Brooklyn Diocese to sell off art collection to fund school buildings
I really don't what my blog to be just about, look what cool thing I read at Open Book (or the Parish, or wherever). However, Amy Welborn, by virtue of her status of Very Famous Blogger, gets about 200 unsolicited emails a day with links and articles from her readers that they think she might find interesting. Because of this, she frequently posts about things I find very interesting, that I think the 2 or 3 of you might, too.
So when Open Book had this entry about the Diocese of Brooklyn deciding to sell off at auction their art holdings to finance new schools, it was a combination of some of my favorite things, Church and Art.
If they proceed with this sale (and they probably will), it will set a seriously sad precedent for other Dioceses and some Monasteries in this country. Why should anyone contribute to their capital funds and building funds when they are sitting on some million dollars worth of art? Where is your resourcefulness Bishop or Abbot so and so? "If the art is non-local and not used in the Altar-Piece, get rid of it." The Church, for better and worse, has at least a 1000 year tradition of sponsoring and collecting art. Sacred Art is to hold a special place of reverance in the Catholic Church, or so we say.
If this were a museum, selling off some of their art collection to finance new aquisitions or a building fund, the outrage and arguments would be all over the art press and art blogs. Museums even do this quietly, sometimes, so as to avoid the bad PR.
A Catholic Church is ridding itself of a Murillo! A Murillo!!! Where is the outrage? Oh, just here. The article compares this sale to the decision to one by Archbishop Malloy when he chose to build a school rather than a fancy cathedral seventy years ago. Both are seen as equally prudent. UGH!
This auction (link includes other paintings not held by the Diocese that are included in the auction) is very bad news. I think of other Dioceses that are small and possibly cash-strapped that will also turn to shedding important art holdings even for operating money. Places like the Arch-Diocese of Louisville. An art collection so valuable that its value is difficult to calculate is housed at the St. Joseph's Proto-Cathedral. There were legal problems with the art gift that prohibited the Arch-Diocese from moving the art up to Louisville when the Bishop was moved there from Bardstown after 1841, or so the story goes. What is to prevent anyone for purging Church holdings of anything valuable, like the Reformation era whitewashing of ornate Gothic and Norman Cathedrals in England.
I ask, what happens when this painting is sent to a museum or a mansion in the Hamptons after the auction. What happens when it is just a pretty painting? Removed from the Church, this painting is no longer to be judged on artistic and devotional merits. This wasn't painted to be hung on a white wall in a climate controlled temple to painting, you know?
So when Open Book had this entry about the Diocese of Brooklyn deciding to sell off at auction their art holdings to finance new schools, it was a combination of some of my favorite things, Church and Art.
If they proceed with this sale (and they probably will), it will set a seriously sad precedent for other Dioceses and some Monasteries in this country. Why should anyone contribute to their capital funds and building funds when they are sitting on some million dollars worth of art? Where is your resourcefulness Bishop or Abbot so and so? "If the art is non-local and not used in the Altar-Piece, get rid of it." The Church, for better and worse, has at least a 1000 year tradition of sponsoring and collecting art. Sacred Art is to hold a special place of reverance in the Catholic Church, or so we say.
If this were a museum, selling off some of their art collection to finance new aquisitions or a building fund, the outrage and arguments would be all over the art press and art blogs. Museums even do this quietly, sometimes, so as to avoid the bad PR.
A Catholic Church is ridding itself of a Murillo! A Murillo!!! Where is the outrage? Oh, just here. The article compares this sale to the decision to one by Archbishop Malloy when he chose to build a school rather than a fancy cathedral seventy years ago. Both are seen as equally prudent. UGH!
This auction (link includes other paintings not held by the Diocese that are included in the auction) is very bad news. I think of other Dioceses that are small and possibly cash-strapped that will also turn to shedding important art holdings even for operating money. Places like the Arch-Diocese of Louisville. An art collection so valuable that its value is difficult to calculate is housed at the St. Joseph's Proto-Cathedral. There were legal problems with the art gift that prohibited the Arch-Diocese from moving the art up to Louisville when the Bishop was moved there from Bardstown after 1841, or so the story goes. What is to prevent anyone for purging Church holdings of anything valuable, like the Reformation era whitewashing of ornate Gothic and Norman Cathedrals in England.
I ask, what happens when this painting is sent to a museum or a mansion in the Hamptons after the auction. What happens when it is just a pretty painting? Removed from the Church, this painting is no longer to be judged on artistic and devotional merits. This wasn't painted to be hung on a white wall in a climate controlled temple to painting, you know?
Comments