Selling ‘Mural’ would be a mistake

By The Gazette Editorial Board

---

A House Appropriations subcommittee has passed a bill that would force the University of Iowa to sell the world-famous Jackson Pollock “Mural” painting to fund student scholarships.

Legislators who voted for the idea had good intentions. But it's a shortsighted idea - one that seems to contradict the prevailing legislative push toward sustainable budgeting and spending.

And there are several other sound reasons for rejecting the bill.

The bill to sell “Mural” was introduced by House Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Scott Raecker. It would mandate the painting's sale and create an endowment to provide $5 million in scholarships each year for resident UI students majoring in art.

As Raecker put it to a reporter: “If we have an asset valued at $100 million to $150 million, it had been in storage in Chicago, now at a museum at Davenport, are we not better served to have those resources deployed to actually educate Iowa students in the arts?”

Higher education is expensive and getting more so all the time for students, who are paying a growing share of tuition at state universities. Plenty of UI art students could use the help.

But so could students in other fields of study, and thousands of their peers at Iowa State, the University of Northern Iowa and other schools. If “Mural” is sold, would that mean those schools also should be forced to sell valuable assets?

It also isn't wise to support the sale, as some do, just because the painting is not on campus and likely won't be soon because of the 2008 flood. Might such a sale lead legislators to require the UI to sell more or all of the artwork currently on loan as the UI continues to recover from the flood? Once a new art museum is built, what then - should the UI just buy new artwork? Absurd.

“Mural” is uniquely valuable - an estimated $140 million. It was a gift given to the UI in 1951 from famed art collector Peggy Guggenheim with the intent that the university community would enjoy and learn from it. Selling the painting might well have a chilling effect on future donations.

The Association of Art Museum Directors and the American Association of Museums have opposed the sale, warning that selling the painting could violate standards of ethics for museums to care for gifts such as “Mural.”

Just as important, decisions about how and whether to sell university assets should be made by the Board of Regents that governs Iowa's public universities - not the Legislature.

Bottom line: Selling “Mural” would be unjustified legislative micromanaging and a long-term mistake.

n Comments: thegazette.com/

category/opinion/editorial or

editorial@sourcemedia.net