This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/arts/massachusetts-tries-to-block-berkshire-museums-sale-of-art.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Court Blocks Berkshire Museum’s Sale of Rockwell Works and Other Art Court Blocks Berkshire Museum’s Sale of Rockwell Works and Other Art
(about 2 hours later)
An appeals court in Massachusetts issued a ruling late Friday that blocks a much-anticipated auction next week by Sotheby’s of artworks from the Berkshire Museum, including two paintings by Norman Rockwell. The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Friday blocked a much-anticipated auction next week of art from the Berkshire Museum, including two paintings by Norman Rockwell.
Those works, including one titled “Shuffleton’s Barbershop,” with an estimated price of $20 million to $30 million, are two of the seven from the museum’s collection that were scheduled to be offered for sale Monday in New York City. Those works — including one titled “Shuffleton’s Barbershop,” with an estimated price of $20 million to $30 million — are among seven from the Pittsfield, Mass., museum that were scheduled to be offered for sale Monday by Sotheby’s in New York.
The sale had been opposed by two groups of plaintiffs, including Rockwell’s sons and members of the museum, as well as the Massachusetts attorney general’s office, which had been seeking additional time to examine the museum’s plan to sell a block of works. The attorney general’s office had asked the appeals court on Friday for an injunction halting the sale. The sale had been opposed by two groups of plaintiffs, including Rockwell’s sons, as well as the office of the Massachusetts attorney general, which had been seeking additional time to examine the museum’s plan. The attorney general, Maura Healey, had asked the court on Friday for an injunction halting the sale.
The court granted that request, writing that the museum was prohibited “from selling, auctioning, or otherwise disposing of any of the artworks that have been listed for auction.”The court granted that request, writing that the museum was prohibited “from selling, auctioning, or otherwise disposing of any of the artworks that have been listed for auction.”
The injunction will expire on Dec. 11, but the court added that the attorney general’s office may move to extend it.The injunction will expire on Dec. 11, but the court added that the attorney general’s office may move to extend it.
Last summer, the financially strapped Berkshire Museum, which is in Pittsfield, Mass., announced the planned sale of 40 works by artists like Rockwell, Albert Bierstadt and Alexander Calder. The museum said the proceeds were needed to build its endowment, renovate its building and expand programming to create a “heightened emphasis on science and history.” Sotheby’s had described the Berkshire Museum works as a “superb collection” that was “among the highlights” of its American Art sale this month.
Museum organizations condemned the plan, saying it violated guidelines against the sale of art to subsidize operating and other expenses, instead of using such proceeds to enhance or maintain a collection. In addition to “Shuffleton’s Barbershop,” which Sotheby’s said Rockwell created for the cover of The Saturday Evening Post in 1950, the auction was to include Rockwell’s “Blacksmith’s Boy — Heel and Toe (Shaftsbury Blacksmith Shop),” which was estimated to have a price of $7 million to $10 million.
Rockwell’s sons and the museum members sued separately to stop the sale. But the lower court found that they lacked legal standing. The judge also denied a request by the attorney general to block the sale. Among other museum works to be offered on Monday were “The White Dress” by Thomas Wilmer Dewing, “Hunter in Winter Wood” by George Henry Durrie and “Connecticut River Valley, Claremont, New Hampshire” by Albert Bierstadt.
The state’s lawyers told the appeals court on Friday that the museum was looking to sell nearly all of the museum’s valuable art. Doing so would violate a number of trusts, they said, including what they described as a promise to Rockwell that his works would remain in the permanent collection and another pledge that some of the works slated for auction would never leave Pittsfield. They asked the appeals court to block the sale to afford them a chance to appeal the lower court ruling. Last summer, the financially strapped museum announced the planned sale of 40 works, including Impressionist and modern art, contemporary art, 19th-century European paintings, American art and Chinese art. The museum said the proceeds were needed to build its endowment, renovate its building and expand programming to create a “heightened emphasis on science and history.”
Museum organizations condemned the plan, saying it violated guidelines against the sale of art to subsidize operating and other expenses instead of using such proceeds to enhance or maintain a collection.
Rockwell’s sons and a group of museum members sued separately to stop the sale. But Judge John A. Agostini of Berkshire Superior Court found that they lacked legal standing. Judge Agostini also denied a request by the attorney general to block the sale.
The state’s lawyers told the appeals court on Friday that the museum was looking to sell nearly all of its valuable art. Doing so would violate a number of trusts, they said, including what they described as a promise to Rockwell that his works would remain in the permanent collection and another pledge that some of the works slated for auction would never leave Pittsfield.
“This sale is unprecedented in terms of the number, value and prominence of the works being proposed, the centrality of these works to the museum’s collection, and the process the museum employed to select and dispose of the deaccessioned items,” the attorney general’s office said in its filing on Friday.“This sale is unprecedented in terms of the number, value and prominence of the works being proposed, the centrality of these works to the museum’s collection, and the process the museum employed to select and dispose of the deaccessioned items,” the attorney general’s office said in its filing on Friday.
The lower court had described the attorney general’s office as a “reluctant warrior,” whose objections had not included specific details on how it would review the planned sale. It noted that a delay would have “considerable financial consequences” for the museum. It did not find that the museum had violated any of the charitable trusts through which it had come into possession of the art.The lower court had described the attorney general’s office as a “reluctant warrior,” whose objections had not included specific details on how it would review the planned sale. It noted that a delay would have “considerable financial consequences” for the museum. It did not find that the museum had violated any of the charitable trusts through which it had come into possession of the art.
The attorney general’s office countered in its filing on Friday that while the museum could sell the works in the future, any items disposed of at auction would be very difficult to get back. It said the museum had not abided by its most pressing mission — to preserve its charitable purpose — and that whatever the financial hurdles, its relationship to other museums and with donors would be damaged by the sale.The attorney general’s office countered in its filing on Friday that while the museum could sell the works in the future, any items disposed of at auction would be very difficult to get back. It said the museum had not abided by its most pressing mission — to preserve its charitable purpose — and that whatever the financial hurdles, its relationship to other museums and with donors would be damaged by the sale.
Nicholas O’Donnell, a lawyer representing the museum members who the court ruled lacked standing to sue, said his clients were pleased by the appeals court ruling. Nicholas O’Donnell, a lawyer representing the museum members who filed suit, said that “with the benefit of some breathing room and the continued investigation by the attorney general, they are hopeful that reason will prevail.”
“With the benefit of some breathing room and the continued investigation by the attorney general,” he said. “They are hopeful that reason will prevail.” Lawyers for the museum could not immediately be reached for comment. Earlier, a lawyer for the museum, William F. Lee, responded to the attorney general’s filing by saying the institution was disappointed that the state had “decided to continue legal action that threatens the future of the Berkshire Museum.”
Lawyers for the museum could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday night. Earlier, a lawyer for the museum, William F. Lee, responded to the attorney general’s filing by saying the institution was disappointed that the state “has decided to continue legal action that threatens the future of the Berkshire Museum.”
“Continuing this litigation,” he added, “jeopardizes vital educational, cultural and economic resources in a struggling community, placing the special interests of a portion of the well-funded arts community over people, especially young people, really in need.”“Continuing this litigation,” he added, “jeopardizes vital educational, cultural and economic resources in a struggling community, placing the special interests of a portion of the well-funded arts community over people, especially young people, really in need.”