January 28, 2009, 11:24 AM ET

Closing the Doors to Art

“Liberal Arts Without the Art” (from Flickr user Mike Licht)

On Monday, Brandeis University announced it would sell off the entire collection of its 48-year-old Rose Art Museum and shut it down. Like colleges and universities everywhere, Brandeis is suffering steep losses in its endowment, and the university faces a $10-million operating deficit. By any standard, the Rose is a first-rate museum, with a collection of more than 6,000 works that concentrates on modern and contemporary art. Its collection was built from donations of works of art and money specifically given to the museum. It includes critical works of art by such prominent giants as Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, Roy Lichtenstein, and Andy Warhol. In theory, the collection could bring as much as $300-million or $400-million at auction; in practice, given the current art market, that figure is doubtful.

The art world — museum people, art historians, artists, and art lovers — is reeling. Michael Rush, the director of the Rose, reacted to the decision by saying, “I was shocked. I’m still shocked. I feel horrible. It’s a sad time for art and for the art world.”

There have been several instances over the years where colleges have tried to sell individual works of art (almost inevitably resulting in ethical, if not legal, questions), but to actually close a museum of the stature of the Rose is unprecedented. To maintain accreditation by the American Associations of Museums, college art museums must abide by strict rules regarding the deaccessioning of art. None of those rules, however, seems to prevent a college or university from simply chucking the whole museum. Seen in the light of financial expediency, Brandeis has made a rather clever, if draconian, move.

“These are extraordinary times,” Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz said in making the announcement, adding that the university could “only do what we have been entrusted to do — act responsibly with the best interests of our students and their futures foremost in mind.”

I beg to disagree. It smells distinctly like panic-induced sweat. Bad times in the market, Brandeis trustees who made bad investment decisions, bad university management, and the significant loss of regular Brandeis donors who themselves lost huge amounts of money, caused a financial crisis on campus. The board is plucking the closest, choicest, juiciest fruit (i.e., its most liquid “asset”) from the drooping Brandeis tree.

Art — that useless, unnecessary, expensive to maintain, rarified, mostly in your imagination “thing” becomes, on the turn of a dime, nothing but a crude commodity, to be bought and sold like corn. Many admire art in theory, but in practice only a few love it.

I can almost hear the speeches that I can reasonably assume to have been given over the years, of Brandeis presidents and provosts heaping fulsome praise on the Rose Museum and its collection. I can almost see them standing up at dinner parties to toast the generosity of Rose donors, or softly patting the backs of directors of the Rose for their brilliant stewardship. “The Rose,” they would have always said, beaming with pride, “represents our ongoing commitment to culture.”

There is no ongoing commitment to culture at Brandeis. What they once encouraged to flourish they are now going to destroy. The Massachusetts attorney general’s office is required to approve certain decisions made by nonprofits in the state. It has announced it will review the wills and agreements made between the Rose and its estate donors to see if the Brandeis decision to sell the collection violates any terms of the donations. That will take some time — perhaps enough to give Brandeis a chance to reconsider. In so doing, maybe Brandeis will rediscover its better self.