Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

A Gross Uproar

A Month That Has Shaken the Art World

November 2006 By Denny Hatch
7
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

In the News

Jefferson alums rip sale of Eakins
At a packed meeting Wednesday night, alumni of Thomas Jefferson University expressed their dismay at the school’s decision to sell Thomas Eakins’ incomparable painting, The Gross Clinic, and at the secrecy with which the sale was conducted, participants said.
—Stephan Salisbury, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 17, 2006
For years, I had known of the great painting The Gross Clinic, by 19th century artist Thomas Eakins, that was housed in one of Philadelphia’s many obscure museums. In 10 years of living in Philadelphia, I’d never seen it.

Finally, when it came to the Philadelphia Museum of Art as part of the 2001-2002 exhibition, “Thomas Eakins: American Realist,” I was able to spend time with it.

It is a beauty (see the illustration at the end of this article)—a monumental work described by the Inquirer art critic Edward J. Sozanski “as the greatest work by the city’s most famous and talented artist. Any list of the top 10 American paintings must include Thomas Eakins’ painting, notable both for its multiple levels of meaning and for its compositional power and technical brilliance.”

The scene is of a gory operation being performed by four surgeons wearing black business outfits in the Jefferson Hospital amphitheater. The centerpiece is Dr. Samuel D. Gross, also in black formal wear, lecturing to the medical students behind him in the gallery.

Two weeks ago, Philadelphians awoke to the announcement that this great treasure—compared by some to Rembrandt’s Night Watch—had been sold by Thomas Jefferson University to a private buyer for $68 million in a secret deal.

The culture vultures of Philly—who have been given 45 days to match the offer—have been in a snit ever since.

Should a corporation sell off its assets when it needs money?

Hell, yes!

The Reader’s Digest Collection
When my wife, Peggy, and I took over Target Marketing, I wrote a cover story about the new list person at Reader’s Digest and motored up to the Pleasantville, N.Y., headquarters for the interview, which took place in the executive offices.

As I rounded a corner in the building, I beheld Modigliani’s 1919 Portrait de Jeanne Hebuterne, with a sweet face, and wearing a black top and maroon skirt. The figure was composed of an elegant series of swoops and S-shapes, and it was hanging over a small table with a vase of fresh flowers beneath it. A matching portrait was similarly hung on the opposite side of the room. I was agog.

In the words of Bachman-Turner Overdrive, “B-B-B-Baby, you just ain’t seen n-n-n-nothin’ yet!”

Takeaway Points to Consider:

* Jefferson University—wisely, I believe—decided that its business model is education rather than hoarding art and took action.

* Reader’s Digest also decided that its business model was publishing and that its loyalty was to its employees, customers and stockholders, rather than its art collection, and took action.

* As a direct marketer, I believe the main asset of a business is a roster of happy customers and that the next most important assets are between the ears of its employees. It shouldn’t be the art on the walls unless the business is a museum.

* I can’t count the number of clients I had in the 1970s and 1980s that were given large sums of money to start magazines, whereupon they opened big flashy offices, hired employees, bought art and went broke.

* Is your business sitting on assets that aren’t being used?

* Last week, G.M. and Ford—both in desperate financial shape—agreed to put up for collateral many of their prime assets in order to secure loans. Back in the 1960s, when I was stone broke, I pawned a gold watch. Same thing with G.M. and Ford, just more zeros on the amount received.

* If you want art in the office, buy prints. They’re pretty, and it’s no big deal if the cleaning people walk off with one.

* Poke holes in the arguments of your associates, but not in a $139 million Picasso.

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

The Eakins Gallery, Thomas Jefferson University
http://www.jefferson.edu/eakins/

The Reader’s Digest Collection
http://tinyurl.com/y3apna

The Dream Garden by Parrish and Tiffany
http://tinyurl.com/e9vje

The Queen’s Newly Discovered Caravaggio
http://tinyurl.com/y5vqwh

Picasso’s Le Reve, Destroyed by Steve Wynn
http://tinyurl.com/2fpsf

Sotheby’s
http://search.sothebys.com/

Christie’s
http://www.christies.com
 
7

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Jason Seperic - Posted on November 22, 2006
Denny, no doubt you have heard about the recent Andrew Lloyd-Webber fiasco involving a Picasso piece? If not, here is the URL of the story. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/article-23373781-details/Nazi+claim+halts+sale+of+Lloyd+Webber's+Picasso/article.do
Incredible that such a moral claim can be made now. As I read the story originally (but who knows how many transmutations these stories go through in the modern media) that Prof Shoepps ancestor put the painting up for sale into a depressed art market. I think the moral issue here isn't that the Nazi's stole the painting... it's that the painting was sold (perhaps under duress), but we've all had to divest assets in "less-than-perfect" circumstances. What makes this different?
Ann Guyer - Posted on November 22, 2006
Denny- Although point taken about offering for sale assets that don't impact income when income is sorely needed- the artwork may be available and appreciated when liquid funds have long since been spent on equipment, operations, marketing or management bonuses.
Art in the workplace inspires creativity and a sense of well-being. Posters get dusty and tired. During periods of high profitability- why not? It's a good investment of another sort. (Remember, that at the beginning, the purchase in major part was a contribution to the arts as well.)
Sean Giorgianni - Posted on November 21, 2006
Previous posts misplaced two important takeaways. First, a humble spirit gathers rewards beyond measure (the Huntington Library Curator). And second, charity defines us as people (the founder of Reader's Digest). C'mon folks, we're all too busy being offended or having an opinion to put our cynicism aside for a day and humbly seek to help others. Frankly, I'm tired of it. Whiners to the right, energetic do-gooders to the left! See my personal website for my personal response to this. Whatever the case, Denny's hit another home run.
DB - Posted on November 21, 2006
I don't believe Reader's Digest's primary loyalty was to its employees, customers or stockholders --- rather a need to find a bailout of horrendous management miscues over quite a few years. The sale wasn't just the artwork, but employee jobs, benefits, the buildings themselves, and now the entire company.
jd - Posted on November 21, 2006
When folks make so much money tha they can no longer relate to the people who helped them earn it, they buy trophies. Art, and other collectables are a way of reminding us they made the business what it is -- they are "the man". In the credit card business MBNA was the poster child for this behavior. Once the founders took all the cream from the top and sold off the business the corporate honchos sold the toys. Again, to pay the bills for an overvalued, tired company who had once been the flash in the pan. Look a little closer and there are a few wannabes too. Take Advanta, once the up and comer in the credit card world, led by Dennis Alter who had art envy. He painted that business into a corner trying to emulate the MBNA cult-like model.
Rob Finley - Posted on November 21, 2006
Since the painting is going to be exhibited permanently at the National Gallery of Art in D.C., I don't see a problem, other than the secretive part, which seems unfortunate. This is not a University in Financial trouble, however. Since the community has the 45 days to buy the painting, all seems fair enough.
David Garfinkel - Posted on November 21, 2006
Recently I heard Robert Kiyosaki in a teleseminar, say: "It's not about your product. It's about how many people you serve." I thought that was a brilliant perspective and that seems to be among your points here, Denny. People get all huffy about their imagined entitlements, but really, at the end of the day, what's it all about? With art, it's about conveying an experience to as many people as possible, if the people want it and the art merits it. You're right, people forget that. They need stinging diatribes like this article to help them remember and keep things, well, in perspective.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Jason Seperic - Posted on November 22, 2006
Denny, no doubt you have heard about the recent Andrew Lloyd-Webber fiasco involving a Picasso piece? If not, here is the URL of the story. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/article-23373781-details/Nazi+claim+halts+sale+of+Lloyd+Webber's+Picasso/article.do
Incredible that such a moral claim can be made now. As I read the story originally (but who knows how many transmutations these stories go through in the modern media) that Prof Shoepps ancestor put the painting up for sale into a depressed art market. I think the moral issue here isn't that the Nazi's stole the painting... it's that the painting was sold (perhaps under duress), but we've all had to divest assets in "less-than-perfect" circumstances. What makes this different?
Ann Guyer - Posted on November 22, 2006
Denny- Although point taken about offering for sale assets that don't impact income when income is sorely needed- the artwork may be available and appreciated when liquid funds have long since been spent on equipment, operations, marketing or management bonuses.
Art in the workplace inspires creativity and a sense of well-being. Posters get dusty and tired. During periods of high profitability- why not? It's a good investment of another sort. (Remember, that at the beginning, the purchase in major part was a contribution to the arts as well.)
Sean Giorgianni - Posted on November 21, 2006
Previous posts misplaced two important takeaways. First, a humble spirit gathers rewards beyond measure (the Huntington Library Curator). And second, charity defines us as people (the founder of Reader's Digest). C'mon folks, we're all too busy being offended or having an opinion to put our cynicism aside for a day and humbly seek to help others. Frankly, I'm tired of it. Whiners to the right, energetic do-gooders to the left! See my personal website for my personal response to this. Whatever the case, Denny's hit another home run.
DB - Posted on November 21, 2006
I don't believe Reader's Digest's primary loyalty was to its employees, customers or stockholders --- rather a need to find a bailout of horrendous management miscues over quite a few years. The sale wasn't just the artwork, but employee jobs, benefits, the buildings themselves, and now the entire company.
jd - Posted on November 21, 2006
When folks make so much money tha they can no longer relate to the people who helped them earn it, they buy trophies. Art, and other collectables are a way of reminding us they made the business what it is -- they are "the man". In the credit card business MBNA was the poster child for this behavior. Once the founders took all the cream from the top and sold off the business the corporate honchos sold the toys. Again, to pay the bills for an overvalued, tired company who had once been the flash in the pan. Look a little closer and there are a few wannabes too. Take Advanta, once the up and comer in the credit card world, led by Dennis Alter who had art envy. He painted that business into a corner trying to emulate the MBNA cult-like model.
Rob Finley - Posted on November 21, 2006
Since the painting is going to be exhibited permanently at the National Gallery of Art in D.C., I don't see a problem, other than the secretive part, which seems unfortunate. This is not a University in Financial trouble, however. Since the community has the 45 days to buy the painting, all seems fair enough.
David Garfinkel - Posted on November 21, 2006
Recently I heard Robert Kiyosaki in a teleseminar, say: "It's not about your product. It's about how many people you serve." I thought that was a brilliant perspective and that seems to be among your points here, Denny. People get all huffy about their imagined entitlements, but really, at the end of the day, what's it all about? With art, it's about conveying an experience to as many people as possible, if the people want it and the art merits it. You're right, people forget that. They need stinging diatribes like this article to help them remember and keep things, well, in perspective.