Photo by John Deputy/MetroDesign, courtesy Meryl Rose

Meryl Rose

Frank Stella Fred Tomaselli Hans Hofmann Kiki Smith Hans Hofmann Busa Paintings Pilfered from Son’s Home The Appendix: Frank Stella Needs $5 Million; Louise Bourgeois Buys a House; and Viva la Arte Cubana! Nouveau Is the New New

Send a letter to the Editor

Save to Del.icio.us Digg this

We have no idea. We know that the university has other assets, but it’s never been proven that it would be in dire peril without this step — and there have been no other plans, other than to sell the art. No Plan B or Plan C. Only this plan.

As I understand it, the museum has always supported itself and taken care of its own fund-raising. Is that true?

Yes, and as a matter of fact, what the school has done since January has cost them rather than saved them money. The director’s salary is underwritten by one of our wonderful patrons, Lois Foster. That doesn’t cost the school anything. The only reason they are removing the director is because he was fiercely protecting the art and documents of the museum. There can be no other endgame but to sell art.

Not keeping Michael Rush is quite a big step.

To terminate him is just unthinkable. There is no rational reason for [the university] to do that. He has done such wonderful things for the museum. He lives and breathes this museum. He is so passionate about the collection. I’ve traveled with him to art fairs and things, and he is so highly respected. He’s operated with nothing but dignity, intelligence, and great care.

Have there been other costs to the university?

There was a recent donation by one of our board members for $2 million, for work on the space that would make it possible for us to display more of our permanent collection all of the time. Now he wants that money back. And there are people who’ve donated art recently — and not so recently — who are pretty angry and want it back.

It is legally possible for a donor to ask to have something returned, or has that proven difficult?

We’re not sure of the answer to that yet, but you can be sure we’re going to find out.

Your statement also says that the school has established a “Committee for the Future of the Rose” to “explore options” for the museum’s future, but that the current board was not allowed to choose a representative. Is that true?

A member of our board is on that committee, but this person was not chosen by us; our committee chair recommended someone and was refused. And Lois Foster, who was chair of the board at one time, and who donated the Lois Foster wing at the museum, asked to be on that board and was refused. It’s a handpicked board. The woman from our board who does sit on that committee is a lovely person, and we all like her very much, but we don’t know whether she is as fiercely protective of the Rose as we would like to see.

Who else is on the committee?

I don’t even know. To me, that committee is just a sham. The Rose Art Museum has a perfectly good, vibrant, engaged board of overseers — we are the people who should be deciding if there should be a different future for the Rose.

And — this committee had a town hall meeting the other night, and the chair said more than once that there was nothing wrong with the Rose before. Well, if there’s nothing wrong with the Rose, why decide a new future for it?

The Rose has a rich history – there are so many top artists who had their first exhibitions there: Kiki Smith, Fred Tomaselli, Frank Stella, the list is endless. There was nothing wrong with the Rose. It was just fine.

What do you think the Rose will become if the school has its way?

It won’t be a museum. I can tell you that much.

At some point in this whole — I don’t know what to call it, this whole escapade — they said they were going to turn it into a studio and classroom space. Well, the structure doesn’t lend itself to anything like that. The ceilings in the Lois Foster wing are three stories high. You can’t turn that into a classroom. It was never meant to be anything other than what it is.

I understand that although the museum has quite a large collection of some 7,100 works, most of its monetary value is concentrated in a handful or few dozen of them. Is that true?

I would say so.

So in theory, Brandeis could do as it has suggested it might and sell “just a few works” but still make a fair amount of money.