already a subscriber? Register me
Subscribe now See my options


  • We reserve the right to close commenting on specific stories.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
Comment threads per page: 10 | 20 | 50
  1. I heard that Keith Stone sold a rare 12'er of always smooth Keystone Light for a little less than that.

    Check that - much less.
  2. Wouldn't it make sense in a 10 paragraph article about a cabinet that sold for 3 million dollars to tell us why said cabinet is worth so much???
    Hide replies
  3. "deaccessioning"? Seriously?

    How about "sell"?
    Hide replies
    • In this case, "sell" would be appropriate, but "deaccessioning" covers other ways to dispose of objects, including trading with another accredited museum, giving to another accredited museum, or, on rare occasions, even throwing something in the trash.

      Basically, "deaccessioning" refers to a formal process for disposing of a catalogued object. Usually, the curator who is in charge of a particular collection, such as "Early 20th century European art", makes a recommendation to his/her department head. If the dept head agrees a proposal to deaccession may have to be made to both the museum director or even the board of trustees if the piece is valuable enough. In the rare case of something which may literally be trash- say someone broke a minor piece so badly or it is so deteriorated that it has no commercial or even study value, it might just go in the dumpster.

      While different museums have somewhat different processes, the general process is set out in writing by the American Association of Museums, and accredited museums must follow that process in order to remain accredited.

      One prohibition is on selling to or through a private dealer or to an individual. If sold, the piece generally must go to public auction. That prevents sweetheart deals between corrupt curators or museum personnel and corrupt dealers. Buying from a private party is all right, tho.

      While deaccessioning is sometimes controversial, the idea that a museum must never dispose of anything whatsoever that it acquired in the past is just as bad a notion as it would be for an individual.

      Museums, like private collectors, frequently get a better example of something that they already have. Sometimes the first example is kept for study purposes, but if it is quite valuable, it is reasonable to consider selling it and putting the money toward a piece which would make a greater contribution to the collection. It would be irresponsible not to consider that option.
  4. Well this is a little bit of a puff piece PR feed from Chipstone and not remotely critical, judgmental or frankly, educational. Lets face it: deaccessioning is a swear word in the museum world and deeply frowned upon. To gut your permanent holdings to "trade up" or become more "current"- where is that in Chipstone's mission statement? I still think this Foundation does not have enough oversight re Prown's decision making.Are you a "custodian of culture or a market trader...deaccessioning is an integral part of good collection management but works should be sold because they are deemed unworthy of the museum's collection,not because of a sudden need to make a splash in the market. Deaccessioning decisions should be made independently of purchasing decisions." (Lee Rosenbaum, Culture Grrl). I bet they weren't. This sounds like asset management not collection management.If a spending spree follows, those objects were chosen beforehand and this sale was used to fund them. Be true to your word Mr. Prown and throw open the doors of Chipstone to the public. Chipstone Statement of Purpose 3):"maintain and preserve the holdings in American furniture 4) to enhance and expand these holdings by accessions of the highest aesthetic quality.." Again this seems like Prown driven horse trading. Because this is a personal Foundation and not a museum with multiple living donors/benefactors should it still not be held to the same accountabiltiy re decision making? This is monetizing the collection. When are you subverting donor intent (cf. Barnes Foundation?)
  5. Yo in Paradise: okay those are the basics, but deaccessioning is almost always controversial and deeply suspect as to motives in this economic climate. And does Chipstone have to abide by the AAM/AAMD guidelines as a private foundation? Plus MLS is telling us it is an"icon". Not damaged. You don't sell an icon.If this is a 3 million dollar great example, why sell? More reporting MLS, please. Review the 990s? Interview the Board? W. David Knox? This is my problem with Chipstone: how is donor intent being protected in a private foundation whose only public reporting requirements are 990s?
  6. Good morning, all. A few thoughts. First, deaccessioning is a normal part of business for arts institutions, not a swear word. This is a news story, written on deadline, and focused on what I viewed as the most important aspect of this story -- that Chipstone is staking a claim to contemporary craft. Not every article will explore every angle to the fullest. Newspapering is an ongoing process. As the article states, the piece was parted with because it is redundant to the Chipstone's collection, icon or no. It is valuable because Newport objects are rare and highly collectible.
  7. Interesting that my comment of three days ago must have been censored--by whom I can only imagine given that Chipstone is quite a controversial Foundation. I will try again. I was basically supporting Momhome whom I felt raised some very valid questions. Chipstone's directors have demonstrated time and again that they apparently feel unaccountable to no one but themselves. Check out the salaries of the Board if you want a clue why they need to raise $.
  8. Thank you baint. This is the problem with JS in general: instead of critical reporting this is fax ripping boosterism without asking a lot of questions so as to maintain access. If you meet your deadline and only promote your subject it is advertising not journalism. Given reported assets of 2009 why do they need to sell an icon? Form 990 2009: Knox made $497,069 total comp, Prown made $255,904. Most directors made 5k and probably gave that much oversight. Somebody call Allison Stone in Idaho or Stanley Stone in Ohio and ask if their parents vision is protected or being drained? Who protects the Humes? Who protects the collection? Talk to Glenora. If this item was sold for the second highest price ever recorded for this maker (Antiques and Arts Online 1/24/2012)it must have been an extraordinary example and therefore not sold. $14,000 in 2009 for a new phone system for the residence? Again,I believe this is monetizing the collection to maintain what-somebody's lifestyle? And not a single red cent of taxes ever paid to Fox Point whose residents can only benefit from the collection by visiting MAM.
  9. I just wanted to post one more time before it's too late to do so. Please Ms. Schumacher, be brave and take on this foundation as a cause celebre. It has been tried before but didn't get very far, probably due to the powerful forces that control the foundation. A little more oomph could result in a snowball of public opinion demanding better accountability, access or whatever. Momhome has given you some great ideas, please follow up. I for one would be happy to rally Fox Point residents via a petition. Does anyone know if the curator's child(ren) are still attending Fox Point-Bayside schools tax free? This is small change in the scheme of things but is symptomatic of the arrogance we're dealing with.
  10. At least Michael Horne did a bit of real reporting on his blog:

    Prown is redefining/shifting donor intent and selling this extraordinary piece was not defensible. Unless their books are patent we will never know what this money is used for. A
    Also find it very interesting-again-that Chipstone pays no taxes but "Prown and Associates" runs its business out of E Lilac Lane- Dr Katherine Prown-wife of Jon Prown- runs her PR firm out of the residence touting
    "1) 100% winning track record in passing school funding referendum initiatives, electing school board officials, and managing State Assembly campaigns in Wisconsin’s 8th State Senate and 5th Congressional Districts
    2)Building state-of-the-art grassroots campaigns and securing the bipartisan support needed to successfully pass legislation to expand health care funding and access at the state and national level 100% winning track record in passing school funding referendum intitiatives, electing school board officials and managing state Assembly campaigns."
    Great. So Chipstone pays no taxes and she works to increase Fox Point taxes? WHA? Does Prown and Associates even pay rent? How does this all work? I wanna live property tax free on Lilac Lane and spend my time expanding social programs I don't have to pay for, how cool is that? How about PILOT for Chipstone "payment in lieu of taxes" the voluntary fee Boston asks large nonprofits to pay BASED ON THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY, and this can amount to up to 25% of what the assessed property tax bill would have been-maybe offset the increased tax burden she lobbies for?
    I also hate this living-in-a-multimillion- dollar-residence-tax-free-in-Fox-Point-because-my job-requires-it-thing; tax it as a benefit, give him the income to pay rent and tax that as income but as an untaxed benie of the job it is ridiculous-to other Fox Point residents.
    Can we get Marie Rohde back on this story?


Design Ideas Column



Art City Asks

An ongoing series of interviews with creative people.


Art City

E-mail Newsletter


Get the Newsletter!

Login or Register to manage all your newsletter preferences.