Talk:Montclair Art Museum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarabeinish.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits to the article

For the third time in five days, I've reverted changes to the article [1]. I think it's important to keep information about the loss of endowment money and the changes that forced on the museum. Any reason why that information should be left out of the article should be explained here, where we can try to come to a consensus rather than keep changing back to different versions of the article. I'm much less concerned about the other changes, but I'd also like to see explanations for those changes and consider them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The information about the endowment loss is not relevant to the Wikipedia entry for a couple of principal reasons: In the time period referred to, nearly all museums experienced a loss in their endowments; indeed, all institutions of every stripe had losses in their endowments. The experience of the Montclair Art Museum is not news of any lasting sort, in that respect. I've searched Wikipedia for entries on a number of other museums--all of which had endowment losses during the period in question--yet, as one would expect, there's no mention of these losses. Furthermore, the information is dated. As I understand it, the situation at Montclair is not the same now as in the period referred to. --User: mgilles

Not all museums had to sell off significant portions of their collections. Earlier descriptions of the museum are now outdated because some of the collections are now gone. The reason for that is because of the shrinkage of the endowment. It is a noteworthy part of the museum's history. That other museum articles on Wikipedia aren't in great shape is not relevant. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, just because a discussion is taking place does not mean we should be reverting on the page at the same time. [2] Please hold off on that until we reach a consensus here.

True, most organizations did experience big dips in endowments, although most have recovered with the market rally. And it may not be noteworthy that many museums (hopefully temporarilly) reduced their hours. But if the budget crunch lead to a significant reduction in holdings so that the list of artists is no longer even current, then that's certainly noteworthy. I'm not sure I understand the claim that this financial crunch is too temporary to include: a renovation in 1931 and a travelling exhibit in 2009 are both included after all. And other museums articles seem to list financial problems, current or historical, even while not being the focus of the articles:

• Museum of Romani Culture
• America's Black Holocaust Museum
• São Paulo Museum of Art
• Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation

Believe me, I understand how frustrating it when a museum in your community that you care about is struggling. I don't think keeping those struggles hidden helps the museum though (or the quality of the article for that matter).RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your note. The following seems to be one of your central claims:

"But if the budget crunch lead to a significant reduction in holdings so that the list of artists is no longer even current, then that's certainly noteworthy."

This apparently refers to some deaccessioning done by the museum, a policy that is widely misunderstood. Museums deaccession--or sell off--items from their collections routinely. It is a prudent and necessary component of collection management. Typically, items accrue over a period of years, for example, that for one reason or another are out of scope to the mission of the museum. Nothing in the case of the Montclair Art Museum was done that led to "a significant reduction in holdings." That statement simply isn't true. Moreover, this was not done in response to any "financial crunch," but rather to set aside funds for the future acquisition of art, a practice endorsed and encouraged by the American Association of Museum Directors (AAMD).

You also suggest that the museum's response to its financial stresses of last year--reducing hours, laying off staff, etc.--is somehow on a par, in terms of its importance, with a renovation of the building and of a recent exhibition that was the largest in its 95-year history. This is certainly not the case. We need to keep perspective.

In the art world, especially, there will always be financial struggles, struggles that at a time when the larger economy is also seriously struggling become even more acute. But because they are so universal, there is nothing about them that warrants including them here, in an article in Wikipedia. They say nothing at all unique about the Montclair Art Museum.

In today's New York Times (April 29, 2010) it is reported that the Metropolitan Opera has been forced once again to dip into its endowment to help cover operating expenses, "yet another move by the Met to manage a deficit that is expected to be about $4 million for this fiscal year." This is relevant for today's newspaper in a one-paragraph item, but we need not rush to our editing tools and include it in the Met's article on Wikipedia. mgilles

One of the lines you cut: "The museum also announced a deaccession program in which it would sell its collection of costumes, rug collection, books" in addition to works from storage deemed "duplicative". The costume collection was previously one of the things noted prominently in the descriptions of the museum by others and, as I recall, in the museum's own description of itself. MAM's selling off parts of the collection was criticized by an editor of The New Criterion on the pages of The Wall Street Journal a year ago. [3] This article, which I hadn't seen before, is actually some pretty prominent criticism of the institution which should also be included in the article. Laura Urbanelli responded in a letter to the editor. [4] and James Panero responded on his blog (This deaccession was first announced by Montclair, let's remember, in what the museum called a "financial security plan." [...] From my initial investigation I noticed that certain items in the Montclair sales appear in a book of highlights published by the museum--a strange place to see "duplicative" objects or works of "lesser quality." ). [5] The "Art Law Blog" has some criticism [6] and links to a bit more coverage and reaction. [7] More reaction here [8]; Christopher Knight, writing a post at an L.A. Times art blog, defended the museum [9] which got a response from Donn Zaretsky at The Art Law Blog [10]. This blog post, from the Arts Journal website, says the Jackson Pollock work that was sold seemed to be a pretty prominent part of the collection. [11] and this one, from the same blog, nails it:

At the end of my visit, I stopped in at the bookstore to purchase a copy of the museum's 2002 handbook, Montclair Art Museum: Selected Works. I saw immediately that the Pollock was included---described in the handbook as dating "from the height of Pollock's career and his most productive year as a draftsman [1951]." But when I returned home to compare this compilation with the list of works to be auctioned next month, I found two additional matches, accompanied by descriptions that could now (merely seven years since the handbook's publication) serve as fodder for auction-catalogue copy [...] Montclair, it now appears, also deserves scrutiny for jettisoning three works that a few years ago were deemed by the museum itself to be important enough to the collection for inclusion among only about 200 objects chosen for the handbook (at a time when its total holdings numbered about 15,000).[12]

I think it's pretty clear that we not only need the passage on this in the article, but that we need to expand it to note the sale of works of art that the museum itself had previously deemed highlights of its collection and to make it explicit that this was announced as part of a financial plan approved as the endowment had plummeted. The experts and journalists writing the blog posts and articles make the point that the museum could use the money gained to help its credit or credit rating, even if the money was itself only used directly for future acquisitions. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So basically the response for not including the sourced info has the followng two elements: that the deaccessioning was to establish a fund to purchase new artwork and that the deasccessioning was done to cover an economic shortfall but that is not not as noteworthy as a 1931 renovation because of the poor economy in general. While those positions can't be logically held at the same time, they do both point to a single purpose: maintaining this article as a commercial for the museum rather than an accurate overview. In other words, I'm struggling to assume good faith in this discussion.RevelationDirect (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed material was unilaterally inserted before my reply, below. I've therefore emended the offending copy in the article.

The discussion above on deaccessioning reflects a faulty understanding of the topic. The writer takes issue with the fact, for example, that the Montclair Art Museum deaccessioned its costume collection. What was a museum of American and Native American art doing with a costume collection? I don’t know the circumstances by which it arrived originally at the museum—these things sometimes have strange, even idiosyncratic origins—but the only wonder is why the museum hadn’t deaccessioned it long ago. It obviously did not fit its mission, and rather than expand its mission—at a cost—it apparently decided to focus more clearly on its core collection. That’s one reason museums deaccession—to refine and manage their collections. They don’t remain static in perpetuity. This is all routine stuff that the writer above is attempting to inflate into importance.

The summary above of the deaccessioning back-and-forth does not contribute anything meaningful to the history of the museum. The opinion piece, cited above, that sparked this to-do was challenged in the L.A. Times by the eminent art critic Christopher Knight, who is also well known for his cautious views regarding deaccessioning (“Bada bing: A hit job on a New Jersey art museum? L.A. Times, April 17, 2009). His conclusion: “I’m persuaded the article is at best misleading and, at worst, a clumsy hit job. Opinions are nice, but they’re better set atop some reported facts.”

Arguments about deaccessioning could go on forever. But we seem, as someone recently remarked, to have already gone well beyond the point of rational discussion on this topic. Moreover, in the context of the Wikipedia article, reference to this little quarrel misses the larger issue: The focus on this topic is all out of porportion to its significance to the history of the museum. The writer above states twice that it’s important because the deaccessioning represented a “significant reduction in its [the museum’s] holdings.” As I stated previously, but apparently need to repeat, this is patently untrue. Ah, Tennessee Williams said it best: “I smell mendacity.”

The writer also ignores my example above of the Metropolitan Opera, which I quote: “In today's New York Times (April 29, 2010) it is reported that the Metropolitan Opera has been forced once again to dip into its endowment to help cover operating expenses, ‘yet another move by the Met to manage a deficit that is expected to be about $4 million for this fiscal year.’ This is relevant for today's newspaper in a one-paragraph item, but we need not rush to our editing tools and include it in the Met's article on Wikipedia.”

One writer above also cites the Guggenheim Museum as an example of a Wikipedia entry that includes mention of some financial problem. And then goes on to state that it is not “the focus” of the article. (There is just one sentence.) Exactly. Moreover, if you access the Guggenheim Museum article in Wikipedia using the search box—rather than the link provided above—you’ll discover that the one sentence referring to a temporary financial problem no longer appears at all.

“RevelationDirect” concludes, and I quote: “So basically the response for not including the sourced info has the followng two elements: that the deaccessioning was to establish a fund to purchase new artwork and that the deasccessioning was done to cover an economic shortfall but that is not not as noteworthy as a 1931 renovation because of the poor economy in general. While those positions can't be logically held at the same time …” But I don’t hold both of these positions. I reject the latter. Reread what I say above. And yes, I do think major renovations are more significant to the history of a museum than ephemeral kerfuffles.

It seems abundantly clear to me that the Wikipedia article advocated by “JohnWBarber” and “RevelationDirect” violates a fundamental Wikipedia tenet regarding neutrality.

Wikipedia at its best can provide its audience at least a preliminary orientation and understanding of a given topic, and to this degree it serves a valuable function. But its success depends on the dispassionate altruism of its contributors. User Talk: mgilles May 3, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

RE-ADDING MY COMMENT REMOVED BY MGILLES [13]:

Exactly - you seem to be failing in that here. Feel free to add material to other museum articles along the lines above. I have reverted your censorship. (Redacted) Have you read WP:COI and WP:GLAM? Mention of the Knight article in the LA Times could be made, but this should be done by someone with no COI. Johnbod (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems increasingly clear that we have an aggressive COI editor here. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not post, or claim to post, personal information about other Wikipedia editors. Whether or not they are accurate, they represent a form of harrassment per WP:OUTING. I care nothing for the dispute that's raging here, but it can and must be resolved without recourse to such policy violations. Happy‑melon 17:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My Guggenheim link

"If you access the Guggenheim Museum article in Wikipedia using the search box—rather than the link provided above—you’ll discover that the one sentence referring to a temporary financial problem no longer appears at all."

All right, I'm confused. The four museum articles dealing with financial difficulty I provided are actual articles not version links or user pages. The search function should lead you to the exact same articles. Could you provide the link for the articles you're seeing instead of these?

• Museum of Romani Culture
• America's Black Holocaust Museum
• São Paulo Museum of Art
• Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation

Thanks,RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see now: your link goes to the Guggenheim Foundation; I had visited the Guggenheim Museum site. mgilles May 4, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgilles (talk • contribs) 18:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)