Q&A with Rose Art Museum director Michael Rush

By almost any standard, the Rose Art Museum is a model university art museum. It has a fine collection. It exhibits it regularly and creatively. It provides a place for the vanguard to emerge. Administratively, the museum draws about half of its operating budget from endowment funds -- a stunningly high percentage. So when I talked with Michael Rush, the Rose's director this morning, he was eager to point out that what's happening at the Rose has nothing to do with the Rose and everything to do with Brandeis. To read more about the history of the Rose, click here. [Image: Marsden Hartley's Musical Theme (Oriental Symphony), 1913, from the collection of the Rose Art Museum, dammit.]

MAN: Are you encouraging your trustees to explore legal options?

Michael Rush: I'm encouraging everybody to take every step they want to take. There are any number of things going on right now. There are Facebook groups, a 'Save the Rose' website. And we have several lawyers on the board who are absolutely looking into legal issues.

One thing that is not coming out -- clearly -- is this: Some of these really well-meaning young alums are doing the Obama routine of having people send small amounts of money. As darling as that is, it's misguided. The Rose is not in financial trouble. We're secure. I can't say that strongly enough. We're meeting our fundraising goals. We're doing fine. We have a tight managerial structure. We're utterly responsible. There's no trouble for the Rose.

This is all about selling the artwork. If the university gives any indication that they're selling the Rose to save money, that's untrue. They're just selling the artwork. The university doesn't give us a penny. We are financially autonomous within the university. They don't pay our salaries or anything, just below-the-line costs like the heat and the lights. That's not going to change if they get rid of us - they're going to use the building for something else, and they'll have those same costs.

So this does not change their equation economically at all. In fact it hurts them: Not only do they not give us any cash, all of our income is 'taxed' at 15 percent. We actually pay them. So they're losing the 15 percent that we raise that they take off the top of our hard-earned money. And believe me, it's hard-earned.

MAN: Just judging from the outrage I read in Geoff Edgers' Globe story this morning, you have some absolutely irate board members.

MR: Yes. Lois Foster [who is prominently quoted in the Globe story] has been more involved with [the Rose] than anyone has ever been. She's been on the board and she has been writing 'thank-you' notes in her own hand for 40 years. She's been the glue of this place. Many of our members are members because of both her and her recently deceased husband. He was president of the university board. If Henry had been there, this would not have happened. [Image: Jasper Johns' Drawer, 1957. Collection of the Rose Art Museum, dammit.]

MAN: Given that she's a significant donor, is she exploring legal options?

MR: She's not going there. She's an 80-year-old woman. She's coming up to Boston for an operation. She's not walking very well. She's clearly expressed her opinion to the president, but she's not a rabble-rouser that way. But she is angry. Her comments are very unusual. It shows the degree of anger and feelings of betrayal. We all feel so betrayed. Terribly betrayed. I've been here three years. Ironically for me, my tenure here has been totally identified with this collection: Bringing it out, raising money for storage, tripling the insurance for it. It's been all about our collection.

MAN: So there are trustees that are engaged with the attorney general, that are examining their standing to take legal action and so on?

MR: Yes. I haven't [talked with the attorney general's office]. I was with my board chair [Jonathan Lee] last night and a few other people. He's going to be talking with the attorney general and the governor too.

MAN: You mentioned earlier in our conversation that the Rose had an endowment that, at its peak was at $20 million and that it's down about 25 percent because of the recent market drop. The Rose's donors gave that money to the Rose, not to Brandeis. So if Brandeis closes the Rose, does Brandeis essentially 'steal' that money?

MR: I don't know what to say about that. If the Rose is closed, yeah, the university would take it over.

Their due diligence will involve examination of all the endowments and the intentions of the endowment, the ones that are restricted. Many of our endowments are restricted. One is restricted to the director's salary, that one is from from the Fosters. There's another that is restricted to the maintenance of the Foster Wing. Our biggest endowments are restricted to acquisitions, that can only be used for the purchase of art.

MAN: Ah, so when you deaccessioned the Hassam a few years back because your collection and mission is modern and contemporary art, you put that money into a restricted endowment?

MR: Yes.

MAN: It seems to me that one of the ironic absurdities in all of this is that the major collection catalogue that the Rose is about to publish could essentially be turned into a sales prospectus.

MR: That's another huge story. I heard yesterday that at some other meeting about the future of all things Rose -- to which we were not invited -- there was support for continuing the publication of the catalogue! [Image: Roy Lichtenstein, Forget It, Forget Me, 1962. Collection of the Rose Art Museum, dammit.]

As for its being a sales prospectus, I hope not. I'm not privy to any discussions in this regard. We've just been cut out of all discussions here. When I heard they were having a big pow-wow with university officials and none of us were invited, not staff, not the director, not the board, not even the people we know so well who are our friends... well, I'll tell you, I know the catalogue intimately. They will have to change several sentences because they're all geared toward the greatness of the Rose and the history of the Rose. The president has a 'thank-you' in it and an acknowledgment of how great the Rose was. September is the publication date. It is in production. It's being edited. It's being designed and printed.

MAN: You've also done a superb job of making the collection accessible, and not just through the catalogue.

MR: Our Johns is going to Philly for their Cezanne show. Our Hartley is opening tonight at the Guggenheim. Another is about to go to the Reina Sofia.

You know, you can talk about our relatively low foot-traffic for a museum. The point of the greatness of this place is not the hundreds of thousands of people who come here in one day. But there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who see Rose artworks, clearly marked form as being from here, at the Louvre, the Tate, the Art Institute of Chicago, and so on. At any given time, hundreds of thousands of people are seeing work from Brandeis, from the Rose Art Museum.

And this is really important too: We gave the first museum exhibitions to -- off the top of my head -- Kiki Smith, Louise Nevelson, Dana Schutz, Roxy Paine, Alexis Rockman... the list goes on and on. It's not about audience. So much great and significant and influential work was performed in front of three people. Merce Cunningham, John Cage, The Wooster Group... people who eventually drew large crowds. That's never, ever the point. That's the great freedom of an institution like ours: That never has to be a primary impulse. We never have to say, 'What's going to bring them in the door?'

MAN: It seems likely to me that legal machinations will likely extend beyond June. So what happens to all of you then?

MR: Our jobs are guaranteed until June 30. We're very much on the job market. My staff is the greatest group of people in the world. I can't communicate how stunning this is to all of us.