Is UIMA's Pollock a 'capital' asset? (No.)

Over the summer I argued that arts leaders in and around Iowa needed to do more than tell their boards that they were opposed to the University of Iowa assessing and/or potentially selling Jackson Pollock's iconic 1943 Mural. I wrote that they needed to be be publicly out front on the issue, telling Iowans about their treasure, about why the work was important, about why putting dollar values on art held in the public trust was silly, inappropriate and irrelevant.

Virtually none did. (Several outside figures, such as the relevant AAMD committee chair and major university art museum directors did.) Major regional players, such as the Art Institute of Chicago's Jim Cuno said nary a word about the University of Iowa Museum of Art's treasure. True: The director of Iowa's largest museum, the Des Moines Art Center's Jeff Fleming, belatedly came out opposed to any sale. However he complained to me about being 'made' to publicly walk the plank and said: "I don't think that anyone should ever have a bully platform on which to speak. I think perhaps there are better ways to get things accomplished."

All of which makes Monday's so-stupid-it-hurts Erin Jordan Des Moines Register story rather maddening. The story asks "Should U of I art collection raise awareness -- or cash?" Now, I'm not sure why it should do either; the question is a ridiculous, fictional construction. ("Awareness?" Huh?) The story makes it obvious that Jordan doesn't understand what museums or non-profits are or what they do.

She seems to base her premise/story on this quote: "It's reasonable for the school to have some investment in art because that's what it's teaching students," said Ed Failor Jr., president of Iowans for Tax Relief. But "is it responsible to have that much capital when tuition rates keep climbing?"

Memo to Jordan, the Register and Failor, Jr.: The Pollock is not a 'capital' asset. It is a painting, part of America's cultural heritage. It is in a museum collection. Besides: Is it responsible of the school to have capital tied up in science labs and libraries when tuition rates keep climbing? Stop trying to treat a painting like a bank deposit. 

Of course this latest brouhaha never should have gotten to the point where this kind of silliness is still being discussed. It would be silly to lay one dumb newspaper article at the feet of any one individual. But clearly Iowa's arts leaders missed an opportunity for leadership when the Pollock issue was burning hottest. 

Leaders such as Fleming should have led. They should have been on NPR, on the local evening news, and on Iowa's op-ed pages seizing upon an opportunity to explain the importance of art, museums and museum collections. Instead they turned an opportunity into a continuing siege. While the University of Iowa regents have tabled the sale idea, Jordan's story makes it clear that the Iowa Pollock is likely to remain an issue in the months ahead.

Let this serve as a reminder to museum directors: Your job requires you to do more than just raise money. You have the power -- the responsibility -- to be the leading pro-arts voice in your community. If you don't advocate for the importance of art and artists, who will? If you don't make the case for why your institution matters, for why collections matter, for why America's cultural heritage matters, who will? If you keep silent while other museums and collections are attacked, who will be there for you?

When you shirk the responsibility of leadership, you are doing art, artists and your fellow museums a disservice. If you aren't willing to be public in your support of what a museum is, what art means to a community, about how culture and the preservation and display of it is critical to the American story, get another job.

Related: The Dallas Museum of Art and the Frisco kids.