Tom Freudenheim, the former deputy director and chief operating officer of the Jewish
\nMuseum in Berlin, sends this message — a tongue-lashing for the Museum of Modern Art over its
\nnegligence in the Egon Schiele case and for NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dworkin over his and NPR’s
\nfoul treatment of reporter David D’Arcy:<\/P>
\n
\n
Re the MoMA\/NPR\/D’Arcy
\nissue:<\/FONT><\/B><\/A> No recent mention has been made of the fact that this entire problem
\nwould never have come into being had MoMA requested a Certificate of Immunity from Seizure,
\nwhich is a guarantee routinely issued by the State Department. That is just plain negligence on the
\nmuseum’s part, and is the reason that the NYState authorities were able to intervene on behalf of
\nthe Bondi Family. Had the museum done its job properly, then the issue would have gone back to
\nthe Austrian courts, just as MoMA now claims is appropriate. This may well be one reason that
\nMoMA’s PR machine is working so hard to cover its bare ass.
\n<\/P>
\nIt should also be noted that the sole inaccuracy in the D’Arcy story was not on D’Arcy’s part,
\nbut rather in Melissa Block’s (i.e., NPR\/ATC) erroneous introduction of the story, suggesting that
\nthe Schiele painting was part of MoMA’s collection (which obviously D’Arcy never even
\nimplied).<\/P>
\nThis is an outrageous situation which should not be permitted to go away easily.<\/P>
\nHerewith a copy of my letter to the Ombudsman….<\/P>
\nMr. Dvorkin:<\/P>
\nYou seem intent on compounding errors in your comment about the MoMA situation. I’m
\nsure you’re a very busy man, but it might have helped if you had read through the transcripts of
\nyour own broadcast. I am the ‘critic’ you mention, and what I said was “But I guess the sense of
\nresponsibility to museum ownership and the kind of — oh, I hate — I guess I can use the word —
\ngreed that museums have about just not letting go of what they have in their little fists trumps any
\nother kind of loyalties or feelings that people have.” I was talking about ‘museums’ and feel quite
\njustified in doing so, having directed various ones for a number of years. Your own Melissa Block
\nsuggested in her lead that the painting might belong to the museum, but you have presumably not
\nsanctioned her for the error. The Robert Siegel’s follow-up [sort of] clarifies that the painting was
\nactually on loan to the museum. I note that you haven’t discarded these two ATC stalwarts (yes, I
\nknow they are employees, and D’Arcy was not, and therefore presumably more disposable).<\/P>
\nMore reprehensible, from my point of view, is your failure to take note of the fact that, as a
\nresponsible journalist, D’Arcy contacted MoMA while assembling his story, but the museum
\nwould not comment for him. You now state that “MoMA’s position is that the Austrian courts
\nmust decide the painting’s legal owners, since the painting was in the United States only as part of
\na loan arrangement.” And yet the correction that NPR\/ATC issued on 27 January stated that “the
\nmuseum’s statement, made to NPR, that it had never taken a position on the question of the
\npainting’s ownership.” These are opposing statements on the part of NPR, and you ought to
\naddress this important contradition responsibly, instead of carping about NPR being accused of
\ncaving in under pressure. As a long-time supporter of NPR, I’m waiting to see evidence to the
\ncontrary. <\/P>
\n