Podcasts about Berkshire Museum

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2020 8:28

For over a hundred years, the Berkshire Museum has been an evolving community resource for the city of Pittsfield. Who were the key players in its early days and what impact did they have on both the physical building and the ideas it permeated?

pittsfield berkshire museum

14. Winged Victory: The Plaster Reproduction

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 24, 2020 7:48

Craig and Peter unpack the story behind a plaster cast of Nike, the Greek goddess of victory, who stands 9.5' tall in the Berkshire Museum gallery.

greek reproduction plaster winged victory berkshire museum

13. Matthew Henson's Fur Suit

I Know Dino: The Big Dinosaur Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 23, 2020 8:36

Who was Matthew Henson and how did his fur suit come to live in the Berkshire Museum? Journey back to 1908 and discover the story of Matthew Henson and Robert Peary's Arctic expedition.

arctic suit matthew henson robert peary berkshire museum

How to make a Zuul out of cake

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2020 51:21

For links to every news story, all of the details we shared about Alaskacephale, links from Ralph Attanasia, and our fun fact check out https://iknowdino.com/Alaskacephale-Episode-281/To get access to lots of patron only content check out https://www.patreon.com/iknowdinoInterview with Ralph Attanasia, Head Sculptor at Carlo's Bakery and one of the stars on Buddy Vs Duff. He recently made a near life-size replica of the ankylosaur Zuul out of cake! Follow him on twitter @CakeBossRalphDinosaur of the day Alaskacephale, A smaller relative of Pachycephalosaurus from Alaska.In dinosaur news this week:The newly described dinosaur Asteriornis is named after the goddess of falling starsWally the Stegosaurus, from the Berkshire Museum in Massachusetts, is getting restoredOur book 50 Dinosaur Tales is available now! Get the collection of dinosaur stories and facts from recent discoveries by going to bit.ly/50dinosaurtales It's available as an audiobook, ebook, and paperback.

massachusetts alaska dinosaurs cake zuul stegosaurus pachycephalosaurus ralph attanasia berkshire museum buddy vs duff

8. The Stegosaurus

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 9, 2020 7:38

Why is there a 1,200 pound Stegosaurus in Downtown Pittsfield guarding Berkshire Museum? Executive Director Jeff Rodgers joins Craig to tell the story of the Museum's beloved dinosaur Wally.

museum stegosaurus berkshire museum

6. The Aquaponic Tank

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 3, 2020 6:03

It may not be an accessioned part of Berkshire Museum's collection but the aquaponic tank in our Aquarium is located in the basement. In this episode, discover the cool new Aquarium addition that both houses and feeds some of the animals in our care. Music by Phil Vivori.

music tank aquarium aquaponics berkshire museum

5. Lion Fish in the Grotto

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 2, 2020 5:38

Lion Fish in the Grotto is a pointillist gouache painting on paper by artist Nancy Graves (1939-1995) composed of red, orange, and blue dots that form the striped bodies, spiky fins, and venomous rays of five lion fish on a stark white background. In this episode we explore pointillism, the life and work of Nancy Graves, and her connection to Berkshire Museum. Theme music by Phil Vivori.

grotto lionfish berkshire museum

4. The Cheshire Cheese Screw

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 27, 2020 6:56

Why does the Berkshire Museum collection contain a screw from a cheese press? Because it was used to make a historic block of cheese! In this episode, discover the story behind the great 1802 Cheshire Cheese with our special guest host. Theme music by Phil Vivori.

cheese screw cheshire berkshire museum

3. Old Bill: The Beloved Berkshire Moose

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 24, 2020 6:06

In the early twentieth century, Old Bill the moose roamed free in the town of Lee, Massachusetts. Today, Old Bill hangs in Berkshire Museum's galleries as a natural science specimen. Discover his story in this episode of What's in the Basement? Theme music by Phil Vivori.

discover massachusetts beloved basement moose berkshire old bill berkshire museum

2: Pahat, the Resident Mummy

The Chief Customer Officer Human Duct Tape Show

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 23, 2020 5:48

Berkshire Museum's resident mummy, Pahat, has been in the collection since the Museum's founding in 1903. In this episode we take a closer look at Pahat's life, the cultural norms surrounding death in ancient Egypt, and the importance of preserving memories in our own society. Theme music by Phil Vivori.

museum mummy resident berkshire museum

Adam Parker Smith

Sound & Vision

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 26, 2019 87:54

Adam Parker Smith was born in Arcata, CA in 1978. He is based in Brooklyn, NY. He received his BA from the University of California at Santa Cruz and his MFA from the Tyler School of Art. Adam attended the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture and the Atlantic Center for the Arts. His work has been shown widely in the US and internationally at the Hole Gallery, Honor Fraser in LA, Derek Eller in NY, the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art in Colorado, Ever Gold in San Francisco, Zidoun Gallery in Luxembourg, The Delaware Center for Contemporary Art, the Berkshire Museum in Massachusetts, The Soap Factory Minneapolis, Painted Bride in Philadelphia, Parisian Laundryin Montreal, and TSST Gallery in Hong Kong. Adam’s work has been written about in New York Times, Art in America, Beautiful Decay, The Village Voice, Fiber Arts, ArtForum.com, Art World, White Wall Magazine and The New York Post. Brian stopped over Adam’s studio, just a couple blocks from his own for a talk about drawing battles, the Suzuki method, moving from painting to sculpture, stolen art and much more. Sound & Vision is sponsored by Golden Artist Colors and the New York Studio School.

america university california art san francisco new york times colorado philadelphia ny arts massachusetts hong kong painting mfa santa cruz new york post luxembourg sculpture suzuki contemporary art village voice art world artforum fiber arts arcata tyler school adam parker skowhegan school parker smith sound vision atlantic center berkshire museum delaware center boulder museum

3 Steps to Solidify Your CX Foundations at a Cultural Institution

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 9, 2019 55:44

I’m excited to be back with new episodes of the Chief Customer Officer Human Duct Tape Show. In today’s episode, I have an engaging and enlightening conversation with Craig Langlois, the Chief Experience Officer at the Berkshire Museum in beautiful Berkshire, Massachusetts. Craig and I explore how they developed strategies to improve the customer experience and flow of the museum, how they handle hiring and employee experience, and the incredible community work they’ve done to prepare parents and young children for Kindergarten.

business service massachusetts foundations kindergarten berkshire chief experience officer solidify cultural institutions berkshire museum

02-15-19 Berk Museum 10 Days of Play

berkshire plan it podcast -an audio calendar

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 12, 2019 0:34

Events from February 15 - 24, 2019 Shout-out: Berkshire Museum

events museum berk berkshire museum

Bonus Episode: Berkshire Museum Litigation Update (It’s not over!)

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 2, 2018 9:55

Katie and Steve get an update from attorney Nicholas O’Donnell about the status of the lawsuit he brought on behalf of certain members of the Berkshire Museum for breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims, in relation to the Museum’s sale of much of its valuable art collection to pay for operating and capital expenses. While much of the art has been sold, the members fight on. Nick explains the unusual posture of the case to our listeners. *Note: On Monday, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ended the Berkshire Museum deaccessioning legal saga by upholding a decision by the court that members of the Berkshire Museum do not have standing to sue the Museum challenging the conduct of its Board of Directors. Resources: https://berkshiremuseum.org/2015site/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/September-12-Update-on-second-tranche-sales.pdf https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/two-unsold-berkshire-museum-works-slated-for-november-auction,551589 https://blog.sandw.com/artlawreport/berkshire-museum-tries-to-end-run-pending-appeal-but-member-plaintiffs-decline-to-be-bullied https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/justices-tease-out-nuances-in-berkshire-museum-appeals-case,549457 https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/court-3-from-lenox-dont-have-right-to-challenge-museum-boards-conduct,552017

director board museum litigation berkshire museum

Bonus Episode: Berkshire Museum Deaccessioning Begins

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 11, 2018 14:27

Katie and Steve give an update on the first round of auction sales as part of the Berkshire Museum’s court sanctioned deaccessioning plan. They discuss the results of the sales, the museum’s current stance, and where that leaves us (hint: dissatisfied). Resources: https://berkshiremuseum.org/newvision/the-road-ahead/ https://berkshiremuseum.org/2015site/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/pr.Berkshire-Museum-to-offer-13-works-at-auction.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/arts/design/berkshire-museum-sanctions-aamd.html https://aamd.org/for-the-media/press-release/aamd-statement-on-sanction-of-berkshire-museum-and-la-salle-university

berkshire museum

Art of the Chase: Inside Art Auctions

Play Episode Listen Later May 10, 2018 60:56

On this month’s podcast, we take a close look at art auctions – how they work, their place in the art market and the rules and regulations that confine/define them. Auctions at Sotheby’s and Christie’s now regularly net tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars for a single work. Christie’s recently sold Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi painting for $450 million, by far the highest price ever garnered by a piece of art at auction. At the same time, much about the auction process remains secret. The identity of the buyer and seller is often known only to the auction house, and the reserve price (below which an artwork will not be sold) is known by the auctioneer but not the bidders. While the auctioneer may not sell a work of art below its reserve price, it can bid on the work below the reserve to get the auction going. Steve and Katie discuss these issues and others having to do with regulation, transparency and potential conflicts, and welcome famous Sotheby’s auctioneer Oliver Barker to take us behind the scenes of a big auction. Resources: http://www.sothebys.com/en/specialists/oliver-barker/bio.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/arts/design/as-art-market-rise-so-do-questions-of-oversight.html https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/about/auctioneer_law_rules.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/203ashenfelter.pdf https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/place_your_bids http://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2015/10/15/auction-psychology-emotions-behind-bidding/ https://mindhacks.com/2012/09/19/bbc-column-auction-psychology/ https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/inside-the-mind-of-a-million-dollar-art-bidder.html Episode Transcription Steve Schindler: Hi, I’m Steve Schindler. Katie Wilson-Milne: I’m Katie Wilson-Milne. Steve Schindler: Welcome to the Art Law Podcast a monthly podcast exploring the places were art intersects with and interferes with the law. Katie Wilson-Milne: And vice versa. The art law podcast is sponsored by the law firm of Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP, a premier ligation and art law boutique in New York City. Oliver Barker: There was that element of, you know, great excitement coupled with complete fear in terms of – kind of the very live nature of that performance, and that’s something which has always appealed to me as an auctioneer. You know, there’s a very live entertainment kind of perspective of that role. Steve Schindler: Katie, I received some feedback on the podcast from listeners this weekend, and one of the comments that was made to me was with respect, particularly to the Berkshire Museum Deaccessioning episode, that this listener didn’t think that we were necessarily impartial enough or that we were taking sides. And I thought about that a little bit and one of the things that I feel is that we're not journalist. We're not pretending to be journalists and we have points of view, and I think we're going to express them. What I think is also important, though, is where possible to have people aligned with different points of view, and we are very open to that. So, I would say if somebody from Berkshire Museum who listened to our podcast, a representative or a member of the Board of Trustees, would like to come on and present their point of view in conversation with us – Katie Wilson-Milne: We would love that. Steve Schindler: We would love that. And similarly with respect to the 5Pointz episode, we spent a lot of time with the artists and people involved in 5Pointz, but certainly if Mr. Wolkoff wants to come on and talk about what motivated him – Katie Wilson-Milne: To develop the site. Steve Schindler: We're happy to have him on – and have the conversation. We will still have the same view points that we have, but we certainly would like to engage with people who have other view points. Katie Wilson-Milne: Right and our goal with this podcast is to raise interesting issues that people may not have thought about in the way that we talk about them that connect the art world and the legal world. But it’s not to provide a completely even handed news article about these topics, it’s to have an interesting discussion between -- mostly the two of us, and we are who we are and we think what we think what we think. I think, actually, it may evolve over time depending on who we talk to, how we present certain issues. We're also constrained by the guests who come on the show, and we want to be respectful of those guests by honoring their opinions and what they have to say. Steve Schindler: So, if you want to come on the show – Katie Wilson-Milne: Send us an e-mail. Steve Schindler: Let us know. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, Steve on this month’s podcast, we're going to talk about auctions. We have the May auctions coming up at the big houses - Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Phillips - both in New York and in other international locations, mainly London, in early May. So, it’s a good time to talk about this. Auctions tend to dominate the art world both in terms of the publicity they get, the prices that come out of auctions, and obviously they are public in a way that private sales are not. So, it’s an exciting topic. Steve Schindler: And we're going to be joined in our podcast by the Sotheby’s auctioneer Oliver Barker who is one of their top auctioneers in the area of contemporary art. Katie Wilson-Milne: Yes, so he is going to give us an insider’s view on what it feels like to be in an auction, what an auction house like Sotheby’s does to prepare for a big auction and what he notices has changed over time in the auction world. So, to back up and give our listeners a little bit of background the art market itself is said to be worth between $40 to $60 billion right now. Auction sales from the main auction houses - which are Sotheby’s, Christie’s and Phillips - make up about $11 billion of that, that was the figure in 2017. Only beat, I think, by the results in 2007, which were over $12 billion. So, it’s a big chunk of the overall art market takes place at art auctions in these three big houses. The biggest group of auctions sales take place in the United States. Although the auctions in London and in Hong Kong are also incredibly significant in terms of the profile works that are sold and the types of buyers that are there. One thing that makes auctions interesting is how psychological the selling format is. So unlike a private sale, where a dealer – whether its Sotheby’s or in a gallery or private dealer – will call a client or a contact and say, “look, I have this work for sale,” you know, “here's what the seller will take it for it.” At an auction you get the atmosphere of people bidding against each other, which seems to have great psychological effect, and there have been sales in the recent past that have taken off tremendously and sold for way more than anyone could have imagined. The most famous example of that is the Salvator Mundi, Da Vinci sale at Christie’s that happened last November, where we had two buyers in the end bidding against each other. And the work ultimately sold for around $450 million, which is far and away the most expensive work that's ever sold at auction ever, ever, ever. Right, Steve? Steve Schindler: Right and in that case you had two buyers who were bidding against each other who each thought that they were bidding against somebody else, as its been reported. And so it drove the price up even higher than any one even contemplated. Katie Wilson-Milne: Well, because of who those two bidders were. Steve Schindler: Sure. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, the story is actually pretty interesting right. We found out after the auction that the ultimately winner of the work was a Saudi prince, and he had been bidding against a friend, actually, from the United Arab Emirates who wanted the work for the new Louvre in Abu Dhabi. They both thought they were bidding against someone from Qatar instead of each other. When they found out that they weren’t and they bidding against each other, which is the only reason it went for $450 million, they apologized to each other and the Saudi prince said, “oh actually you can take the work for the new Louvre in Abu Dhabi in exchange for a yacht.” So, it actually all worked out and the great anxiety about that sale, which is that this masterpiece would go into private hands, now resolved and hopefully it will be see at the Louvre Abu Dhabi. Steve Schindler: I’m not sure what that whole transaction means for art or auctions, but it was amusing. Katie Wilson-Milne: But it happened. Steve Schindler: And – but from the point of view of a seller, you see these incredible bidding wars for certain kinds of objects, but the auctions can be a little bit terrifying for a seller, because you never know what the market is going on any given night. You know at least if you're selling a work at a gallery you have a lot more control over the situation and you can wait until a buyer comes along with a price that you're asking. But in auction one possibility is that the bidding is good and strong and you get a very good price; the other possibility is that there isn’t any bidding that night for a variety of reasons. Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. Steve Schindler: And the work is publicly not sold. Katie Wilson-Milne: Right, so unlike a private sale where something isn’t sold, well, you just wait and you sell it later. But at auction if it doesn’t go well, that can really taint the marketability of the work. Steve Schindler: And now the rules require that the auction houses announce that a work has not been sold. Then, the word that's used for it sometimes is that the work is burned. And then can't really be sold, at least not at auction, for some period of time. Katie Wilson-Milne: I would totally take advantage of a burned work if I could -- Steve Schindler: Well, of course and the auction houses then do try to sell the work privately afterwards and sometimes they know, because they know who the bidders are. You know, what the interest is and then they are broker a sale immediately after the auction. Katie Wilson-Milne: Just maybe not for as high a price as they could have before. So, Steve we've talked a little bit on this podcast and certainly between ourselves about the level of or lack of regulation in the art market and sort of the increasing concerns over transparency, either in terms of money laundering or just transparency about the provenance of a work. Auctions do function a little bit differently than private sales, right? I mean there’s more transparency if not complete transparency. Steve Schindler: Well, auction houses are much more regulated than private sales and -- Katie Wilson-Milne: Which are not regulated at all. Steve Schindler: Which are not regulated at all, and there is certainly a lot more transparency in an auction process. I’m not sure that we can say that there’s 100% transparency. But there are a lot of rules that the auction houses have to comply with, and they do comply with, that at least ensure a certain fairness and openness in the process. Katie Wilson-Milne: But one of those things is not who the seller is often, right? That's the one thing that's still not transparent -- Steve Schindler: That's right and there was a case that ran all the way up to the court of appeals a few years ago. Katie Wilson-Milne: In New York. Steve Schindler: In New York, where we had a buyer at an auction who decided that he didn’t want to pay for the work after the fact and challenged the auction house rules on the theory that there needed to be a written disclosure of the identity of the buyer. And actually that case went up to the highest court in New York and in the court below, much to the unhappiness of the entire auction industry, the court below actually found for the purchaser and invalidated the sale because there was no written record of who the seller was. And the court of appeals decided to overturn that much to the relief of the auction industry. Katie Wilson-Milne: Yeah, there have been efforts over time to require dealers to disclose the identity of the seller to the buyer, but those have not been successful, though. The art world seems somewhat allergic to idea of disclosing who the owner of a work is. Steve Schindler: There are really two big secrets now at an auction: one is, sometimes, who the owners are. I mean, not at every auction. Sometimes it's in fact a huge selling point. Katie Wilson-Milne: Like the big Rockefeller sale coming up. Steve Schindler: Right exactly, so the provenance of those works is incredibly important to the value, but sometimes collectors don’t want the world to know what they’re selling. And so they insist that their identities be kept private and often those works are offered as the works of a private collector or European collector, an American collector. And the other big secret at auction is this reserve price. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, what is the reserve price? Steve Schindler: Well, the reserve price is the secret price that's agreed to between the seller, or the consigner of the work, and the auction house. And it’s the price below which the work cannot be sold. And what's not a secret and what has to be disclosed is the fact that there is a reserve, and that is clearly disclosed in all auction catalogues. And typically in the major auction houses they disclose that all of the sales are with reserve unless they say otherwise. And the other thing that means is that, the way that the auction is conducted, is that the auctioneer is allowed to submit bids on behalf of the seller up to the secret reserve price. Katie Wilson-Milne: Why would they do that? Steve Schindler: Well, it’s really – some people have criticized the practice, the practice is sometimes called chandelier bidding on this idea that the auctioneer is sort of taking bids off the -- Katie Wilson-Milne: The ceiling, yeah. Steve Schindler: -- the chandelier in the ceiling, but really it’s just a question of creating some theater and drama, because up until the reserve price is hit, the work can never be sold. So, even if the auctioneer is engaging in some bidding up to the reserve price, until you hit the reserve price, it really has no real impact, accept to sort of -- Katie Wilson-Milne: Confuse everyone about what the reserve is. Steve Schindler: -- or to warm up the room if you're taking it from the auctioneer’s perspective. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, how does the concept of a reserve interact with this other concept of a guaranty? And what is a guaranty? Steve Schindler: Well, a guaranty, which is often used now by major auction houses to entice collectors of works to consign the works to them, is basically a contract of promise by the auction house to pay a set amount of money to the consigner of the works regardless of what happens at the auction, and regardless of whether the reserve price is hit. Katie Wilson-Milne: The seller knows 100% they are going to get at least that amount of money. Steve Schindler: Right, sometimes that's important to a seller the thing that the seller normally gives up when they agree to take a guaranty, is some of the upside of the auction if the price goes above the guaranty and the reserve price. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, the auction house would split the profits above the guaranty. Steve Schindler: Yeah and in some proportion and very often now the auction houses, if they are giving a guaranty will in a sense syndicate that risk to other parties who put up the money and are willing to make the guaranty. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, it’s a third party that – if the bidding didn’t go higher than the guaranty price they take the work. Steve Schindler: They would take the work at whatever price they guaranteed it at – most of the individuals or institutions that give guaranties would prefer not to have the work. What they are doing is making a financial bet that the work will sell at a price that is higher than the guaranty in which case they receive a return on their investment. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, Steve let’s talk to an auctioneer who actually works at these big night auctions and see what they have to say about how they work. Our guest today is Oliver Barker. Oliver is a senior director at Sotheby’s auction house and co-chairman of Sotheby’s Europe. He is also one of the auction world foremost auctioneers. So, he is both behind the scenes and in front of the camera at Sotheby’s, which he joined in 1994 moving through roles in contemporary art as a senior international specialist, among others. He has overseen some market-defining auction sales, including two major sales of Damien Hirst works, including one that set the world record for single artist sale. He has a particular interest in post war British art, which he has promoted at Sotheby’s. And he was the auctioneer at the May 2017 auction in which a Basquiat work sold for record-breaking $110.5 million. Steve Schindler: Welcome to the podcast Oliver. So, what kind of skills do you think a good auctioneer has? Oliver Barker: Yes, well you know, in any given sort of auction, obviously the auctioneer’s role is to try and help proceed the kind of trading from the consigner to the purchaser. So, the ability to remember, without slavishly looking down at kind of the auctioneer’s book, which is obviously there as a working tool during an auction, exactly what the estimate is for a particular work and also its protective reserve price, and therefore also it’s kind of opening bid, there’s a number of kind of key financial things in play. And, equally, there are so many means of bidding in this sort of modern day. So, I suppose most traditionally, the easiest way to bid is actually in the room, whether it’s a private client or whether you choose to bid through an agent who’s sitting there executing bids on your behalf. And there are also kind of the execution of bids via the telephone through a Sotheby’s representative. There may also be commission bids, and the commission bids are always ones which are lodged in the auctioneer’s book. So, whilst starting off on a particular – you hear auctioneers say footing, the auctioneer’s footing — one has to be aware where the reserve price is, where a commission bid might be and more importantly where the commission bid ceiling is. Whilst also kind of orchestrating multiple bids that might come in depending on what the level of interest is in a particular lot. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, we definitely want to ask you about the stages of an auction, so we’re going to get back to a lot of the items you just mentioned. But maybe first we should ask you to explain to our audience how you decide what goes into an auction versus a private sale. I mean, big houses like Sotheby’s and Christie’s do both, maybe there’s a movement towards more private sales now. So, what is the determination of what goes up for auction and what doesn’t? Oliver Barker: Well, I think it’s a really interesting question. I think at the moment because the market is ostensibly very strong, and particularly in the area of contemporary art with which I’m most focused. I think we have the luxury in contemporary, to a great extent actually, to curate the auctions that we’re handling. In other words, there are far greater more voluminous supplies of great objects of the Post-War period, which is how we loosely define Contemporary, then there might be say of old master, kind of masterpieces. We use our global network and the conversations that we’re having with museum curators or dealers or gallerists or collectors to really have a insider’s knowledge, if you like, of who are the artists sort of being — sort of collected and who are in high esteem in a particular moment. But then also amongst those artists works, what are the key periods or what are the most rare objects? And what are the ones that the market has seen a real hiatus of? And quite quickly, you sort of figure out that, okay you have the real estate of a certain amount of exhibition space prior to an auction. You have the real estate of a Sotheby’s catalogue, which is a major marketing tool that we use, but equally is one that takes a huge amount laborious work in preparing. One has the audience’s attention span, which generally doesn’t last beyond a certain amount of time and then also you have key experience. So, we tend to have in an evening sale a context probably not more than about 75 lots. That will probably be your maximum. I mean, there’s no hard and fast rule. But I think much beyond 75 lots you know, it’s hard to keep an audience’s attention and focus. But at the same time you want to be able to curate a sale so that — there are lesser value things that which you know, are going to be short fast sellers. And you want also want pepper the ordering of the catalogue, which is also particularly critical, to introduce the high value lots at the commercially most optimum moments. And I think at the end of the day also we’re getting very closely judged both by Wall Street and by the collector community in terms of how many unsold lots we’re handling. I mean, I think it is fair to say that it’s a rarity to have sales which are 100% sold. When putting a sale together one intends to try and sell everything as best one can, but market forces obviously and a variety different reasons may mean that things go unsold. But there may well be through price expectation or physical condition issues, problems of some sort of conservation for example, that on the day the market turns its back. So, we would like to have a fairly tightly trimmed unsold rate obviously of a percentage as low as possible. Steve Schindler: Maybe talk us through sort of setting the stage of what it’s like, the atmosphere is like, at one of the big evening Contemporary art auctions that you preside over. Oliver Barker: No, I mean the big auctions really are you know an amazing spectacle. I think it’s fair to say that the evening sells are very much the summation of a very intensive three month period since the last set of auctions. And in many cases, the fruition of many years of engagement with a particular collector, meaning that we have put together an auction of what we believe to be the finest works of art in that particular sale season. So, there’s a tremendous sense of anticipation from a number different perspectives whether it’s the vendors. Whether it’s the market itself responding to the quality of the objects that we are offering, whether it’s the people within the room itself, in other words the people who attend, whether they be private collectors or consigners or potential purchasers. From Sotheby’s perspective obviously, there are the management and the financial expectation of the sales and there maybe even be our shareholders or our board members or even Wall Street that are looking in as well. So, I think it’s fair to say that there’s quite a lot of eyes coming from many different disciplines, all of whom are very clearly focused on that start time of 7pm. when we kick off. And being in a live business as we are, it’s very exciting that all of our presale marketing is conditioedl, obviously to that deadline and approaching that kick off point. So, that we have done our absolute utmost on behalf of the vendor to reach out to the world’s collectors and — you know, I think it’s interesting, in previewing the next major sale season, New York in May, where there are so many superlative objects that are coming to the market at the same time. You will find that the orchestration of marketing these sales, and therefore how well the auction does, is really crucial in making sure that the world’s global collecting community is very, very focused on participating and being focused from New York at 7pm when we kick off that sale. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, what do you do in the lead up to an auction? What are the key things you do to drive up interest in the sales ahead of time? Oliver Barker: Well, there are kind of three elements, I suppose, in terms of how we best raise interest and therefore the kind of the excitement around a particular object and particularly trying to get somebody to actually come participate in that and bid in an auction. First of all, there’s the announcement of the sale itself, and actually normally that is the sale catalogue. So, that’s the very first time that the market’s actually been able to have a very holistic view on all the objects that we’re going to be selling in that particular moment. Sometimes preceding that, sometimes following that, are a series of well-orchestrated marketing campaigns, which might include taking a particularly important object to Hong Kong, for example. I actually think a very good example is the announcement today, in fact, is the wonderful Modigliani Nude of 1917, which was actually launched online in a live web cast on Sothebys.com but from Hong Kong. With a very deliberate view that you know, the unlikely buyer for an object like that may very well come from that region of the world. But at the same time you know, that is an object which will now return to the New York to be viewed in the next couple of weeks in a presale exhibition you know, within our building on York Avenue, and that’s the other key part of the exhibition, of suddenly going into an auction. You know, we have a – usually 10-day, or sometimes longer or sometimes a little bit shorter, preview before a particular sale, which enables collectors to come in and look at the pictures, but I think also most importantly to really do due diligence and talk to experts at Sotheby’s or take their own independent advice and come in with somebody who has some particular knowledge in an artist’s work. Even seek the opinion of a third party conservator, you know somebody who’s able to come look at an object, take it off the wall. I mean in the same way that you wouldn’t acquire a house without having a full structural serving on it, collectors do very much the same thing with paintings. I mean, they like to come onboard and actually have a look at conservator’s reports and get a sense of is it in the original condition from which it left the artist studio? Have there been some kind of repaintings? Are there any loses anywhere? And then obviously, you lead to the auction itself, and that might be proceeded by dinner parties or press releases as well. But as I mentioned a moment ago obviously the sale tends to kick off at a very particular time. Nowadays also because our auctions are broadcast online, it’s even more important that we kick off in sort of a timely manner. And we’ve had going on behind the scenes throughout the whole auction process a number of internal meetings at Sotheby’s, which are called interest meetings, which are designed to help orchestrate and choreograph, what are the levels of interest that the works of art that we’re selling are driving in the market place. In other words has that first lot in the sale had the kind of feedback that we thought it might, because it’s such a rare object, and that it seems to carry comparatively conservative estimates? So in other words, has it driven three or four people to look as if they’re making the signs they might decide to make a bid on the auction? Steve Schindler: So, Ollie, when you start the bidding you already have a sense, I gather, of who is interested and what level of interest they have. Oliver Barker: Right, I think it’s fair to say that you know, auctioneering is a very irrational process, it’s not a fixed price. I think to a perspective purchaser of art who’s never bought at auction before, there is some level of discomfort. I mean by comparison to walking into a gallery, where quite often there is a published price or you know it’s known what the end user price might be, and of course barring any room for negotiation, you’ve got a fairly clear idea what you are going to be likely paying for a certain transaction. When you walk into an auction, obviously, there is absolutely no guaranty that the object is going to be acquirable at a particular level of price, because of course it just – it entirely depends on who ends up bidding against you. Having said that, what we are trying to do is to make the irrational as a rational as we possibly can. In other words we are using our experience to try and understand what the likely outcome out of a particular auction might be. Now, obviously we would love to supersede our expectation and know that on the night you know, something might double or sometimes triple or if we’ve done our jobs correctly and we know we’ve got a wonderful object and equally it’s being well marketed and it’s highly desirable in the marketplace and you have been able to drive great interest in that particular object, you might probably might find that something will take off and make a really superlative price that has no precedence in the market to date. Katie Wilson-Milne: How often does that happen that there’s sort of a runaway bid, bidding on a work that just takes everyone by surprise? Oliver Barker: Well, I mean, Katiem you know, I wish I could say on every single lot. I mean, I think that buyers now are particularly savvy. And I think you know, we would expect them to also be fully aware of and advised of what comparable objects make in the market place. So, depending on what you’re selling you know, there may be one sale. And we had a great example of something which did superlatively well last May when we sold a Basquiat painting for $110 million — Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. Oliver Barker: — it had an estimate somewhere in the region of just over $50 million, so that was a really great example of something which completely superseded what our presale expectations were. Steve Schindler: And you were presiding over that auction, Ollie, as I remember. Oliver Barker: Yeah, I had the great privilege of holding that auction. Steve Schindler: How did that feel at the time? Oliver Barker: It was terrifying. I think that because I very much love the entertainment aspect of the auction, it was something, which seems to go very slowly. Albeit I think time actually sometimes slows down actually when you’re dealing with such high figures. And particularly when kind the freestyle excitement of two very determined bidders like that kind of really gets going. But it was a great privilege, it was tremendous work of art. And I think also the signs in the presale activity have been that the market – this is the picture that market was really looking for. I think you have the trilogy of a great object by a great artist, which is entirely fresh to market. Really truly all those kind of the elements choreographed together to make a phenomenal price. And I think in fairness to Sotheby’s also — I think we did a tremendous job in terms of marketing in that work and just making sure that on the night the two most likely bidders or end users ended up sort of fighting against each other and there was a real sort of gladiatorial kind of contest which went on between them. Katie Wilson-Milne: It’s really interesting how much of the excitement I think of the auction actually happens before the auction, which you’ve talked about in terms of the press and the social media and the events. And I wonder has that changed over time, in your experience? Oliver Barker: You know, it’s really interesting to me that you know, well Sotheby’s is actually the – I think we’re the oldest company that’s listed on the American stock exchange. We’re a company that was founded in 1744 in London by somebody who was a bookseller. And I think the reason that we remain, or rather, auctioneering remains a really contemporary activity is that I still think it’s one of the most effective ways of selling works of art from one entity to another. And I think you know, that we’re fortunate you know, being Sotheby’s — and Christie’s and Phillips could say very much the same thing — that we are deemed to be kind of very credible marketplaces for the sale of the greatest works of art and the thing that we particularly handle. Having said that, I think that you know, particularly with the new opportunities afforded by the internet and social media etc., I think the abilities to market what we’re selling have grown massively within the last two years. And continue to kind of change all the time. And I think that we as a business are very much at the forefront in terms of kind of trying to get technical innovation, very much front and center in terms of how we get objects sort of into the minds of the prospective purchasers out there. I think it’s fair to say at that actually auctioneering in a way remains a very, you know — it’s quite an old school form of actually selling something. You know you have a finite amount of time to sell something, it has to be in a particular city, it has to start at a particular time, and you’re somewhat reliant on your audience actually being available and focused at that particular moment. Having said that, you know and again to use another analogy, I think that’s race horses tend to run a little bit faster when they can hand the hooves of other horses beside them and I think very much — Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. Oliver Barker: The same with bidders. You know I think that there is something very compelling to a major collector to feel that there is a competition for a work, which very much validates that quality of that particular work. I mean I think in a way to sort of buy something against a reserve price or with no other bidder or under bidder can to a lot of people be quite a difficult situation. It suggests that your taste has not been validated on the day of acquisition. Steve Schindler: And some of the language that you use in an auction also is — seems adversarial, you know, when you say to a bidder “against you” or you know it’s — Katie Wilson-Milne: You’re setting up a competition almost. Oliver Barker: I think there are people who are very determined when it comes to auction to actually try and acquire something. So I think the auctioneer’s role is very much to help translate that kind of rigorousness on a bidder’s behalf to really acquire that trophy and acquire that sort of particular masterpiece. I mean, I think I prefer to use the word cajole in a way, rather than kind of adversarial. I am not — Steve Schindler: Fair enough, fair enough. Oliver Barker: I am not sure how many bidders are overly adversarial — Steve Schindler: Fair enough. Oliver Barker: If I am cajoling them well enough. And if that means kind of questioning their virility of bidding, then that’s definitely something that we like to kind of use as a means. And I think the audience is very receptive to it as well. Katie Wilson-Milne: Well, it makes it very exciting, and Steve and I in preparing for this podcast did some reading about work that’s been done on the psychology of the auction, and it’s — it’s really interesting. Oliver Barker: Yes, yes. Katie Wilson-Milne: I mean, people just react completely differently in an auction setting than they would in a private sale. And you know I was thinking of you sort of as this psychological master leading the auction. Now do you think about — Oliver Barker: Yeah. Katie Wilson-Milne: You know. Do you do any research on that, or how do you think about the psychological? Oliver Barker: No, very much so, and I think that it’s very hard to kind of really define it particularly when you’re in a live environment like that. You know, there are examples and you know one sticks to my mind probably more than any was when we did the big Damien Hirst “Beautiful Inside My Mind Forever” Sale in 2008. I mean in terms of a presale environment, you could not have got a more heady mixture than the imminent collapse of Lehman Brothers happening during the presale exhibition of that sale and then the eventual collapse of the bank and kind of the financial tsunami in the stock exchanges that was the direct result of it, which happened on the 15th of September 2008. And that was the kind of the back drop to which we then held the sale that evening in London at 7pm. So you know from the announcement first thing in the morning that the bank, or rather the central bankers in America had chose not to support Lehman Brothers and it fell into administration, you suddenly saw opening in the Turkey stock exchange this sort of financial malaise that spread west around the day. So by 7pm that evening in London, of course there was, you know, this front page news in the Evening Standard. We were incredibly worried about what would happen and how the transition would affect the auction. But I think it’s fair to say that you know in any auction environment there is a kind of a vacuum-like opportunity or intensity if you like where the outside world is somehow put on hold and people are particularly focused on the auction itself and I think actually, because the auction of Damien Hirst works was a completely unmitigated success. I think there was an element of, you know, yes, psychosomatically people were very involved and very engaged with those objects, but as an auctioneer, you know, I was hopefully able to get their real attention that night and there are no rules — I mean, I think also — no rules in terms of what a bidder’s limit might be. I mean, depending on what their financial means are. I mean, a lot of our bidders are very astute and they come in with a very fixed idea of what they want to spend on a particular object. There may be those who on the night have a particular limit, but then blow straight through depending on their mood. Katie Wilson-Milne: I was going to ask you just that, right, do they stick to it? Oliver Barker: Yeah. Well, it’s you know I — I can only speak for my own experience you know when I bid in auctions outside of Sotheby’s, quite honestly you know you set yourself a limit, and I did this actually buying my wife’s engagement ring, you know I set myself a limit and then I just blew straight through it, because it was just an object I had to have. And I think that’s also dependent on you know the high into the market, you know when you’re dealing with kind of unique Rothko’s or Modigliani’s or Francis Bacon paintings or Picasso’s, and you saw it clearly with the Leonardo painting that came up at Christie’s. You know I think in that case, when there is an element of scarcity and rarity and kind of you know a one-offness in the marketplace, there’s much more likely and to be a kind of stellar auction price, which will be very hard to replicate. Steve Schindler: So, Ollie, you’ve been very generous with your time. And we’re sad to let you go, but I would like to ask just one more question before we conclude. You are an auctioneer in London, you are an auctioneer in New York. Is there difference between auctions held in Europe and the United States, or even Hong Kong, just in terms of the atmosphere and the — Katie Wilson-Milne: The buyers? Steve Schindler: The buyers? Oliver Barker: I think the short answer is yes. But I think as an auctioneer I am very conscious about trying to engage a different audience in a different geographical location. I mean I think that in New York, in particular, with the auction room at Sotheby’s, it’s a vast space, it seats many more people than our London auction room. And I think that they are obviously the stakes in terms of the values of the works tend to be a lot of higher. There is arguably more participation actually from the telephones than there are in any other auction location. And I suppose for me, being based in London, it’s a slight cultural nuance just on the, in the basis of being in a different city. But you know it’s now become very familiar to me. I mean, I certainly as an auctioneer I remember the first time I got up in New York to take an auction it really felt as if I was sort of entering in a tremendous environment, a huge kind of stage and obviously with works to kind of back that up. I think in London just by definition our building here is a little bit more quaint, albeit the auction itself is still to an audience of possibly up to six, seven hundred people. But I think, you know, one has to be attuned to the kind of the audience that is looking as well as the people who are likely to be tuning in. I mean, it’s very difficult as an auctioneer to know exactly who is on the end of a telephone line or who is watching from the comfort of their own home in terms of online bidding for example, but — because there are more numerous ways of actually pricing bids these days, we have to be accountable for each for each possible one. Katie Wilson-Milne: Great. Well, thank you so much for speaking to us today. I know our listeners will enjoy hearing your perspective. Steve Schindler: Thank you, Ollie. Oliver Barker: My pleasure. Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Katie. Katie Wilson-Milne: Well — so let’s talk about the rules, rules are obviously exciting to us because we’re lawyers. Steve Schindler: We are lawyers and we love rules. Katie Wilson-Milne: And auctions, I mean auctions do feel a little bit like the wild west, right, they are theatrical, you have people acting on impulse, it’s really exciting, bids go up 10s of millions of dollars at a time, but there is actually rules to it and regulations, so Steve what are some of those rules? Steve Schindler: Well, there are really two sets of rules that govern auctions in New York. One is the uniform commercial code, which is a code of laws that are adopted across all 50 states that governs the sale of goods. And art is really a fancy kind of good. So, UCC Section 2328 provides a contractual framework for auctions. And it basically says that a contract is formed and a sale is complete when the auctioneer’s hammer falls. And there are some specifications in the UCC about what happens, for example, if the hammer is falling. Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. Steve Schindler: And another bid comes in, and the UCC says under those circumstances the auctioneer has discretion to in a sense open up the bidding again. The other thing that the UCC provides are some rules relating to whether or not there is a reserve or not. If an auction goes forward without a reserve price, then once the bidding starts, the lot can never be withdrawn. So if the bidding is $5 or $10, it doesn’t matter what the object is worth, at that point the seller is kind of stuck with it and when the hammer falls that’s it. If there is a reserve then, of course, the object can always be withdrawn from sale unless the reserve is hit. The UCC provides for two kinds of warrantees that are important in the purchase of art. One is a warranty of title and the other is a warranty of authenticity. A warranty of title, whether you’re buying from an auction house or from a dealer, is implicit in any sale. The second warranty is a warranty of authenticity. A warranty of authenticity, unlike the warranty of title, has to be expressed. You need to say what you’re warranting in some fashion, and the way that works under the UCC with respect to an auction catalogue is if the work is listed in the catalogue as the work of a particular artist, that constitutes a warranty — Katie Wilson-Milne: That it is. Steve Schindler: That it is the work of that artist as supposed to other ways of formulating the catalogue description, such as something is “the school of” or “in the style of,” but whenever it is that you sell something and you list it in the catalogue as being the work of an artist, you are and the auction house is warranting that the work is authentic. Warrantees of authenticity and title carry with them a four year statute of limitations, but one of the things that the auction house does with respect to its warranty of authenticity is to provide for a five year guarantee of the authenticity of the work, so they actually give you one more year than you normally get. Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. So if there is a problem with the work you buy at auction, you can go back to Sotheby’s or Christie’s within five years pretty much no questions asked as long as you have some backup for your concern. They’ll give you your money back, take the work, and then it’s up to them to go to the consigner or the seller to sort things out with them. Steve Schindler: Right. And one of the things we know from working with auction houses is that they do a very thorough job on the consignment side. So — Katie Wilson-Milne: Well they have a lot at stake. Steve Schindler: They have a lot at stake, and so you know that they are working very diligently to make sure that the works that they are selling have title and that they are what they are purporting to be. Katie Wilson-Milne: And even if something comes up after the contracts have been signed, after the catalogue has been out, if something comes up that one of the auction houses doesn’t feel good about prior to auction, they can withdraw their work at their complete discretion. And we have seen that a number of times that they’re really cautious, and they’ll pull something at the last minute. Steve Schindler: Right. And it’s a very difficult decision to make, because obviously it’s not great for the consigner. In New York, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs also has a set of rules for licensing auctioneers and regulating public auctions. And interestingly these rules were substantially revised in the 1980s, particularly in the aftermath of a scandal that hit Christie’s as an auction house, where a number of works were not in fact sold because reserves were not met, but in order to boost the market, Christie’s and its then chairman falsely reported that the works were in fact sold. And after that happened, the chairman of Christie’s at the time was forced to resign and the Department of Consumer Affairs decided that they needed to get a little bit tougher with the regulation of auctions just to make sure that the public would feel secure in bidding at an auction. After their obligations to the vendors and the consigners, which, Katie, I know you’ll talk about a little bit, the main obligation the auction house has to the buying public is to really ensure that the bidding is fair and that the sale conditions are transparent and that everybody knows the rules. So a few of the things that were changed at the time that these rules were overhauled was that the existence of the secret reserve price now must be disclosed, not the amount of it, but the fact that there is a secret reserve price must be disclosed. Also when we talked about guarantees before, if there is a guarantee that is given on a lot, that also must be disclosed. We know that auctioneers under the rules are never allowed to bid for their own account unless that bidding is disclosed and except up to the reserve price. We talked about chandelier bidding, for example. If there is to be chandelier bidding, it has to be disclosed, and all of these disclosures are normally made in the big auction catalogues with — Katie Wilson-Milne: With little symbols. Steve Schindler: With little symbols, when you look at the terms of sales, it goes through all these types of items and then indicates whether there are guarantees, whether there are financial incentives of any kind being offered to the sellers. And the idea is that this kind of information will help inform the market in their bidding. And sometimes, in fact, when these conditions change even at the last minute, the auction houses will post notices outside the auction room with any disclosures that have to be made. Katie Wilson-Milne: So the New York City Consumer Affairs rules also require that there be a written contract for every auction between the auction house, or the auctioneer, and the seller, commissions that are charged have to be disclosed. There has to be a disclosure of any interest that the auction house or any related party has in the work, whether they own a part of the work or, you know, have an interest in a guarantee on the work. The auctioneer cannot disclaim warranty of title even though under certain circumstances the UCC would permit that, which is what Steve was just talking about, and the consigner has to make a warranty of title. So there is two ways that the buyer is protected in terms of the title. So there is also this concept in auctions of an enhanced hammer price. And that means, in the old model, auction houses made most of their money from consigners paying them a fee. So if I owned a work of art and I went to an auction house and sold it, I would give them a percentage of what I got from the sale. For a variety of reasons I think mostly, Steve, because of competition among the auction houses to get sellers to consign amazing works, the auction houses for certain clients charge very little if anything of a seller’s commission. And now they seem to be getting most of their money from what’s called the buyer’s commission. Steve Schindler: And the buyer’s premium is something that’s set out in the — very clearly in the terms of sale and the buyer’s premium, unlike the seller’s commission, is really never negotiable. Katie Wilson-Milne: The amount of the buyer’s premium changes depending on the price of the work. Steve Schindler: Right. Katie Wilson-Milne: Right so — Steve Schindler: As the price of the work goes up, the percentage of the premium goes down. Katie Wilson-Milne: Goes down a little bit. And so, but it’s even beyond that now right, Steve? So now the competition is so fierce for sellers or consigners that sometimes the auction house will promise the seller a share of the buyer’s premium which is the original fee that’s supposed to go to the auction house. Steve Schindler: Right. And that’s known as an enhanced hammer. Katie Wilson-Milne: Or under the New York Consumer Affairs Laws a rebate. So auction houses are agents. They work for the seller technically, so they are a fiduciary of the seller, not of the buyer. Although the regulations and rules that we just talked about, the UCC and the New York Consumer Affairs Rules, really mostly serve to protect the buyer. So it’s sort of an interesting relationship in that is a fiduciary relationship. The auction house is a fiduciary of the seller, which means that they have to act in the utmost good faith and in the interest of the consigner throughout their relationship, meaning they have to take care of the consigned work, they have a duty to disclose details that influence what the work can sell for, how auction-able it is, if there are any issues that come up in due diligence about the work, then the proceeds from the auction sales are really held in trust for the seller they belong to the seller and the auction house holds them as a fiduciary meaning it can’t use those proceeds for other business purposes. So those basic fiduciary laws exist in the auction-consigner relationship, but they’re overlaid with practices and rules that come up in the UCC and the Consumer Affairs Rules that really make the relationship one towards the buyer as well. And I think this is unique to the auction world that the auction is facing the seller as a fiduciary, as an agent, and the buyer with all these rules of disclosure that come out. Steve Schindler: Yeah. So it’s a little bit different than a sort of gallery situation. I mean, there you have the same technical legal relationships. You have a consigner of works to a gallery is in a fiduciary relationship with the gallery owner, and the customers or the clients at the gallery are not, but you don’t have that same level of regulation governing — Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. Steve Schindler: The sort of practices vis-a-vis the client. Katie Wilson-Milne: It seems to be more clear in the private sale world who is responsible to whom, that the gallery is a fiduciary of either the artist whose work they’re selling. Or if they take a work from a collector to sell, they are the agent of that collector and it’s a little more clear. In the auction world, there are all these regulations. Some of the practices that seem to conflict with traditional fiduciary-like obligations are guarantees where the auction house has an incentive to make money on its own account if it can sell work for above the guarantee, right? Steve Schindler: Right. Katie Wilson-Milne: And then it’s dealing with this potential third party who also has an interest in the outcome of the sale and it’s not the seller. Steve Schindler: Right. And I think the other really important fiduciary obligation that the auction house has to the consigner of works is this question of auctionability, of looking at a work and deciding — Katie Wilson-Milne: Yeah. Steve Schindler: is this something that should really be in an auction or in an auction this May or November or is it something that really should be sold privately, because if you put something up for auction that isn’t right, then the consequences to the seller are pretty severe. It’s a sort of public shaming of the work and that is you know very difficult for an entity who lives — Katie Wilson-Milne: Makes all it’s money — Steve Schindler: On selling people’s works at auction. So, it’s a really important fiduciary duty. It’s one that I think that the auction houses try to live up to, but it does create a natural tension. Katie Wilson-Milne: Yeah. And I think we would call these things potential conflicts of interests, the guarantee, the fact that auction houses want things to go to auction even while they’re fiduciaries of the seller and it may not make sense for something to go to auction at a certain time. And then there is the buyer’s premium, where the auction house is getting paid by the buyer and is incentivized to sell work at a certain price or a certain time so that they can get the buyer’s commission. And then what about art loans does that — how does — how do art loans fit into the fiduciary obligations of the house? How do art loans work in the auction? Steve Schindler: So, art loans now are fairly common. They can either be made by the auction houses themselves. For example Sotheby’s has a significant loan and finance department, and what it typically does is offer advances to consigners who were selling works at an auction. So if I put my work up for auction in May, but it’s January and I’d like to have some cash in advance, typically they will loan you 50% of the low estimate. What’s problematic here is that if the work doesn’t sell at auction then you still have to pay back the loan. And — so I would say that the interfacing of the auction house and their making of the loan, that that’s not a fiduciary relationship that that is an arms length relationship no different than if you went out to a bank or to a special purpose financing company and sought a similar kind of loan. Katie Wilson-Milne: The buyer is paying interest to the auction house too, so it’s a profitable enterprise — Steve Schindler: Yeah and — Katie Wilson-Milne: theoretically. Steve Schindler: And it started out really as an accommodation business. I think it’s grown a little bit past that, but the idea would be if you were Sotheby’s or Christie’s and you are competing for prized consignments, one of the incentives that you would offer your consigners would be an advance. Katie Wilson-Milne: And now they can make a loan, that’s in a more traditional lending format and gets some interest in the process. Steve Schindler: Right. Katie Wilson-Milne: It sounds like we should do a whole episode on art lending and — Steve Schindler: Maybe we should — Katie Wilson-Milne: art finance. Steve Schindler: I think we will. Katie Wilson-Milne: So another way or a way that the auction houses and the auction system gets around this potential conflict between fiduciary obligations to the seller and rules of disclosure to the buyer is in their contracts. And as is always true, having a contract that lays out the terms of a relationship is a great idea and it prevents other legal claims such as breach of fiduciary duty. So it’s pretty clear in the law that you can modify fiduciary obligations by contract. And that is just what the auction houses do, so they have consigner agreements with the seller and they have terms of sale. And both of those are contractual obligations, either between the seller and the auction house, in the case of the consignment agreement and in terms of sale between all three parties the auction house, the seller, and the buyer. So what are the main contract terms that are laid out in a consignment agreement in terms of sale? One is the commissions to make clear who is benefitting from what that the seller knows there may be a buyer’s commission, if they have a share in that or not. That’s all laid out. So any potential conflict of interest is disclosed and accepted by both parties. The seller, the consigner makes representations and warranties with respect to clear title, the ability to sell the work or authority to sell the work if it’s an entity selling, authenticity of the work etc., and the contract will lay out the consequences to the seller if those warrantees and reps are not true. And that’s because as we’ve just said the auction house has a duty to the buyer which is both governed by the UCC and under the auction house’s contractual obligation to take work back within five years, if there is an issue with authenticity. The contract with the seller means they can go back to the seller and sue them if need to be to recover the value they lost from accommodating the buyer. Steve Schindler: And what happens now if the buyer doesn’t pay? There have been a couple of lawsuits that have been in the headlines lately about buyers who have made bids and then just decided not to pay. Katie Wilson-Milne: It’s kind of incredible to me that that happens that you could be a high profile enough bidder to be at a big night auction at Sotheby’s or Christie’s, that they would vet you financially ,which we know they do, and they have to. That’s smart. And it would still happen that the buyer’s like, “no actually I changed my mind, I’m not going to pay.” So — Steve Schindler: So then what happens if you are a seller? Katie Wilson-Milne: So if you’re a seller, the contract says that the auction house is under no real obligation to go and collect money for the sale. Steve Schindler: Right. Katie Wilson-Milne: Like they’re going to do their best to sell it. It’s clear you know what reps and warrantees are being made, but if the auction house doesn’t get the money, they can’t give it to you. So the seller really does bare the risk of that. Now, both the seller and the auction house may have civil causes of action where they can go after the so-called buyer who didn’t pay for breach of contract, and that is in fact what happens. If it’s enough money that it’s worth it, the auction house will sue. Steve Schindler: Right. And even they don’t have a legal obligation to do it, they probably in order to just to preserve the integrity of their auction and to entice other people to sell with them, they need to sometimes enforce the promises of buyers. Katie Wilson-Milne: They could also have a 20% interest in — Steve Schindler: That’s right too. Katie Wilson-Milne: The sale price, so it might be — it might be financially worth it for the auction house, too. Steve Schindler: Right. And what about do auction houses now concern themselves with money laundering and source of funds? Katie Wilson-Milne: They do greatly. And we deal with this a lot. There is increasing oversight I think from banks with large amounts of money moving in and out of accounts. So there’s some financial regulation, which is not regulation of the art world though, which overlaps with the art world, just because it’s about movement of funds. There is also, we know, for Chinese buyers pretty strict regulations in China with respect to how much money can leave China every year, and it’s a really low number. So there are reasons that the auction house is going to want to check into the type of client they’re dealing or the type of potential buyer to make sure that they’re not going to get caught up in some kind of regulatory investigation or lawsuit or third party subpoena where they’re going to have to turn over their records and be scrutinized. Steve Schindler: So I think it’s fair to say, and it’s not obvious, that you can’t just stroll into a high-profile auction in the evening for major pieces of Contemporary Art and pick up a paddle and then just sort of raise it away. Katie Wilson-Milne: Indeed no. Steve Schindler: That there is a lot of due diligence both on the seller’s side and the buyer’s side that the auction house is performing. That’s one of the things that — Katie Wilson-Milne: Before you get the paddle. Steve Schindler: Exactly. Katie Wilson-Milne: Yeah. And that’s probably something that’s changed dramatically and increasingly as the art market has taken off and become you know a $60 billion industry, that it becomes harder and harder to take part in one of these auctions because there is too much at stake if you don’t pay, or it’s going to get the auction house in trouble. So the contracts that the auction houses has with the seller also protects the auction house by providing a broad indemnification from the seller. So just like we were talking about a minute ago, if something goes wrong with the sale, there is a title issue despite the fact that the seller warranted there wasn’t or there is an authenticity issue, the seller says, “I am going to cover those costs for you, the auction house, including your legal fees. I’ll refund you the work.” Now, enforcing it is a different matter, but the seller does indemnify the auction house. It doesn’t directly protect the buyer. The buyer will still go to the auction house and the auction house will protect the buyer, but they can then turn around and go to the seller. It also provides that the seller is going to pay certain expenses, that there’ll be reserve prices, what happens if the reserve isn’t met, that it will be bought in, that it will be announced publicly. And then, too, I think the most significant contractual modifications of the fiduciary relationships, which are that the auction house maintains until the date of sale the right to rescind in its sole judgment if it thinks there is any liability possible. So it doesn’t even have to explain to the seller. It might want to, because they want to maintain that client relationship, but the auction house has the right until right before auction to pull a sale for any reason if it feels that there is some liability involved. And they do. They do do that. Steve Schindler: Right. And sometimes it doesn’t seem entirely fair. There was a case a couple of years ago involving a consignment of a work of Katie Nolan to Sotheby’s — Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. Steve Schindler: And Katie Nolan had prior to the sale disclaimed authorship of the work because it had been in her view improperly conserved — Katie Wilson-Milne: Was she the consigner or she — Steve Schindler: No, she was not the consigner, but she was — she was — Katie Wilson-Milne: She was the author of the work. Steve Schindler: The author of the work and we know under the Visual Artists Rights Act that the author— Katie Wilson-Milne: If you listened to our last episode. Steve Schindler: Yes. That the author of a work has the right to disclaim authorship of the work if she believes that it has been damaged in a way it would reflect poorly on her honor and integrity. And in this case, Katie Nolan had viewed the work, observed that it had been improperly conserved, in her view, and publicly disclaimed authorship of the work, at which point Sotheby’s felt compelled to pull the work from the auction because it no longer could in its view give a warranty of authenticit

united states america american new york new york city europe china british chinese european board turkey hong kong wall street qatar phillips trustees saudi contemporary auction makes abu dhabi picasso vinci united arab emirates da vinci louvre rockefeller contemporary art auctions lehman brothers sotheby confuse francis bacon postwar ucc basquiat new york city department damien hirst consumer affairs modigliani rothko katie nolan salvator mundi sothebys wolkoff louvre abu dhabi berkshire museum 5pointz york avenue

Bonus Episode: Berkshire Museum Update, Settlement Approved

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 18, 2018 14:25

Katie and Steve update listeners on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision approving the settlement reached between the Attorney General and the Berkshire Museum, which allows the Museum to sell 40 of its most valuable works of art through Sotheby’s with some (minor) conditions. Katie and Steve go over the terms of the settlement and discuss their reservations about the form (if not substance) of this resolution. Since the recording of this bonus episode, it has been reported that the yet to open Lucas Museum in Los Angeles will purchase the painting Shuffleton’s Barbershop, Norman Rockwell’s iconic masterpiece. The rest of the works will be sold gradually at auction until a total of $55 million in proceeds is reached. Memorandum of Decision Resources: https://berkshiremuseum.org/newvision/ago-summary/ http://lucasmuseum.org/news/lucas-museum-announces-acquisition-norman-rockwells-shuffletons-barbershop

los angeles museum attorney generals approved settlement barbershop sotheby memorandum norman rockwell massachusetts supreme judicial court lucas museum berkshire museum

Bonus Episode: Update on the Berkshire Museum Saga - the AG and Museum Agree to Sales

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 26, 2018 12:17

Katie and Steve give listeners an update on the Berkshire Museum deaccessioning controversy. The Massachusetts Attorney General and the Museum have reached an agreement, pending approval by the Supreme Judicial Court, permitting sales of up to $55 million with the famous Norman Rockwell painting Shuffleton's Barbershop going to an undisclosed museum. The Rockwell sons have dropped out of the litigation, but the other plaintiffs oppose the compromise and are still fighting. Resources: Berkshire Museum Cy Pres Complaint in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

sales museum saga barbershop rockwell norman rockwell massachusetts supreme judicial court massachusetts attorney general supreme judicial court berkshire museum

Episode 81: Return

NEXT New England

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 16, 2018 49:59

New Bedford, Massachusetts is known for its profitable fishing port. It even draws visitors by celebrating Moby Dick, a novel inspired by whalers there. But facing a crackdown on fishing by regulators, the city is starting to look at another source of revenue – offshore wind. We take a look inside the hidden, often lucrative world of Vermont sheriffs, and mourn (or celebrate??) the end of L.L. Bean's lifetime return policy. Plus: responding to racism on campus through art, and Palestinian storytellers in Boston. A man looks at a harpoon display at the New Bedford Whaling Museum (John Bender/RIPR) Keeping Tabs on the Sheriff When Attorney General Jeff Sessions at a speech to the National Sheriffs Association said “The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement,” he prompted many shocked observers to wonder where that leaves people of color within that heritage. It's also thrown a pretty harsh spotlight on the job of sheriff. But do you even know who your sheriff is? In 2006, an anonymous whistleblower tipped the Vermont state auditor off to financial misdeeds in the Windham County Sheriff’s Department, which was led by Sheila Prue. If you live in Connecticut, that’s a trick question! County government is nonexistent in the Nutmeg State — that’s why there are no sheriffs — but it’s not very strong in other New England states either. While Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts have elected sheriffs, their elections don’t get much attention. That lead a listener to the Vermont Public Radio podcast Brave Little State to ask: if voters aren't holding these elected officials accountable, then who is? VPR investigative reporter Emily Corwin dug in and joins us to share some surprising tales of sheriffs going bad — and virtually getting away with it. So, did that dog bed you purchased from LL Bean five years ago get chewed by its occupant? Up until last week, you could just take it back and get a replacement for no charge. But the iconic Maine company is changing its famous unconditional return policy — one that has been a part of the brand since it started more than a century ago. The change comes as a response to the growing number of customers who have been taking advantage of the policy. Maine Public Radio’s Patty Wight reports. “The Last Arrow,” by Thomas Moran, is one of the works slated for sale by the Berkshire Museum. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s And there are plenty of complaints about a deal the Massachusetts attorney general struck with Berkshire Museum. The deal allows, with some conditions, the museum to sell up to 40 works of art — including two Norman Rockwell paintings — to fund renovations and boost its endowment. A group of the museum’s members said it will press forward in a lawsuit attempting to block the sale. New England Public Radio’s Adam Frenier has more. A Maritime Past and Future in New Bedford Boats docked at the Port of New Bedford. (Lynn Arditi/RIPR) New Bedford, Massachusetts was on the front page of the New York Times this week. The headline: “A Famed Fishing Port Shudders as Its Codfather Goes to Jail.” Back in October, fishing magnate Carlos Rafael, also known as “the Codfather,” was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison for mislabeling his catch and money-laundering. But with Rafael behind bars, the men who worked for him are barred from catching groundfish with his boats. Some of Rafael's boats and permits have even been seized by regulators. And as the Times reports, the ripple effects can be felt across the usually bustling port of New Bedford, which has gone eerily quiet. Visitors listen to Moby Dick read aloud, during the annual Moby Dick Marathon at the New Bedford Whaling Museum. (John Bender/RIPR) Yet while the fishing sector sits in limbo, another industry is just gearing up off Massachusetts' South Shore — offshore wind. Right now, the Commonwealth is developing what could be the nation's first large-scale offshore wind project, and New Bedford wants to be a big part of it. Rhode Island Public Radio's environmental reporter Avory Brookins takes a look at that city's bet on offshore wind energy. In the mid 19th Century, New Bedford was one of the world’s whaling capitals. The whaling industry is long gone, but New Bedford is drawing in fans of the world most famous leviathan. RIPR’s John Bender has the story. The RIPR newsroom has been exploring New Bedford for their series “One Square Mile,” and there’s lot’s more at ripr.org. RIPR and the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth are holding a public forum on Wednesday, February 21 called “After the Codfather: The Future of New Bedford’s Fishing Industry.” Admission is free, registration required. Cultural Catharsis A painting of Trayvon Martin was part of a performance piece by Imo Nse Imeh at Westfield State University. (Jill Kaufman) NEPR An art professor recently spent four days painting a six-foot-tall portrait of Trayvon Martin, while spectators came and went. The performance took place at Westfield State University, near Springfield, Massachusetts, where last semester there were numerous reports of racist messages left around campus. New England Public Radio’s Jill Kaufman reports. Nadia Abuelezam performs on stage at “Palestinians, Live!” a night of storytelling in Cambridge, Mass, on January 28. Photo by Annie Sinsabaugh When we hear about Palestinians in the news, it's usually in the context of conflicts or negotiations with Israel. With their stories being so highly politicized, the personal narratives of Palestinians don't often make it to American ears. Nadia Abuelezam, a Palestinian-American living in the Boston area, wants to change that. In 2015, she launched an event series called Palestinians, Live! featuring true stories told on stage. The stories are later released on Palestinians Podcast, which Nadia also created. Reporter Annie Sinsabaugh went to a recent Palestinians, Live! event at the Oberon Theater in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where she found not only entertainment but a community. About NEXT NEXT is produced at WNPR. Host: John Dankosky Producer: Andrea Muraskin Executive Producer: Catie Talarski Contributors to this episode: Emily Corwin, Patty Wight, Adam Frenier, Patrick Skahill, Avory Brookins, John Bender, Jill Kaufman and Annie Sinsabaugh Music: Todd Merrell, Ben Cosgrove, “New England” by Goodnight Blue Moon, “Sama’i” and “Julnar” by Huda Asfour, “September Mountains” by “DrumTamTam” Get all the NEXT episodes. We appreciate your feedback! Send critique, suggestions, questions, story leads, and diaspora stories to next@wnpr.org. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

american university live israel future new york times massachusetts connecticut new england maine mass cambridge jail new hampshire vermont port palestinians visitors bean commonwealth springfield sama admission dartmouth moby dick trayvon martin sotheby anglo american south shore norman rockwell palestinian american new bedford vpr fishing industry ll bean john bender vermont public radio nutmeg state last arrow westfield state university carlos rafael codfather maine public radio wnpr ben cosgrove new bedford whaling museum berkshire museum brave little state new england public radio national sheriffs association

Podcast | S02 Ep5: Settlement with Attorney General Gives Berkshire Museum Nearly All It Sought

Berkshire Eagle Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 14, 2018 23:17

After intervening in the Berkshire Museum’s planned sale of $60-million worth of art works, including paintings by Norman Rockwell, the Massachusetts Attorney General reached a settlement with the museum that allows for the potential sale of all 40 works included in the institution’s original plans. Meanwhile opponents of the museum’s sale are weighing their options and considering further legal action. In this edition of the Berkshire Eagle podcast, host Mark Mills speaks with Eagle reporter Larry Parnass about the agreement between the museum and the attorney general, issues that have been raised by the controversy and the museum’s evolving mission, which is to be financed by proceeds from the art sale.

eagle attorney generals settlement sought norman rockwell mark mills massachusetts attorney general berkshire eagle berkshire museum

Can a Museum Sell Your Art?: The Berkshire Museum Saga As a Cautionary Tale

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 12, 2018 42:56

In our first full-length episode, we discuss the Berkshire Museum’s controversial decision to sell off 40 works of iconic art from its permanent collection to raise funds to rebrand itself as a science and natural history museum, and build a large endowment. Only after the regional museum had signed an agreement with Sotheby’s auction house to deaccession these works, did the museum announce its plans to the public. Museum and cultural groups, the fine arts community, and certain local constituents have passionately opposed these plans. Other stakeholders and commentators have strongly supported the museum’s efforts to monetize its collection and rebrand. We will discuss both the ethical and legal issues around deaccessioning and the Berkshire Museum’s actions in particular. We are joined by the financial and art-market journalist, Felix Salmon. More information on the Berkshire Museum and deaccessioning: From Felix Salmon: http://www.felixsalmon.com/ https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-lost-masterpieces-of-norman-rockwell-country https://hyperallergic.com/409126/berkshire-museum-battle-sothebys-auction/ More perspectives: https://berkshiremuseum.org/newvision/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2017/11/26/change-die-choice-clear-for-berkshire-museum/zLEFaUrZiXfJRNlhaVeb1K/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/01/27/the-berkshire-museum-defends-its-most-important-asset-its-open-doors/M92tisiPanIT93ZHXKysCP/story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/arts/design/berkshire-museum-art-auction-criticized.html http://www.artnews.com/2017/07/25/museum-alliance-and-directors-group-issue-open-letter-criticizing-berkshire-museums-deaccession-plan/ Litigation status and some papers: http://www.artnews.com/2018/02/05/berkshire-museum-case-heads-massachusetts-supreme-court/ http://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/big-reveal-from-ag-due-monday-on-berkshire-museum,531233 https://www.scribd.com/document/362156288/Complaint-in-Berkshire-Museum-Case http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wfcr/files/verified_complaint_b2211761_.pdf?_ga=2.41888810.982465672.1508763064-1725306865.1506095323 https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/878449/Motion%20for%20Injunction%20Pending%20Appeal(B2218262).pdf?t=1518034885672 More about deaccessioning: https://www.aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/PositionPaperDeaccessioning%2011.07.pdf https://www.npr.org/2014/08/11/339532879/as-museums-try-to-make-ends-meet-deaccession-is-the-art-worlds-dirty-word http://www.philly.com/philly/education/la-salle-museum-plans-sale-of-prized-artwork-masterpieces-20180103.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/arts/design/censured-delaware-art-museum-plans-to-divest-more-works.html http://legacy.wbur.org/2011/10/28/rose-art-museum http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/arts/design/28fink.html Episode Transcription: Steven Schindler: Hi, I’m Steven Schindler. Katie Wilson-Milne: I’m Katie Wilson-Milne. Steven Schindler: Welcome to the Art Law of Podcast, a monthly podcast exploring the places where art intersects with and interferes with the law. Katie Wilson-Milne: And vice-versa. The Art Law Podcast is sponsored by the law firm Schindler Cohen & Hochman LLP, a premier litigation and art law boutique New York City. Felix Salmon: There’s this very vivid and high-stakes debate, which people care about very much about the deaccessioning and like 99% of the planet has no idea it really exists. But, the people who care about it, care about it very much. They basically said, look at this, there is a bunch of billionaires out there in the world who are willing to pay millions and millions of dollars for the art in our little museum, and we don’t have very much money and we can raise like $50 million just by selling off all of our art. And then, honestly we would rather have $50 million then the bunch of dusty old paintings, this art is worth more to those billionaires who we don’t even know who they are, then it is to us. And, the idea of a museum being a place which preserves cultural heritage basically goes straight out the window and they get to play with this vast pool of money that they have decided they can conjure up just by selling off their paintings. Katie Wilson-Milne: In July 2017, the Berkshire Museum, a quirky museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts announced to the public that it would auction of 40 works of art from its collection. To raise more than $60 million for capital projects, to transition to a science and national history museum, and to raise a substantial endowment. Chief among the objects for sale are two premier paintings Norman Rockwell, one thought widely to be his best work, and two Alexander Calder sculptures. These works alone were estimated to bring in over $40 million. Now, when a museum decides to sell works from its collection, it is called deaccessioning. Deaccessioning is controversial and the Berkshire Museum’s decision to sell works from its collection set off a firestorm in the art community, that spawned two multi-party law suits, a devoted protest movement, and sanction in disavowal from the art and museum community. Steven Schindler: And that’s what we want to talk about in this episode. We will explore the question, ‘Can a museum sell art from its permanent collection?’ One reason why we choose to focus on this story in this episode is that it is really a great vehicle to think more generally about ethical issues around museum deaccessioning, the plight of small regional museums and about the public’s interest and ownership stake in museum art collections. Katie Wilson-Milne: These really are the questions at the heart of the Berkshire Museum story, so let’s turn to it. To really understand both sides of these issues, we need to take a step back and look at the history of the museum and the surrounding area. In 1903, a wealthy local philanthropist named Zenas Crane donated a building located in Pittsfield, Massachusetts for use as a public museum of art and artifacts. Pittsfield is a city in Western Mass, an area called the Berkshires known for its natural beauty and today a lively summer vacation and art scene. Crane wanted this museum in rural Massachusetts to be a window to the world for the area’s people. The Berkshire museum was originally located behind and operated by the Berkshire Athenaeum, and they shared a board of trustees. The museums earlier relationship with the Athenaeum is important to our story for one primary reason: The Massachusetts legislation establishing the Athenaeum in 1871 stated that its property could not be removed from the town of Pittsfield. In 1932, the museum became a separate and standalone entity. By law, the Athenaeum transferred to the museum, the museum building, its land, as well as the money and objects donated by Zenas Crane. The 1932 legislation doing this did not have any language about the property staying in Pittsfield, but it did state that museum property be used according to any written conditions of the donor. Things changed in Pittsfield in the following decades, as the trial court in the current litigations stated, “Since the 70s, the national economic winds have eroded the Berkshire County business environment resulting in many industries and businesses dying off or relocating. The population has shrunk and most importantly generous benefactors have vanished.” Steven Schindler: And it’s true, Pittsfield today is an economically struggling and depopulating city. The Berkshire Museum, the city’s main museum is in financial trouble. It operates at a significance deficit and has a relatively small endowment. In light of the museum’s financial needs, the current board of trustees embarked on a master planning process in 2015 in which they considered changes to the museum’s mission and physical layout, they also considered options for increasing revenue and reducing costs, including approaching Christie’s and Sotheby’s to value the museum’s collection. Katie Wilson-Milne: And, we should note the museums former director, Stuart Chase, has adamantly opposed deaccessioning works to pay for operating expenses, which caused a clash with the board. He was replaced with a new director, Van Shields, in 2011, who has been proponent of monetizing the museum’s collection. Steven Schindler: The board also hired a consulting firm, heald focus groups and several board retreats focused on the future of the museum. The consulting firm recommended the museum raised $25.6 million to stabilize operations and suggested the deaccessioning of 22 to 41 works of art. The board eventually opted to raise much more, a $60 million plan with $20 million to go toward transforming the museum into a science museum and $40 million toward a robust endowment. By the fall of 2016, the board had decided to sell off the most valuable parts of the museum’s collection to raise these funds. And in spring of 2017, the board signed an agreement with Sotheby’s to auction of 40 works no longer deemed relevant to the museums updated mission. Months later in July 2017, the museum announced its plan to deaccession works of art to the public for the very first time. Sotheby’s anticipated that the auctions would raise somewhere between $46 and $68 million. Katie Wilson-Milne: And, while only 40 works were up for sale out of the museum’s 40,000 or so objects, these works were the vast majority of the Berkshire Museum’s collections value, and included pieces by famous artists such as Norman Rockwell and Alexander Calder. Norman Rockwell’s painting, Shuffleton’s Barber Shop, widely thought to be his best work, alone accounts for an estimated 35% of the value of the entire museum collection. Now Norman Rockwell had lived and worked in the Berkshires and had a close relationship with the museum. He in fact had called it his favorite museum and he donated two of the works to be sold at auction to the museum himself in 1958 and 1960. Interestingly, Alexander Calder, now one of the world’s most famous sculptors with works regularly selling for tens of millions of dollars, got his start with the Berkshire Museum. His first ever public commissions flanked the existing museum’s theatre and his father’s woodwork sculptures define another of the museum spaces. Among the works to be sold are two Calder sculptures acquired in the 1930’s, when the museum was the first to give Calder an exhibition and the first museum to purchase his works. So that’s the factual background. There are many vocal supporters and opponents of what the museum’s called its “New Vision Plan” and the public outrage and legal battles comes next. Steven Schindler: So, let’s dive into the ethical and legal issues in this case. And what’s interesting to me is the overlap between the ethical and legal issues. So, starting with the ethical issues; certain museum member groups have adopted ethical guidelines for deaccessioning, and principally these groups are the American Alliance of Museums and the Association of Art Museum Directors. And, these two groups have both adopted ethical guidelines and any museum that’s affiliated with or the directors who are affiliated with these groups are really ethically bound to go along with them. Over the years, the rules for deaccessioning have developed, but in principle these ethical rules require that each museum have and adopt a set of guidelines that deal with managing their collections and how you buy and you sell art. One of the principle guidelines is that whenever you sell works of art, and there are number of reasons why museums are entitled to sell works of art, but one of the principle rules is that when you sell or deaccession works of art, the proceeds of deaccessioning should only be used to buy new works, is simply not permitted to use the proceeds of selling art to pay for electricity or to build a new movie theatre. So, for years the Berkshire Museum had a standard deacessioning policy, one that would fit right squarely within the guidelines that we’ve just been discussing, and it had on occasion deacessioned works in accordance with these kinds of guidelines, they sold works and they bought other works. But, it turns out that shortly after they consigned the 40 works to Sotheby's, somebody looked at their policy and said, “Well this doesn’t make sense and this consignment to Sotheby's is contrary to the policy that we have.” So what did they do? They amended the policy after the fact, specifically allowing the very transaction that they were contemplating. And the consequence of violating these ethical guidelines is that the museum gets sanctioned and can no longer borrow works, which is central to the core operating function of a museum. Now once this became public, the Massachusetts Cultural Council, the Smithsonian, the Peabody Essex, AAM, AAMC, AAMD, all vociferously came out against the sale and basically called this a violation of the public trust. So, these ethical guidelines are enough to ostracize the Berkshire Museum from the museum community, discourage donors from giving, and prevent it from cooperating productively with other museums in the future. They do not however make the museum’s deacessioning illegal. At least in Massachusetts, there are no laws adopting these ethical guidelines, where in New York we do have such laws, but at least in Massachusetts these are ethical guidelines and are not legally binding standards. Katie Wilson-Milne: But it’s not just an ethical issue, right Steve? Steven Schindler: No, in fact two high profile law suits have been filed. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, what are the legal arguments given that Massachusetts doesn’t have a statute prohibiting deaccessioning for operating expenses? Steven Schindler: Well, this goes back again to the history of the museum and whether the museum, under its own legal commitments and state laws, permit it to sell these works. Two groups of plaintiffs have sued the museum seeking to enjoin the sale. Now, let me describe these two law suits. The first law suit was brought primarily by the sons of Norman Rockwell, and they name the trustees of the Berkshire Museum as defendants and also brought into the law suit, Maura Healey, who is the attorney general of the State of Massachusetts, in her capacities as attorney general. The second law suit was brought by members of the Berkshire Museum. Both of these law suits were eventually consolidated and arguments were heard before the trial judge as to whether or not the sale of Sotheby should be enjoined or stopped. So, the parties before the court argued that the sale of the museum’s core art collection violates three restrictions. The first argument was that the sale of the works to Sotheby’s violated the museum’s charitable purpose, contained in its charter to be an art museum. The second argument was that the statutes creating the museum and its predecessor entity, that is the Athenaeum or Athenaeum, prevent it from selling any of the art acquired by the museum or its predecessor before 1932. And then, the third argument is that Norman Rockwell himself intended and the museum agreed that his art would remain at the museum for the community in perpetuity. So, that is the sort of first set of arguments which we can call either breach of trust, breach of contract. The second set of arguments is based upon the trustees’ of the museums alleged breach of their fiduciary duty of care to the museum. And the way that argument generally goes is that essentially that the museum’s decision to sell off the core collection of the museum was not reasonable under all of the circumstances. And that rather than undertaking an extensive survey and search to try to see if there were any other ways to keep the museum solvent while retaining the collection that they didn’t do any of those things. And, their failure to explore any alternatives, constitutes a breach of their fiduciary duty of care. Now, let me just stop here for legal concepts that are relevant. The first is how do you get an injunction and what is it? Typically, you are entitled to enjoin something from happening if you can show that you will be irreparably harmed if an injunction is not issued and that generally means that money after the fact is not going to compensate you for your loss. You also have to be able to show to the judge that you are likely to succeed on the merits and that the equities that is looking at the harm or potential harm to both sides are in your favor. And so, with this mind both cases went before the judge seeking this kind of preliminary injunction of the Sotheby sale. The other legal standard that comes into play here is a somewhat arcane concept called Standing, Legal Standing. And that question is who has the right to go to the judge and ask that action be taken on behalf of themselves or on behalf of the museum. And in this case, both of the private parties had difficulty with standing. The judge had observed that while the Rockwell heirs were indeed sons of Norman Rockwell, the problem was that they were not executor of his estate and therefore didn’t have the right to come into court on behalf of Norman Rockwell’s estate. And then, with respect to the members, the judge also observed that the trustees of the museum are the ones who have the authority to act for the museum and simply by the virtue of the fact that you are a member of a museum doesn’t mean that you are entitled to come into court and challenge the actions of the museum. I’m a member of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I pay a few hundred dollars a year for that privilege, but I can’t go into court and enjoin them from building the next new wing. Now, while the attorney general had standing to bring this law suit, the trial judge at least after hearing the case in October of 2017 decided that the attorney general did not meet the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction. And principally, the judge concluded that the attorney general was not likely to succeed on the merits of the case. After the trial court dismissed the case and denied plaintiff’s request for an injunction, the parties immediately appealed. And, now to tell us more about the controversy is Felix Salmon. Felix Salmon is a financial journalist, formerly of Portfolio Magazine and Euromoney and a former finance blogger for Reuters. He has hosted Slate’s ”Money Podcast” since 2014. Felix has recently writing about the controversy at the Berkshire Museum. Welcome to the Podcast Felix. So, why is the deaccessioning is such a big deal, why should anybody care? Felix Salmon: So, I think one way to think about this is to put yourself in the shoes of Norman Rockwell when he donates what is probably his single greatest painting, arguably his single greatest painting, Shuffleton's Barbershop, to the Berkshire Museum in the 1950s. And, back then, there was no such thing as the deaccessioning. Deacessioning only really began as a thing in the 1970s. So, when Norman Rockwell donates this painting to the Berkshire Museum, and Norman Rockwell lives in the Berkshires, he has done his entire practice in the Berkshire, he cares about the Berkshires. What is it that he is doing? And what he doing quite explicitly, and this has been recorded contemporaneous letters and back and forth between him and the then directors of museum, is he is giving his painting to the people of the Berkshires, for the people of the Berkshires, for them to look at and enjoy in perpetuity. That’s what museums do, you give your work of art to a museum, and the museum then is a custodian basically for the painting, and presents it in a certain context and manages to – and people can come to museum to see that work of art, that’s the whole point. What happens in deaccessioning is that the museum basically reneges on that agreement and says, we no longer feel that it’s our job to look after this painting and to show it to the people to the Berkshires and to use it for the benefit of the people of Berkshires, instead what we are going to do is we are going to ship it off to Sotheby’s in New York, they are going to sell it to the highest bidder who is almost certainly not going to be in the Berkshires and we are going to use the cash to build an atrium. That is clearly not what the agreement between -- no one in the original agreement when Rockwell gives that painting to the Berkshire Museum ever dreamed that might ever happen. Steven Schindler: Right. Are there any circumstances in which deaccessioning is acceptable? Felix Salmon: Absolutely. Yes. And the deaccessioning happens frequently, and it happens all the time. And grand institutions like the Museums of Modern Art or the Metropolitan Museum or any major museum you guys can think of is constantly deaccessioning their various works. Now, what they are not doing is selling off the Desmoiselles, they are not selling off Starry Night. They’re not selling off their greatest artworks. What they are doing is they are saying, we have vastly more art than we can ever show, that for whatever reason is not important or interesting or doesn’t fit into our program, and at the same time, and this is the important thing, we have a relentless appetite to stay relevant to create a program which is important to our audience, and so we need to do acquisitions. And so what they are basically doing is swapping out, and they are saying, if we sell a bunch of art here that gives us the resources to buy a bunch of out there. What art is not is asset on the balance sheet, which can be liquidated just to fill a whole in your annual P&L. That art is always in the history of museum finance been held on the balance sheet of the zero value for exactly that reason. But not that it has never happened, it has happened, but when it does happen there is nearly always a controversy and a bit of bru ha ha. And most museums directors, when they start moving in that direction, tend to do so quite apologetically and talk a lot about existential crises and how they have no choice and they’re trying to create like a whole new sustainable situation, where they’re never going to have to do this again and they’re very apologetic about it. One of the interest things about the Berkshire Museum announcement was that there was none of that and they were just enthusiastically selling off literally what seems to be well over 90% of the value of their collections. Katie Wilson-Milne: Yeah. I think we want to ask you too about what went wrong in this particular example. Because, I think for probably many of non-art world or non-museum listeners, it makes total sense for a museum to sell assets to generate liquidity when it needs to keep the lights on or to pay salaries. It’s only real asset is the art. If it doesn’t have funds coming in from another source and there is art that’s not being displayed, why not sell it? I mean, I know you disagree. Felix Salmon: Yeah. And, because I mean -- the first response to that is there is a stock versus flow problem there, you have generally don’t sell of this family silver to plug, you know, to pay a credit card bill. Steven Schindler: But, what if I wanted to do it to send my daughter to college? There has to be some discussion at some point, wouldn’t there be of weighing priorities and what is important, I mean it may be that -- my great grandmother left her prized chifforobe to be handed down from generation to generation. And then, one day I wake up and I say, well, I can either look at this dusty relic or I can sell it and send my daughter to college, and what would she rather have, because she is not here any longer to talk her about it? Felix Salmon: Right. And then – I’m sympathetic, and you of course have every right to do that. And, I’m sympathetic to anyone who pushes back against the idea that we should totally run our lives according to the wishes of dead people. You know, dead people are dead, like, let’s run our lives according to the wishes of what we are doing right now, but a museum is a living thing, and a museum exists to look after artworks and to preserve artworks. And it’s not -- as I say, that they are never allowed to deaccession, they totally are. But, that is within the context of creating a collection, not in the context of an annual shortfall. If you are having annual shortfalls, that’s a bigger issue which is hard to solve on a sustainable basis through deaccessioning. One of the things we are seeing with the Berkshire Museum is that they are actually going one step further, and they are trying to fill a kind of annual shortfall in perpetuity by selling off so much art, like that they can put it into an endowment and then just extract money from the endowment to cover these hypothetical shortfalls that they’ll will have in decades time, and that seems a little bit weird to me. The other really important thing when you talk about the deacessioning is to just have one eye on future donations, the slogan is that collectors collect art, and museums collect collectors. And so, the question is always in the back of our head, how are we going to collect the collectors? Every collector in the world is looking at you and looking at how you look after the art that you have been entrusted by previous collectors. If collectors look at you and say, well, the way you look after the art that has been entrusted to you by artists like Norman Rockwell and other previous collectors is you just sell it off to make payroll, you are not going to get very many future collectors donating you anything at all. So, in terms of the long term future of the institution, you are kind of cutting yourself off at the knee caps if you start engaging in egregious deacessioning of this form. Katie Wilson-Milne: Are you saying that, that’s the underpinning for why there are ethical guidelines on deacessioning? Felix Salmon: That’s one of the underpinnings; it’s not the only one. There is also this idea that there is a job of museums which is to keep art and to look after art and that is a very central role that museums have. One of the things you see frequently in auction catalogues is there will be some editioned work, there will be like a Warhol say, and the auction catalogue will say, this is the last of this series in private hands, and they will say, the other five are all in museums, and this is your last chance to get one of the paintings in this series, because the other five are all in museums. And what’s the thinking behind that? What's was the logic behind that? The logic behind that is obviously if the other five are all in museums, they’re never going to come on the market. That’s just an understood part of the art market, the whole art market, the way that people think about what’s available and what isn’t would change, valuations would certainly fall. Steven Schindler: Reading your articles about Berkshire Museum, I’m struck by your objections to the process of what happened, the lack of transparency in the museum’s actions. This is a situation where the museum seemed pretty careful to try to hide what they were doing from public view. Felix Salmon: There is absolutely no conceivable reason why you would sign a contract with Sotheby's, which is like an irrevocable contract, and ship the art off to New York City before you announce that you are facing financial difficulties and that you have come to the conclusion that a certain amount of the deacessioning will be necessary. What we have seen time and time again with museums is that they come out and say, “eek!” we have this really nasty cash crunch, and we are going to have to do something pretty drastic, and one of the options on the table is deacessioning of some form or another. And, once the announcement has been made, a bunch of options often start presenting themselves and people start coming along and saying, hey, I didn’t realize you are having this really nasty cash crunch, and maybe I can help out. The Berkshire Museum never gave the community that option, if there was a local benefactor say who might have been able to acquire one of the Rockwells and donate it to the Norman Rockwell Museum down the street, that would have kept the Rockwell in the Berkshires, that would provided liquidity to the Berkshire Museum, and that might have helped bridge a certain amount of gaps. So, it seems clear that there was something else going on in this case. Katie Wilson-Milne: Well, and what do you think it was, because clearly the museum’s position is they were having trouble fundraising, they didn’t have this wealthy local owner. Felix Salmon: Well one of the reasons that they were having trouble fundraising was that they fired all their fundraisers, but yes. Katie Wilson-Milne: Pittsfield especially, but the Berkshire is not a wealthy area, there are wealthy people that go in the summer to go Tanglewood or Jacob’s Pillow or do other art related things, but it doesn’t have a wealthy year-round population anymore and one of the museum’s claims, I think, or what’s implicit in their papers is that the times have changed, the population of the Berkshires had changed. You know, people were not as interested in going to look at Norman Rockwell painting or Calder sculpture. Felix Salmon: Well, that would maybe be more compelling if they’d actually tired. And, it’s interesting, because those claims are very similar, the situation of Pittsfield in Berkshire is actually very similar to the situations of North Adams which is a couple of hours -- Steven Schindler: MASS MoCA. Felix Salmon: -- further north, and not only is North Adams is home to MASS MoCA, which is a hugely successful museum, and is expanding and is doing amazing stuff right now, but it has even now started opening up new spaces and Tom Kraines wants to open up a new museum there with Frank Garry and there is a whole bunch of like interesting cultural stuff going on in North Adams, and it’s becoming a cultural destination. Pittsfield can do that too, Pittsfield is bigger it has better communications and the museum is located in the city centre, in the part of the town which is dire need of rehabilitation and that was the other thing, North Adams one of the ways that MASS MoCA put itself on the map was by getting grants from the city and state to say -- and saying like if you look help us out here we will revitalize the entire town. Katie Wilson-Milne: And they did. Felix Salmon: And they really did, it worked. And that’s something which again the Berkshire Museum never really attempted. Steven Schindler: Could you tell, and I haven’t been able to tell us from the court papers, whether or not there were any studies done to actually demonstrate that attendance was down or the people weren’t interested in coming to see these works of art, was that just something that the museum just said to justify what it was doing? Felix Salmon: The museum claimed that they spent a couple of years talking to various local stakeholders. Most of the local stakeholders who are consulted and talking about this consultation process will tell you that basically the way these meetings worked, because they get got called in and they were asked, “Do you send your kid to the Berkshire Museum’s Ooey Gooey Camp?” And they say, “Yes, we do, we love it!” And they said, “Would you like more things like Ooey Gooey Camp?” And they said, “Yes! More things like Ooey Gooey Camp would be great!” And the museum never asked should we sell our Rockwells in order to create more Ooey Gooey Camps, but they took the answers to those questions as a public buy-in to the idea that they should, they never really presented the people they were talking to with any kind of tradeoffs. And, the first that the local community ever heard that there was any kind of fiscal crisis was the announcement that they already signed this deal with Sotheby's. Steven Schindler: So, how much is the opposition coming from the local community and how much is coming from what I would view as sort of out of town elitist art snobs, like ourselves? Felix Salmon: So, this is -- the museum loves the idea that like there is a bunch of snobby art types in Boston and New York, who don’t understand the realities of Pittsfield and are out of touch and honestly like have they even been to Pittsfield and who are they to say anything, and the local community is supportive of them and all you need to do is to read the letters page of the Berkshire Eagle to understand that is totally not true and that Save The Art Campaign and various other people are genuinely grassroots. It’s not to say that there is no support. I mean, what the museum has done is really cleaved the town in two, and friendships have been broken over this and people and – there are marriages where people are on either side of it, it’s really like the big debate in Pittsfield and in the surrounding area, but there is no -- I mean, that’s primary reason for them not to have done this in the first place. Like, a museum is meant to be the focal point, a place in the town which brings the town together, instead what they have done is they have torn the town apart. That in itself is good reason not to have gone down this road. Katie Wilson-Milne: Should say that the Berkshire Eagles is the amazing local paper that has had terrific journalism about this whole saga and has actually I think changed its mind, came out in the very beginning like the Boston Globe did in favor of this New Vision Plan, and then later, after doing some serious digging, recanted that and has been pretty against deacessioning plan. Felix Salmon: To the point at which the museum is now refusing to talk to the Berkshire Eagle. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, it seems obvious to us, especially the way you are presenting it, that this was a terrible decision, no museum that knows what’s doing, would ever have deacessioned in this manner at least, if that all, to pay for capital projects, but what was the board thinking? I mean, are these people who are so completely out of touch, who have no concept of their obligations as trustees? Felix Salmon: Well, one of the things that Van Shields did when he became director was he basically put an end to any kind of acquisitions policy. The people who were in charge of acquisitions got pushed out of the museum, and the art shows in the museum started becoming less and less of a priority. There are non-art shows in the museum, it’s also a museum of natural history and science and stuff like that. The board chair is a science teacher and the role played, there was this a group of friends of the museum who would pay a $1000 a year to meet with the museum to talk about their collections and that kind of stuffs. And that group just waned to nothing, because there were no meetings. When people went up to Van Shields and said I have this collection of X, Y, Z, do you -- would you be interested in acquiring it, should that it donate it to you? Van, he would just turn around and say, you know what, don’t bother we’ll just sell it, we’ll never exhibit it. And so -- Katie Wilson-Milne: He said that out loud? Felix Salmon: He said that out loud to collectors. Katie Wilson-Milne: Wow! Steven Schindler: Wow! Felix Salmon: And so, what happened was that every -- he systematically pushed out and alienated everyone in the community who had any love for art, which meant that by the time he presented his plans to the board, there were no real -- there was no one on the board who cared about the art holdings. Katie Wilson-Milne: Because they would have already left? Felix Salmon: Exactly. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, are there any examples you know of where deacessioning was done appropriately and that should be sort of the gold standard for museums who face this quandary? Felix Salmon: So, obviously, as I say, that the way that larger successful museums like MoMa or the Met do their deaccessioning is perfectly fine – Katie Wilson-Milne: And no one objects. Felix Salmon: -- and no one objects. If what you wanted to do is use art – use proceeds from the sale art for non-acquisition purposes, the example I gave in my New Yorker piece was the New-York History Society. Katie Wilson-Milne: Right. Felix Salmon: And, they did something which was highly controversial and the lot of people to this day think they shouldn’t have done it, but what they did was what I call responsible deaccessioning. They talked to the attorney general. They talked to all of the stakeholders. They created a system whereby even if someone won the work of art being auctioned, they still wouldn’t be guaranteed that they could take it home, because any other museum in first New York State, but then anywhere else in the country would have a sort of rights of first refusal to buy it at a discount to that price. They tried very hard to keep that art in the museum world broadly defined, but I will say that this is – that litigating this stuff in the courts as this is being done is a clear sign that something has gone very, very wrong, like it should never reach this point. And there were other things which are clear signs, like for instance if you are going to be a museum of science and art, two of the works being sold are very important Calder pieces, which were acquired by the museum. They were the first works that Calder ever sold to any museum. They were part not only of the museum’s attempt to show great art in the Berkshires, but they were also very scientifically important. They were motorized in a way that no art had ever been done before. And of course Calder and his dad Stirling Calder, who built a bunch of the upstairs room in Berkshire Museum where were very local, like, these works are so integral to not only the mission of the museum, but also to the history of the museum that you would never sell them. Like that would, it would be thinkable to sell them and the idea they just got sort of piled into this job lot without so much as a second thought, again is the indication that something just went hardly wrong here. If you are going to be an art museum of the Berkshires, then frankly Calder and Rockwell are the top two names that you want to have, because those are the two great Berkshires artists. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, will it be different if what was being deaccessioned wasn’t art. Is there something special about art that makes people so upset at this prospect they wouldn’t be true if it was a significance piece of furniture from a certain period or some kind of non-art object that had historical significance? Is there something about art? Felix Salmon: I think what happened is that the valuations that artists been able to achieve in the secondary market have skewed incentives that there is really no non-art object that a museum is likely to own, which you could send off to Sotheby's and which could fetch $30 or $40 million. Steven Schindler: There are the 40,000 other things that they had in their collection. Felix Salmon: And none of those were being -- Katie Wilson-Milne: Were worth nothing, right. Felix Salmon: Consigned, exactly, and Sotheby's had no interest in those. And it’s not just the Berkshire Museum, it’s pretty much all museums. You could go along to the Met and you could take all of the furniture in the Met and consign it at Sotheby's and add it altogether and it would be worth less than one of their paintings. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, they just never do it, because it wouldn’t raise the money? Felix Salmon: It doesn’t move the needle. Katie Wilson-Milne: So, in conclusion; museum sells art all the time, deaccessioning is a common form of collections management. But, it is accepted by the museum and fine art community only if the funds go to buy new art, not to the operations of the museum like salaries, renovations, et cetera. That puts a small regional museum, which is asset rich, but cash poor in a difficult position. And while there may be legal reasons why a museum can’t sell its own art, such as if the donor put a restriction on the sale of the work, the museum agents violate fiduciary obligations or the sale is illegal from some independent reason, they are typically far more ethical and moral concerns at play. Steven Schindler: And that’s it for today’s podcast. Katie Wilson-Milne: We will share information about the Berkshire Museum and other deaccessioning controversies on the podcast website, artlawpodcast.com, and in the show notes, as well as some more information on our guest Felix Salmon. Steven Schindler: And please subscribe to us on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts and send us feedback at podcast@schlaw.com. We would love to hear from you. Katie Wilson-Milne: Until next time, I’m Katie Wilson-Milne. Steven Schindler: And I’m Steven Schindler bringing you the art law podcast, a podcast exploring the places where art intersects with and interferes with the law. Katie Wilson-Milne: And vice-versa. Produced by Jackie Santos

new york new york city art state chief massachusetts standing museum saga pl new yorker motion slate complaints new york state reuters boston globe smithsonian andy warhol museums crane pillow litigation barbershop calder modern art moma rockwell berkshire cautionary tales sotheby metropolitan museum berkshires money podcast norman rockwell starry night pittsfield tanglewood western mass american alliance aam athenaeum north adams aamc mass moca alexander calder maura healey felix salmon berkshire county massachusetts cultural council sell your art euromoney art law berkshire eagle norman rockwell museum legal standing berkshire museum

Episode 68: Referendum

NEXT New England

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 16, 2017 49:53

This week, we're talking ballot questions. Why are more of them showing up in voting booths in states like Maine and Massachusetts, and how much power do elected officials have to tinker with citizen-passed laws? Plus, a Puerto Rican family is reunited in Holyoke, Mass., and a Vermont veteran with PTSD finds a way to heal, through farming. Listen to the end, and we’ll take you to the most peaceful place in the universe. Marijuana plants are harvested and hung in a processing facility in Franklin, Mass. Currently only medical cannabis sales are legal in Massachusetts. A referendum passed in 2016 set the date for legal recreational sales to begin at January 1, 2018. But a law passed this summer by the state legislature pushed the date to July 1, 2018. Photo by Jesse Costa for WBUR Power to the People? Mainer Kathleen Phelps speaks in favor of expanding Medicaid at a news conference in Portland. Me. on Oct. 13, 2016. Photo by Patti Wight for Maine Public Maine voters earlier this month approved a ballot measure that would expand the Medicaid program, making it available to more than 70,000 Mainers. But Governor Paul LePage — who used his veto power to block past legislative attempts to expand Medicaid — has said he won't implement Medicaid expansion until the statehouse appropriates funds to pay for the state's share of the program. Last year, Maine and Massachusetts voters approved legalizing recreational marijuana through a referendum — but in both states, lawmakers have altered the legislation, raising taxes and pushing back the start date for legal weed sales. Looking forward to 2018, Boston public radio station WBUR recently polled Massachusetts residents on three questions proposed for next year’s election. Respondents showed overwhelming support for initiatives to institute paid family leave, raise taxes on millionaires, and lower the sales tax. All this left us thinking: how powerful are ballot questions when the will of the people is later overhauled by their legislators? And why are they showing up more frequently in states like Maine and Massachusetts in recent years? Joining us to help answer those questions are Steve Mistler, chief political corespondent for Maine Public Radio, and Colin A. Young, Massachusetts statehouse reporter for the Statehouse News Service. Trying to Find Stability Kristin, an active drug user, finds a syringe and a mirror from the tent she once lived in that other drug users took over. She says methamphetamine users use the mirror as an aid to inject themselves in their neck. Photo by Jesse Costa for WBUR According to Massachusetts Department of Health data, homeless individuals who use heroin or fentanyl experience an overdose-related death rate 30 times higher than people with stable housing. The finding is no surprise to drug users who live on the streets or in the woods, as WBUR's Martha Bebinger discovered on a visit to an urban tent community in Greater Boston. Solimari Alicea hands baby Yedriel to German Santini to hold. Photo by Jesse Costa for WBUR WBUR reporter Simón Rios has been charting the influx of Puerto Ricans into Massachusetts since Hurricane Maria left much of the island without power, water, or infrastructure. He went to Holyoke, and introduces us to two young parents who are trying to get their feet on the ground. Next we travel a bit further west on the Mass. Pike to the bucolic Berkshires. Those hills are alive with art — museums, galleries, theater and dance companies, and the summer home of the Boston Pops, Tanglewood. “La Fete,” by Raoul Dufy, is one of the works slated for sale by the Berkshire Museum. Image courtesy of Sotheby’s But the arts community has been in turmoil over a plan by the Berkshire Museum to sell off some of its artwork — including two Norman Rockwell paintings — to fund an expansion. The plan angered many in the art world, and got the attention of the state's Attorney General, who's working to stop the sale. Our guest Adam Frenier, Berkshire County reporter for New England Public Radio, has been following the story closely. Finally at Peace Pigs grub for food on a veteran-owned farm in Norwich, Vt. Photo by Peter Hirschfeld for VPR Nearly 4,000 Vermont veterans have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11, and many are still dealing with the invisible wounds of the nation's longest-running war. Some of them, however, have begun to find healing through farming. Vermont Public Radio’s Peter Hirschfeld brings us the story of Brett, an army vet who says learning to raise livestock saved his life. Read and listen to more stories of veterans-turned-farmers in Vermont. Life on a farm may sound peaceful enough to you. But New Hampshire Public Radio's Sean Hurley says he's found the most peaceful place in the universe. It's a spot he calls Moose Painting Pond. Sean Hurley looks out over “Moose Painting Pond.” Photo by Sean Hurley for NHPR Do you have a question about New England you’d like NEXT to investigate? Tell us about it here. About NEXT NEXT is produced at WNPR. Host: John Dankosky Producer: Andrea Muraskin Executive Producer: Catie Talarski Contributors to this episode: Martha Bebinger, Simón Rios, Peter Hirschfeld, Sean Hurley Music: Todd Merrell, “New England” by Goodnight Blue Moon, “Hotline Bling” by Drake, “Unsquare Dance” by David Brubeck, “Shameless” by Ani DiFranco Get all the NEXT episodes. We appreciate your feedback! Send praise, critique, suggestions, questions, and sound recordings of the most peaceful place in your personal universe to next@wnpr.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

health afghanistan portland ptsd massachusetts iraq new england maine mass vermont marijuana sim rios attorney generals medicaid puerto rican shameless norwich pike referendum vt sotheby hurricane maria puerto ricans berkshires greater boston norman rockwell wbur hotline bling respondents holyoke tanglewood boston pops massachusetts department mainers vermont public radio berkshire county maine public radio wnpr sean hurley berkshire museum new england public radio

TLC #53: Word × Word and Fiction Of Now

The Top Left Corner

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 6, 2017 33:10

Fiction Of Now Poetry in the age of post-truth Pittsfield, Mass.—WordXWord presents Fiction of Now, a program of work by poets spanning a wide range of ages and styles, October 6, 8P at the Berkshire Museum 39 South Street, Pittsfield, MA. The performance will take place in the physical context of Berkshire Museum’s Morgan Bulkeley: Nature Culture Clash, a career retrospective of the artist’s work. Admission is free. Fiction of Now Poetry in the Age of Post-Truth Friday, October 6, 8:00 p.m. … The post TLC #53: Word × Word and Fiction Of Now appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

poetry mass fiction tlc admission post truth south street pittsfield word word berkshire museum greylock glass

No. 46: When Museums Sell Their Art, Where Should the Money Go?

Artsy

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 31, 2017 21:41

Last month, a new row broke out in the art world around the Berkshire Museum’s decision to auction off 40 works by artists such as Norman Rockwell and Alexander Calder to pay for a renovation and boost their endowment. But this latest controversy represents just one installment in the long-running debate about “deaccessioning,” or the disposal of objects from a museum’s collection. On this episode, we’re joined by law professor Brian L. Frye who walks us through the history of the regulations surrounding deaccessioning and how it became the hot-button issue it is today.

museums frye norman rockwell money go alexander calder berkshire museum brian l frye

Will Call Episode #55.8, BONUS: No FAKE Art Parties at 10X10! Just Real Ones.

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 23, 2017 25:21

We speak in this micro-cast with Danielle Steinmann, president of the Berkshire Art Association, and Sara Clement, a photographer who is one of the many artists who have contributed to this much anticipated tradition of the 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival. “Winter's Wings,” by Julie Street; photo courtesy Berkshire Art Association.Berkshire Art Association is at it again! Artists from the Berkshires and beyond are contributing 10×10 inch original works of art to be given away for just $25 each during the 10×10 RAP (Real Art Party) at the Berkshire Museum on Thursday, February 23, 2017. A $25 ARTtix guarantees the buyer The post Will Call Episode #55.8, BONUS: No FAKE Art Parties at 10X10! Just Real Ones. appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

artists wings parties berkshires real ones 10x10 no fake berkshire museum greylock glass

Will Call Episode #55.8, BONUS: No FAKE Art Parties at 10X10! Just Real Ones.

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 23, 2017 25:21

We speak in this micro-cast with Danielle Steinmann, president of the Berkshire Art Association, and Sara Clement, a photographer who is one of the many artists who have contributed to this much anticipated tradition of the 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival. “Winter’s Wings,” by Julie Street; photo courtesy Berkshire Art Association.Berkshire Art Association is at it again! Artists from the Berkshires and beyond are contributing 10×10 inch original works of art to be given away for just $25 each during the 10×10 RAP (Real Art Party) at the Berkshire Museum on Thursday, February 23, 2017.… The post Will Call Episode #55.8, BONUS: No FAKE Art Parties at 10X10! Just Real Ones. appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

artists wings parties berkshires real ones 10x10 no fake berkshire museum greylock glass

Will Call Episode #55.3, BONUS: WordXWord Lends 10 New Voices to 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 19, 2017 9:52

This is a special bonus episode connected with our coverage of the 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival taking place in Pittsfield now through February 26. We'll be airing 10 episodes running 10 minutes each throughout the duration of the Festival. 10 New Voices February 20, at 7:00 p.m. Berkshire Museum 39 South Street, Pittsfield, Mass. Cost: FREE To hear Kate Abbott's overview of the events and interviews with a selection of this year's participants, listen to Episode #55 of Will Call, which you can find right on our homepage. On Monday, February 20, at 7:00 p.m., WordxWord will present 10 New The post Will Call Episode #55.3, BONUS: WordXWord Lends 10 New Voices to 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

festival mass arts festival new voices south street lends pittsfield 10x10 will call berkshire museum greylock glass

Will Call Episode #55.3, BONUS: WordXWord Lends 10 New Voices to 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2017 9:52

This is a special bonus episode connected with our coverage of the 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival taking place in Pittsfield now through February 26. We’ll be airing 10 episodes running 10 minutes each throughout the duration of the Festival. 10 New Voices February 20, at 7:00 p.m. Berkshire Museum 39 South Street, Pittsfield, Mass. Cost: FREE To hear Kate Abbott’s overview of the events and interviews with a selection of this year’s participants, listen to Episode #55 of Will Call, which you can find right on our homepage.… The post Will Call Episode #55.3, BONUS: WordXWord Lends 10 New Voices to 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

festival mass arts festival new voices south street lends pittsfield 10x10 will call berkshire museum greylock glass

Will Call #55: 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival hits Pittsfield for its sixth year!

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 16, 2017 60:00

The 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival Explodes into Its 6th Year. The 6th Annual 10×10 Festival is February 16-26, 2017. Participants and locations include Barrington Stage Company, the Beacon Cinema, Berkshire Athenaeum & Berkshire Historical Society, Berkshire Art Association, Berkshire International Film Festival (BIFF), Berkshire Museum, Berkshire Running Center, Berkshire Yoga Dance & Fitness, Dottie's Coffee Lounge, Jacob's Pillow Dance, Word X Word. *note You may begin with young poets curating an evening of spoken word — or with a rising comedian from New York — or with Brazilian jazz, bossa nova and blues. You may begin with young poets curating The post Will Call #55: 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival hits Pittsfield for its sixth year! appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

new york fitness festival hits brazilian sixth arts festival pittsfield 10x10 barrington stage company will call berkshire museum greylock glass

Will Call #55: 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival hits Pittsfield for its sixth year!

Listen With The Lights On

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 16, 2017 60:00

The 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival Explodes into Its 6th Year. The 6th Annual 10×10 Festival is February 16-26, 2017. Participants and locations include Barrington Stage Company, the Beacon Cinema, Berkshire Athenaeum & Berkshire Historical Society, Berkshire Art Association, Berkshire International Film Festival (BIFF), Berkshire Museum, Berkshire Running Center, Berkshire Yoga Dance & Fitness, Dottie’s Coffee Lounge, Jacob’s Pillow Dance, Word X Word. *note You may begin with young poets curating an evening of spoken word — or with a rising comedian from New York — or with Brazilian jazz, bossa nova and blues.… The post Will Call #55: 10X10 Upstreet Arts Festival hits Pittsfield for its sixth year! appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

new york fitness festival hits brazilian sixth arts festival pittsfield 10x10 barrington stage company will call berkshire museum greylock glass

S01 Episode 8: One month later, making sense of the 2016 election

Berkshire Eagle Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 9, 2016 34:13

Journalist Alex MacGillis of ProPublica discusses reasons behind Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election. From FBI director James Comey's shocking announcement about emails related to Hillary Clinton found on Anthony Weiner's computer, to the millions of dollars Clinton made speaking to Wall Street bankers and other business groups to the Democratic party's neglect of struggling white working class voters, MacGillis dissects the major themes that determined the outcome of the 2016 run for the White House. A Pittsfield native, MacGillis covers politics and government for ProPublica, a non-profit online investigative journalism organization. MacGillis spoke to a packed house at the Berkshire Museum in an event sponsored by the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Berkshire Community College, the Berkshire Eagle and the Berkshire Museum. MacGillis was interviewed by Berkshire Eagle editor Kevin Moran.

donald trump white house wall street democratic clinton hillary clinton making sense one month james comey propublica 2016 election anthony weiner pittsfield osher lifelong learning institute kevin moran berkshire eagle berkshire museum berkshire community college

Bonus Episode: Museum People LIVE!

Museum People

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2016 60:09

Bonus Episode: Museum People LIVE! Join the fun with Marieke and Dan at the 98th Annual NEMA Conference, where Museum People took center stage in a live podcast session on Veteran’s Day, 2016. This special episode features an in-depth panel discussion with three museum professionals who are also veterans (Terry Dickinson of the Newport Mansions, Ted Gaffney of Florence Griswold Museum, and Van Shields of Berkshire Museum), discussing service, leadership, and how museums compare with the military. Adding to the excitement is a raffle drawing for a Museum People interview, won by Chuck Clark of Castle in the Clouds, and questions from the live studio audience. And of course there’s the usual assortment of person on the street interviews and witty banter between the co-hosts. 01:45 Person on the Street interviews10:30 Panel discussion with military veterans45:25 “Raffle” interview

veterans panel castle clouds raffles marieke chuck clark berkshire museum museum people

S01 Episode 3: Can the nation heal after the contentious election campaign of 2016?

Berkshire Eagle Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2016 40:26

Presidential politics is the focus of this edition of The Berkshire Eagle podcast. In the hour preceding the third and final presidential debate on Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016, Berkshire Eagle editor Kevin Moran moderated a panel discussion about the election and the nation’s future. The event was held at the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield. Panelists included Samantha Pettey, assistant professor of political science in the department of History, Political Science, and Public Policy at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts; Rabbi David Weiner of Congregation Knesset Israel in Pittsfield; and Bill Everhart, editorial page editor of The Berkshire Eagle. The Berkshire Eagle podcast host is Mark Mills.

history israel heal presidential political science public policy panelists liberal arts contentious election campaign pittsfield massachusetts college mark mills kevin moran berkshire eagle berkshire museum

Something Scary At The Museum

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2016 5:35

Ever wonder what lives in the cavernous storage rooms of a museum? Crates of artifacts, mixed with mummified remains and taxidermy? Or is there something even spookier? We visit the “Something Scary” exhibit at the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield Massachusetts in this episode of Listen with the Lights On to unearth a few creepy delights. […]

halloween museum scary spooky scary stories crates lights on something scary llo berkshire museum pittsfield massachusetts jessica bloustein marshall

Will Call #47 — Governor Slashes Arts Funding, Part 2 with Van Shields of the Berkshire Museum

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 18, 2016 25:19

Governor Charlie Baker issued a budget veto on July 8 that would slash funding for the arts, humanities, and sciences through the Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC) by more than half. The cut would exceed the value of MCC’s two largest grant programs, reducing state cultural funding to levels not seen since 1994. In this episode, we speak with Van Shields, executive director of the Berkshire Museum, about some of the ways that programs supported by the MCC have had an impact on the lives of residents across the county and state.… The post Will Call #47 — Governor Slashes Arts Funding, Part 2 with Van Shields of the Berkshire Museum appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

governor shields mcc charlie baker slashes arts funding massachusetts cultural council will call berkshire museum greylock glass

Will Call #47 — Governor Slashes Arts Funding, Part 2 with Van Shields of the Berkshire Museum

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 18, 2016 25:19

Governor Charlie Baker issued a budget veto on July 8 that would slash funding for the arts, humanities, and sciences through the Massachusetts Cultural Council (MCC) by more than half. The cut would exceed the value of MCC's two largest grant programs, reducing state cultural funding to levels not seen since 1994. In this episode, we speak with Van Shields, executive director of the Berkshire Museum, about some of the ways that programs supported by the MCC have had an impact on the lives of residents across the county and state. Shields points out the now universally understood link between The post Will Call #47 — Governor Slashes Arts Funding, Part 2 with Van Shields of the Berkshire Museum appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

governor shields mcc charlie baker slashes arts funding will call berkshire museum greylock glass

Will Call #37 — Festival of Trees at the Berkshire Museum

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 30, 2015 32:33

It's a grand celebration of the American West with the Festival of Trees 2015: Westward Ho Ho Ho! on view to the public from Saturday, November 14, 2015, through Sunday, January 3, 2016. Berkshire Museum Director of Development Nina Garlington, and Director of Communications Lesley Ann Beck talk with Gail about this annual holiday event, which this year features more than 100 twinkling, tantalizing holiday trees decorated to evoke the adventure and romance of the American West. Festival of Trees 2015: Westward Ho Ho Ho! is proudly sponsored by Hill Engineers, Architects, Planners Inc.; Pittsfield Cooperative Bank; RBC Wealth The post Will Call #37 — Festival of Trees at the Berkshire Museum appeared first on The Greylock Glass.

director festival trees architects american west festival of trees will call berkshire museum greylock glass

Will Call #37 — Festival of Trees at the Berkshire Museum