MoMA Comments on Four-Year Disappearance of Rockefeller’s Fractional-Gift Picasso

David Rockefeller

In reponse to my inquiry last week about the prolonged absence from the Museum of Modern Art's galleries of Picasso's early Cubist masterpiece, "The Reservoir, Horta de Ebro," 1909, Kim Mitchell, the museum's spokesperson, informed me late Friday afternoon that the painting (a fractional and promised gift to MoMA from its honorary chairman, David Rockefeller) "will likely go on view again sometime this year."

That would certainly be a welcome development. But why has it remained unseen for four years, when it had been intended to make up for the loss of another 1909 Horta Picasso, bequeathed to MoMA in 1979 by David's brother, Nelson?

MoMA's ex-Nelson "Houses on the Hill, Horta de Ebro" was sold in 2003 to the late dealer/collector Heinz Berggruen, who must have been amazed at his good fortune in acquiring a work that no sensible museum would ordinarily part with.

The absence of David's Picasso from MoMA's walls became even more problematic after the passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which requires that museums accepting fractional gifts have "substantial physical possession of the property" during the donation process.

Here's what MoMA spokesperson Mitchell told me:

After the law was passed in 2006 with new provisions regarding fractional gifts, MoMA refined its policies with respect to, amongst other things, compliance with the possession requirements of the law by instituting annual curatorial department reviews of all fractional gifts to assess their physical presence and to determine what is needed from an exhibition, educational or research-related perspective and to evaluate requests made by donors of fractional gifts.

Regarding the details of fractional gifts like the Horta painting, our policy is not to disclose specifics of the transaction (i.e., percentages, terms of donation, location of work when not at MoMA). We deal privately with the donor on these details on a case-by-case basis.

Regarding the annual review by curatorial depts, the goal is to fulfill the museum's mission by keeping the work on view and in use for exhibition, museum research and educational purposes for a period of time that is roughly commensurate with the fraction given. The review is conducted annually, and it takes the above factors into consideration in weighing our discussions with the donors about possession.

So for example, if a work was fractionally given to us in 1991 [as was David's Picasso], we would look at that entire exhibition history, the museum's current needs and its future plans.

What's wrong with this (aside from the lamentable loss of Nelson's full-time, permanent-collection Picasso) is the utter lack of transparency regarding fractional gifts. MoMA says that its "mission" is to keep partly given works "for a period of time that is roughly commensurate with the fraction given." But the museum declined to answer my question as to whether David has by now given MoMA more than the original 10% interest that he bestowed in 1991. So we have to take on faith that its future display (unlike past display) will be commensurate with the partial gift, whatever that is.

How many other museums have been disregarding the letter or spirit of the new law on fractional gifts? We don't know, because museums don't publish lists of such objects, along with the degree of the museum's fractional interest and how many months of the year the objects are physically on museum premises. It seems to me that fractional disclosure needs to become full disclosure.

What's more, the recent changes in the law make MoMA's bad idea of 2003 look even worse now. Some museums that had been counting on the completion of fractional gifts initiated before the enactment of new law (which also sharply decreased the tax advantages of incremental donations) are now finding that donors are having second thoughts.

One of the comments that didn't make it into my posts (here and here) excerpting my recent interview with Richard Armstrong, the Guggenheim Foundation's new director, related to his experience, when he was director of Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Art, with a fractional-gift donor who got cold feet because of the new law:

We exchanged back the object for some cash. We gave back the interest in the object....I don't think it's very widespread but it happens. It's one of the realities.

This is not to say that David Rockefeller is going to renege when MoMA gently suggests that it needs his Picasso for regular display on its own walls. I think the odds that MoMA won't ultimately receive full ownership of David's Horta masterpiece are slim to nil. 

It's just to say that nothing's permanent until it's permanent. A fractional or promised gift is somewhat speculative. It's no substitute for something a museum fully owns.