended Russborough and its collections to be enjoyed by this generation of Irish people and the next.
9
Perhaps what this situation represents is a problem with the performance of its "fiduciary" role by the Foundation Board in the past, leading up to a crisis now. If other opportunities to raise the money have been ignored, leading to an unhealthy reliance on a sale to solve the financial problems, it requires a deeper discussion to find out why.
Let's give the Irish a chance to resolve this in a reasonable way, without losing what was given in trust to them. Poor decision making by the Foundation members should not be the ultimate solution.
Let's give the Irish a chance to resolve this in a reasonable way, without losing what was given in trust to them. Poor decision making by the Foundation members should not be the ultimate solution.
2
You have to love the quote from the good professor at Limerick.
Yes, it's all nasty what those awful overlords did. Let's just shut the place down and pretend a different history. Maybe the house isn't all that pretty anyway, and besides artifact hegemony equals cultural proprietariness blah blah blah.
How tiresome the rant of predictable victim politics.
Isn't there a compromise? Sell the paintings -- to The National Gallery. They must have a purchase budget. Keep the works in the country, and most certainly keep the house.
Yes, it's all nasty what those awful overlords did. Let's just shut the place down and pretend a different history. Maybe the house isn't all that pretty anyway, and besides artifact hegemony equals cultural proprietariness blah blah blah.
How tiresome the rant of predictable victim politics.
Isn't there a compromise? Sell the paintings -- to The National Gallery. They must have a purchase budget. Keep the works in the country, and most certainly keep the house.
5
As another way to address the sensitive issue, what happens when a museum has been emptied out of some of his most precious assets?
No less than 9 masterworks taken out this time for fundraising, what else awaits down the line when more money becomes needed?
The point is, public will turn away from such museums who, unscrupulously cash in on their own collection (regardless of whatever reason is being brought up), and especially if the institution is riddled with questionable managerial decisions. Public won't pay if what sits on the walls comes down as a fraction of what was initially intended to be there?
Meanwhile, as the disaffection grows btw. the public and the institution given that great showpieces lack from the permanent display, in all logic the building itself is further doomed to meet with financial collapse.
Better off keeping all the eggs in the same basket sounds proper compared to working at solving the problem the other way around and think in terms of quick profits based on poor-decision making.
thanks to nytimes for raising awareness on the matter while the public outcry is legitimate hence strong steps should be taken to preserve such sale from going through. Boycott the sale and let not those drift away from public view and end up into private hands.
No less than 9 masterworks taken out this time for fundraising, what else awaits down the line when more money becomes needed?
The point is, public will turn away from such museums who, unscrupulously cash in on their own collection (regardless of whatever reason is being brought up), and especially if the institution is riddled with questionable managerial decisions. Public won't pay if what sits on the walls comes down as a fraction of what was initially intended to be there?
Meanwhile, as the disaffection grows btw. the public and the institution given that great showpieces lack from the permanent display, in all logic the building itself is further doomed to meet with financial collapse.
Better off keeping all the eggs in the same basket sounds proper compared to working at solving the problem the other way around and think in terms of quick profits based on poor-decision making.
thanks to nytimes for raising awareness on the matter while the public outcry is legitimate hence strong steps should be taken to preserve such sale from going through. Boycott the sale and let not those drift away from public view and end up into private hands.
1
Shameful. These art works belong to Ireland and should be sent to the National Gallery in Dublin. I believe in preservation of architecture, but in this case the art is more important. I hope there's a solution most can live with. Once these works are gone, many will be losing the opportunity to view.
4
If there is no other way, and they have to be sold, they should not be sold to private investors who will make them unavailable to the public. If they remain reasonably available to the public in perpetuity, it matters little who owns them.
3
This sounds good. We all want pictures to be accessible. The problem is that these terms would severely lower the value at auction and cause the foundation to have to auction even more pictures to raise the funds necessary.
$12.5 million is chump change for the world's richest families now. It's astonishing that philanthropy has decided that art by dead white men is good for the bin. Poor us.
$12.5 million is chump change for the world's richest families now. It's astonishing that philanthropy has decided that art by dead white men is good for the bin. Poor us.
There's no reason why the National Gallery couldn't purchase these works when they go to auction. In Dublin they'd be more readily available to the public.
5
We came so close to losing part of our wonderful artworks at the Detroit Institute of Arts during bankruptcy proceedings over the last couple of years and now we in this area have collectively breathed a sigh of relief to still have our priceless art collections still intact. I have enjoyed the DIA my entire adult life starting with skipping high school classes to take the bus down Woodward Ave. to that holy, revered place of dreams and beauty and away from everyday madness. I personally hope the art can be held for the public and not sold to private collectors for operating expenses. Ars Longa Vita Brevis.
14
Non Detroit money came to the rescue but the problem was that the Museum was considered as an asset owned by a City. It it had been held by a separate entity the sale could never have been considered. But financial danger does threaten any organization that lacks sufficient funding and/or public support to survive, which is what just happened to the Corcoran. Consider the Detroit IA was fortunate in that the surrounding communities and private donors were able to forestall the destruction of a remarkable collection. Let's hope that reorganization free from City ties and broader financial support can protect it into the future
A possible solution might be to limit sale participants to institutions and individuals who must pledge to put the artworks on public view.
3
List the estate building with Christie's and relocate the paintings to an Irish national museum.
4
Let's do a bit of basic maths. If Christie's estimates that the painting will fetch $12m at auction, then why can't Ireland's richest collectively buy these paintings and keep them in Ireland on view for the public?
Ireland's wealthiest five are worth about €35.5 billion. Among them are Hillary Weston (€8.8 billion), Denis O'Brien (€5.97 billion), and Pearse Lyons (€2.2). I'll even omit Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary (18th at €755 million) and U2 (19th at €720 million), although $12 million split between the five of them alone could be achieved quite easily if they were to raise the money through some sort of fundraising event.
Is there no moral responsibility amongst Irish elites to preserve the integrity and legacy of the country's cultural institutions for the benefit of the Irish public both present and future?
Ireland's wealthiest five are worth about €35.5 billion. Among them are Hillary Weston (€8.8 billion), Denis O'Brien (€5.97 billion), and Pearse Lyons (€2.2). I'll even omit Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary (18th at €755 million) and U2 (19th at €720 million), although $12 million split between the five of them alone could be achieved quite easily if they were to raise the money through some sort of fundraising event.
Is there no moral responsibility amongst Irish elites to preserve the integrity and legacy of the country's cultural institutions for the benefit of the Irish public both present and future?
15
Hmm. They could buy the art. Fancy that, a bunch of,peole,who won't spend their own money telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own property.
Shameful. These art works belong to Ireland and should be sent to the National Gallery in Dublin. I believe in preservation of architecture, but in this case the art is more important. I hope there's a solution most can live with. I advocate the idea of online museums and sale of paintings , as there http://art.biz/sj-citiy/.
1
Heather Humphreys, Minister for the Arts..is completely out of her league. What remains now at Russborough is not enough to keep it solvent based on its collections.
However, the solution should have been the transfer of the entire remaining collection to the National Gallery of Ireland which surely would have been the wish of Alfred Beit.
Instead, this gift to the irish nation is auctioned to the Steve Wynns of Las Vegas, the Karimov dictatorship of Uzbekistan, the Putin kleptocrats or possibly the Qataris.
However, the solution should have been the transfer of the entire remaining collection to the National Gallery of Ireland which surely would have been the wish of Alfred Beit.
Instead, this gift to the irish nation is auctioned to the Steve Wynns of Las Vegas, the Karimov dictatorship of Uzbekistan, the Putin kleptocrats or possibly the Qataris.
8
Sorry to sound so harsh but "..shame on you while you do that..."
There should better alternatives. One of which is to sell the 'crumbling' property but preserve the collection. This isn't rocket science.
On ethical grounds, this last resort action is repealing and open the flood gates to a trend willing to gains more traction.
As for the claim itself?? Who knows what real incentive smolders behind the curtain? Auction houses such as Christies are certainly delighted to squeeze in masterworks with such a prestigious pedigree for the next season. Rubens is a good investment and indeed will look dashing on the front cover. The combination of which should draw massive attention among the diaspora of wealthy collectors lurking out there in the dark, wallets on the ready. Today, the demand for bluechip art is such that permanent collections turn up into untapped territories worth being prospected, mined, harvested.
Where is the line defined by those who (ironically) call themselves 'board-of-trustees' as they look on the wall mumbling to themselves "...well, maybe out of these few paintings we could get a new staircase, redesign the lighting of these rooms, acquire fancier cars for the personnel... what else."
Quick reminder, back in 1940, in the weeks before Germans invaded France, Jacques Jaujard, head of the Louvre, salvaged thousands masterpieces from the German's wolf pack by shipping them out, have them split between various museums. Today, History holds him as a hero.
There should better alternatives. One of which is to sell the 'crumbling' property but preserve the collection. This isn't rocket science.
On ethical grounds, this last resort action is repealing and open the flood gates to a trend willing to gains more traction.
As for the claim itself?? Who knows what real incentive smolders behind the curtain? Auction houses such as Christies are certainly delighted to squeeze in masterworks with such a prestigious pedigree for the next season. Rubens is a good investment and indeed will look dashing on the front cover. The combination of which should draw massive attention among the diaspora of wealthy collectors lurking out there in the dark, wallets on the ready. Today, the demand for bluechip art is such that permanent collections turn up into untapped territories worth being prospected, mined, harvested.
Where is the line defined by those who (ironically) call themselves 'board-of-trustees' as they look on the wall mumbling to themselves "...well, maybe out of these few paintings we could get a new staircase, redesign the lighting of these rooms, acquire fancier cars for the personnel... what else."
Quick reminder, back in 1940, in the weeks before Germans invaded France, Jacques Jaujard, head of the Louvre, salvaged thousands masterpieces from the German's wolf pack by shipping them out, have them split between various museums. Today, History holds him as a hero.
1
“Irishmen permitted tenancies as estate workers often resented the sectarian intolerance, anti-democratic politics and the pretense of social elitism of their putative colonizers,” said Ruan O’Donnell, senior professor of history at the University of Limerick.
All the more reason to ensure both the house, and its contents, are protected for future generations of Irishmen to experience.
All the more reason to ensure both the house, and its contents, are protected for future generations of Irishmen to experience.
6
Among the other opponents of the sale are the entire staff of the University College Dublin School of Art History and Cultural Policy, whose letter on the subject appeared last week in the Irish Times. Note that the "perspective" in this article is provided by someone who works for the firm selling the pictures. The chair of the Russborough board admitted last Saturday in a piece in the same paper that they had not first attempted to raise money to maintain the house, as that could be expensive and not net the needed results. And the photograph is awful, but a simple google search will demonstrate that this is one of the most stunning houses in Ireland, with beautiful interiors and grounds as well.
4
Sounds like the trustees should be replaced. This practice of selling the asset to pay current operating expensive is cannibalistic. I realize Eire is digging itself out of a recession, but other than the billionaires previously mentioned, is there a middle class that will go to charity balls/auctions to raise money. Lastly, I used to be a member of the American Ireland Fund, an American charity, whose purpose was to assist in peaceful unification of the 36 counties. Irish Americans are over represented as the CEOs and COOs of Fortune 500 companies. I am sure the same phenomenon applies to hedge funds. These people were very generous in donating to the Fund, but the Fund employed professional charity fund raisers.
Funny how one of the voices urging perspective works for the people making a commission from the sale. Coincidence?
1
The National Gallery in Dublin is where they allshould go, not into private hands. The "Bearded Man" is wonderful. Russborough would then not be prohibitive to maintain.
16
I'm no Michael Kimmelman, but imo that's one hideous building.
Save the art, let the building rot.
Save the art, let the building rot.
7
Au contraire, the house is sublime and inspires many drop-dead gorgeous public and private houses in this country in areas where Georgian design is strong (though maybe not in St Louis). The patina of the stone alone is thrilling.
1
It's a shame that parts of a fine house have to be sold, but sometimes there just isn't any other way. These old houses are not easily maintained (I've been in plenty, both private and public) and if their income and donations won't keep the roof on then the contents have to go sometimes.
It's hard to know where to begin
To sell these old Masters? A Sin!
Is it ethical, wise,
Maybe privatize,
World art lovers should raise a din!
To sell these old Masters? A Sin!
Is it ethical, wise,
Maybe privatize,
World art lovers should raise a din!
6
That Rubens is glorious.
10
So this story brings a tear to our eyes. Russborough House is perfect just as it is.
What we have here, unfortunately, is endemic in increasing parts of the western world.
Far too few people are invested in the visual and performing arts. Yes, the Metropolitan Museum (and other fine institutions) are reaching out to schools and other youth organizations.
But the commitment to the arts (other than a limited number of high dollar/euro donors) is dwindling.
It's time to wake up and recognize the challenge our civilization faces. Either we find ways to recommit to these vital institutions or they will die off in the next 50 or so years.
It doesn't have to be this way. We need leadership that understands younger demographics; that develops new approaches to philanthropy; and finds ways to inspire the great traditions exemplified in the glorious Russborough House.