We trust these people to take care of our needs because they are skilled in their professions and are more or less experts at what they do. They have a mastery of a profession that others do not.
So why are museums so freely criticized by those who do not understand the laws and processes surrounding museum operations?
I think a lot of it has to do with the idea that museums hold the public's objects and promises to take care of them... forever. On the one hand, I am pleased when the public feels a sense of ownership for the objects in the museum. On the other hand, I hate it when the people feeling ownership are completely illogical.
I think it must be common knowledge that people who rant on message boards and leave irate comments IN ALL CAPS at the bottom of web articles are not people to be reasoned with. But darn it if I won't try!
This rant stems from a civil war (or, "war of northern aggression", as I've learned it's called down in Florida) flag that has ties to Custer (from Monroe, MI) and is owned by the DIA... but now the museum has plans to sell it.
The flag, complete with commemorative Custer illustration.
On June 25, 1876, George Armstrong Custer, the pride of Monroe, led the 7th Cavalry into battle against the Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne near the Little Bighorn River in Montana. It was not, shall we say, Custer’s finest hour. All 210 men under his immediate command died in the massacre. So did Custer.Eventually, Rose sold the flag to the DIA for about $50. Now, the DIA has decided to put the flag up for auction at Sotherby's, where they expect it will sell for somewhere between 2 and 5 million dollars.
As a burial detail surveyed the carnage a few days later, Sgt. Ferdinand Culbertson discovered a tattered swallow-tail American flag, known as a guidon, hidden beneath a dead soldier. He picked it up, folded it and squeezed it into his pocket. Four years later, according to an 1895 Free Press report headlined “Memento of a Massacre,” the first written document of the flag’s history, Culbertson gave it to Rose Fowler, whose husband was a military man. After Mr. Fowler died, his wife married another soldier and retired to southwest Detroit.
Currently, the DIA's collections budget (their budget for buying new art) is about $3 million. If the flag sold for the expected amount, it could more than double that budget.
Fantastic, right?
Well, some people aren't so thrilled and they're even writing goofy letters to the editor about it.
There are so many ridiculous things in this article, I don't even know where to start...
"This isn't a piece of surplus artwork; this a priceless piece of history"
Exactly. It's not art! I agree that the flag has value, but so does all of the "surplus" art in the museum. The flag doesn't fit within the mission or collections policy, so it simply has no place in the DIA. There are no civil war historians on staff, thus there is no one to interpret the work. There are no other civil war objects in the collection, thus there is no context in which to display it. Should the flag remain in the DIA, it will stay in storage; unseen and unexplained. Forever.
"give the people of Michigan time to donate and raise money so that the flag could stay here"
Seriously? There have been countless fundraising campaigns over the years to support the DIA. Did you donate then? At the risk of sounding cliche, I will ask, given the economic troubles in Michigan at the moment, is raising $5 million to keep a single flag really at the top of everyone's priority list?
"I highly doubt that the soldier who gave his life protecting this flag had this in mind as he tucked it under his body."
Well, I guess we'll never know. An art historian probably can't tell you much about the circumstances under which this flag was salvaged.
I know I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I mean, I worked at a historical museum for several years. I am not one to try and devalue historical objects. However, historical objects belong in historical museums, with experts than can interpret them correctly.
"Imagine if this flag ends up in Russia, China or the Middle East"
Wait... what? Is this guy for real?
On other message boards and comment threads, people are all up in arms about the idea that there may be blood on the flag. I've seen a lot of civil war flags (our historical museum had a hugely impressive collection of them) and many of them do have blood, dirt, grass stains, etc. from the battles-- so it is very possible that this flag does indeed have some blood on it.
So here's what people are saying about that:
"If this is Native American blood, wouldn't this fall under the various repatriation acts that require the flag to be returned to Native American tribes involved with the battle?"
Now, I don't claim to be a NAGPRA expert, but I know what the acronym stands for, so I feel that qualifies me enough to comment on this. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act exists to (rightfully) protect Native American graves, remains, and funerary and religious artifacts. I don't believe that blood spattered on a flag qualifies as any of those things.
"If this is the blood of an American soldier, shouldn't it be returned to the family of the soldier who died possessing it?"
We don't know who that soldier was. We only know who picked it up and put it in his pocket-- and that guy willingly donated it to Rose, who willingly sold it to the DIA for $50. Why is nobody mad at Rose Fowler? There was no DIA curator at the battle of Little Bighorn, going around and ripping flags out from under fallen soldiers.
"If this was a flag used during a U.S. military operation, isn't it the property of the U.S. government?"
I can't say for certain that the flag was not, at one time, government property. What I do know is that enough time has passed that the DIA does legally own the flag and can do with it what they please.
There are also many comments lamenting the sale as the DIA's "shameful" way to "make a buck". I know I don't need to say this to any of my peers, but the money earned in the auction of the flag will not pay anyone's salary, nor will it keep the lights on in the galleries. That money will be used exclusively for the purchase of great art-- art that will enrich the DIA's collection and serve the museum's mission of "creating experiences that help visitors find personal meaning in art".
The value of this flag comes from the story it can tell-- yet that story will not be heard and meaning will not be garnered if it remains in storage at the DIA.
Very well said and I totally agree. It dosn't make any sense for the DIA to have that flag in the first place. It wasnt used by anyone in Detroit, it is not institutional, or art.
ReplyDeleteIt is funny that everyone who was commenting on those articles would have never known the DIA even had the flag until they were going to sell it...because it was in storage and never on display.