Art experts break down Pollock controversy

DAVENPORT - Selling a painting donated to a museum involves more than creating a scholarship fund for art students - it also would result in extensive ramifications for the museum, the community and the art world, leading art professionals in Iowa said Sunday.

A gathering of 50 people learned about the issues involved in a quelled controversy during the art talk “The Pollock ‘Mural' Debate: What Have We Learned?” at the Figge Art Museum in Davenport, where “Mural” is on display.

The presentation was a collaborative effort of the Figge and the University of Iowa Museum of Art to address efforts by Iowa legislators to sell the Jackson Pollock painting, which is worth an estimated $140 million, to fund scholarships for UI students. House Study Bill 84 stipulated that the state Board of Regents sell “Mural.”

Sean O'Harrow, the UI museum's executive director, and Andrew Butler, president of the Figge board, discussed the role of art objects and art museums in public education, and how cultural institutions advance economic development. Both responded to questions and comments from the audience.

“(The issue) is not only about art. It's about people,” O'Harrow said, adding that there were “some fundamental misunderstandings” about the concept of selling the painting.

The UI received “Mural” and a number of other paintings from New York philanthropist and art collector Peggy Guggenheim, who had commissioned Pollock to create it in 1943.

The idea of selling some of the works was discussed in the 1960s, but Guggenheim objected, saying she had given the paintings to the university “in good faith” and that they were to be used to teach students. The university assured her then that the works would not be sold, O'Harrow said.

The Flood of 2008 damaged the University of Iowa museum, “and a lot of works went to Chicago because that was the quickest arrangement that could be made. It was an emergency situation,” O'Harrow said. “This magnificent edifice (the Figge) that we're in right now could accommodate a lot of the collection,” which then was returned to Iowa.

“The primary purpose of getting the art back is to save it and preserve it,” he said.

The subsequent Iowa House bill that proposed selling the painting to provide art scholarships “caught us all by surprise,” O'Harrow said. The bill was withdrawn because there wasn't enough support for it, he said, so “The issue is closed for the moment, but it can come up again.”

Selling the painting, he said, would not only bring de-accreditation for the museum, but it would weaken the facility's prospects for future donations.

Butler said the state of Iowa is part of international competition to bring qualified business people to the community.

“It's so important to have resources in the community to draw people here,” he said.

When students are exposed to art, “Art will make them more creative individuals,” he said.

The proposal “absolutely sends the wrong message in trying to attract talent back to Iowa,” Butler said.

“I almost feel that if we were talking about a great Renaissance work of art, it would be less likely for a legislator to want to sell it,” attendee Linda Lewis of Davenport said after the discussion.

- By Linda Cook, Quad-City Times