An article on the Chronicle of Philanthropy website the other day piqued my interest: Why Fund Raisers Should Pay Attention to a Donor’s Art Collection.
It was worse than I imagined.
The article reported on a session at the conference of the Association of Prospect Researchers for Advancement, which is took place in Anaheim last week. The session, given by a research analyst at the Alumni Relations and Development Department at the University of Chicago named Linlin Chen, was called “The Art of Valuing Art.” Her bio says she also interned in the
Chen, according to the Chronicle article, included this anecdote in her talk:
…she noticed a prospective donor lending a piece of his Asian art collection to a small exhibit in a South Carolina museum. The University of Chicago had tried to interest him to be a donor previously but was unsuccessful. But once she informed fund raisers of his interest in ancient Chinese art, the donor was informed of a potential exhibit that would feature his collection. His interest was piqued.
I am shocked, shocked…
One knows such things go on, in private conversation — though many in the museum world deny it. But for a fundraising professional to be baldly holding up such as transaction as an example to be emulated is appalling.
APRA has a code of ethics: it consists of one-page, and while it deals with personal conflicts of interest, there is no mention of such conflicts for the institution.
There should be.
Chen also schooled fundraisers in how to tell how much someone is worth via their collection. Acknowleding that the market is not transparent, she directed her colleagues to “auction databases, art catalogs, news coverage, anecdotal evidence–even court documents,” the article said. It added: “Sales-price databases such as Sotheby’s online, Christie’s online, ArtNet, ArtPrice, Findartinfo, and ArtValue can help, as well as the Mei Moses Fine Art Index.”