Tag: Shuffleton’s Barbershop

And the Mystery Buyer of Berkshire Museum Shuffleton’s Barbershop by Norman Rockwell is…Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

Posted on by Catherine

No surprise! Here’s the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art press release about the Berkshire Museum deaccession. George Lucas already paid a record breaking price– 46 million–back in 2013 for Saying Grace, one of his numerous major Rockwells. Shuffleton’s Barbershop could have surpassed that price; the market won’t know unless Lucas opts to sell it at a public auction some future date.

1950 Norman Rockwell syaing grace

(photo above – Norman Rockwell, Saying Grace, collection Lucas Museum Narrative Art)

Thirteen more Berkshire Museum works (including another Rockwell Blacksmith’s Boy – Heel and Toe) will be sold at Sotheby’s auctions beginning May 14, 2018:

  • John La Farge, Magnolia, 1859–60. Estimate $200,000–300,000.
  • Charles François Daubigny, Paysans allant aux champs (Le Matin). Estimate $70,000–100,000.
  • Henry Moore, Three Seated Women, 1942. Estimate $400,000–600,000.
  • Alexander Calder, Double Arc and Sphere, executed circa 1932. Estimate $2,000,000–3,000,000. (*oddly just one of a site specific commisioned pair for the Berkshire Museum)
  • Francis Picabia, Force comique, 1914. Estimate $800,000–1,200,000.
  • Adriaen Isenbrant, The Temptation of Adam and Eve. Estimate $150,000–200,000.
  • William Bouguereau, The Newborn Lamb, 1873. Estimate $1,500,000–2,000,000. (**November cover lot pulled from sale last fall)
  • Alberto Pasini, Faubourg de Constantinople, 1877. Estimate $700,000–1,000,000.
  • Adriaen Isenbrant, The Flight into Egypt. Estimate $150,000–200,000.
  • William Bouguereau, Les deux sĹ“urs, 1884. Estimate $2,000,000–3,000,000.
  • Norman Rockwell, Blacksmith’s Boy – Heel and Toe, 1940. Estimate $7,000,000–10,000,000.
  • Frederic Edwin Church, Valley of Santa Isabel, New Granada, 1875. Estimate $5,000,000–7,000,000.
  • Rembrandt Peale, George Washington. Estimate $200,000–300,000.
  • Norman Rockwell, Shuffleton’s Barbershop, 1950. Acquired privately by a nonprofit American museum.
  • (the Vuillard and 25 more aren’t listed at this time)

sothebys berkshire museum may 2018.jpg

press release from Lucas Museum APR 11, 2018

Lucas Museum of Art.jpg

Lucas Museum Announces Acquisition of Norman Rockwell’s ‘Shuffleton’s Barbershop’

Museum ensures iconic masterwork remains in public view

Los Angeles, CA (April 11, 2018) – The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art today announced the acquisition of Norman Rockwell’s masterwork Shuffleton’s Barbershop. The 1950 painting, which had been in the collection of the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, MA, has been the subject of considerable attention in recent months.

“As a museum dedicated to celebrating visual storytelling, we are honored to become the public steward of this major work,” said Don Bacigalupi, Founding President of the Lucas Museum. “Norman Rockwell is one of our nation’s most important storytellers, and this cultural treasure will continue to be seen and enjoyed by the public in an American museum, where it will be a source of inspiration for generations to come.”

The Lucas Museum recently broke ground and launched construction in Los Angeles, and is expected to open to the public in 2022. 

Shuffleton’s Barbershop, revered as one of the most iconic works of Rockwell’s storied career, will join an expansive collection of works by the artist, including Saying Grace (1951) and After the Prom (1957). 

These works will be featured prominently on public view to allow museum visitors to explore the power and importance of visual storytelling. The Lucas Museum will engage visitors of all ages in educational programs that highlight prominent examples of narrative art in a variety of mediums, periods and cultures. 

With the acquisition, the Lucas Museum announced a cross-country partnership whereby Shuffleton’s Barbershop will be on long-term loan to the Norman Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, for public display commencing later this year and extending into 2020. The Lucas Museum will also explore opportunities to loan the painting to other museums in Massachusetts and elsewhere in order to maximize public access to this beloved work of art.

“We are immensely grateful to the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art for ensuring that Norman Rockwell’s masterpiece Shuffleton’s Barbershopwill continue to be available to and enjoyed by the public. We thank the Museum for generously loaning the painting to the Norman Rockwell Museum while the Lucas Museum is under construction in Los Angeles,” stated Laurie Norton Moffatt, Norman Rockwell Museum Director and CEO. “It is especially meaningful for the people of Berkshire County who will have the opportunity to enjoy this masterpiece for a few more years, knowing that it will remain in the public realm. We look forward to continuing to work with our friends at the Lucas Museum to create educational opportunities and appreciation of the narrative art of illustration, including ongoing collection-sharing.” Continue reading “And the Mystery Buyer of Berkshire Museum Shuffleton’s Barbershop by Norman Rockwell is…Lucas Museum of Narrative Art” →

Justice Lowy to Berkshire Museum Attorney Lee at Massachusetts Supreme Court: “So in other words, I have to tell you, I’m watching two different movies.”

Posted on by Catherine

In 2017, the Berkshire Museum was sued multiple times because of the possible sales of 40 works of art at public auctions. The art has long left the building. The winning consignor, Sotheby’s auction house, received all property prior to the 2017 public announcement from museum leadership blowing its “New Vision” horn. The art remains on hold at Sotheby’s.

At high noon on March 20, 2018, in Courtroom 2 of the John Adams Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts, Justice David Lowy presided over the ongoing Berkshire Museum deaccession litigation. Four attorneys, two for each side, were summoned before the Massachusetts Supreme Court to argue positions. Justice Lowy began the hearing by addressing the elephant in the room. He announced that because the Attorney General Office and the Berkshire Museum, former adversaries, petitioned the court together for necessary relief, he thought it was important to hear opposing views. Therefore, he invited amici to present their arguments, too.

(A third amicus brief by a former director of Museum Services at Bonhams auction house, Martin Gammon,  has since been filed and is under review.)

Naturally, this hearing was welcome news for opponents of the museum’s plans to liquidate a priceless core collection in favor of a makeover, still reeling from their perception that the Attorney General abdicated mightily February 9, 2018. Trustees, who believe the museum is broke and will shutter any day if not for this new strategy, were disheartened but determined.

Justice Lowy made the stunning announcement upfront that restrictions do apply, and are a given. The Office of the Attorney General (AGO) and the Supreme Court agree about standing. The museum maintains it has the right to liquidate. The only way that any art can be sold is if the legal contracts pertaining to the Berkshire Museum’s charter and mission and provenance for the art are abandoned because the museum successfully conveys its pending demise. Then it gets a do-over. The legal term is cy pres (pronounced say, pray. I prefer pray stay!)

IF sold, Norman Rockwell’s Shuffleton’s Barbershop, which has crystal clear provenance, was estimated  to fetch  the highest price at auction. Inexplicably, the petition before the court boasted of a breezy compromise between the AGO and Berkshire Museum: an anonymous museum will purchase the painting for 1)an undisclosed price (I guarantee that it’s less than public auction), 2) promises a temporary display in Massachusetts, at the Norman Rockwell Museum, and 3)eventually feature it as part of the mystery museum’s permanent collection. Where is the museum? What is the sale price and terms? If its destiny is beyond a Massachusetts border, why isn’t the Commonwealth protecting its resources?*

*Which museum committed funds for Shuffleton Barbershop  and can afford to pounce and avoid driving up the price at auction? Perhaps Crystal Bridges Museum backed by Wal-Mart heiress, Alice Walton, could strike again. Norman Rockwell is already represented in its collection. Is it worth it to add another? The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art could be a contender. George Lucas boasts an impressive Rockwell collection, including ideal examples with cinematic connections or narratives, like the stunning study for charwomen (in movie theater). Is that enough representation to let it go were Berkshire Museum Rockwells cleared to sell?

The other works of art could be sold, or not. One doesn’t get the impression that the AGO was stepping in for the underdog. Leave it to Norman Rockwell to capture the attention of a busy world to illustrate a simple maxim: do the right thing. If legal manuevering is necessary, like crazy zoning variances for unfair construction, most collections will be at a disadvantage. It’s up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court to remedy this balderdash & betrayal else risk breaking the bank of non profits across the country.

Justice Lowy asked that the attorneys focus their arguments on selling with restrictions: “Is it necessary and impossible or impracticable for the Museum’s charitable mission to continue?” All parties stuck to this request, and to their filed briefs more or less. I tried to capture word for word the moments when Justice Lowy interrupted rote statements. Justice Lowy has made no decisions, yet. Eventually, he will decide whether to allow the parties’ petition, deny it, or reserve and report which means bringing the case back to the full court.

Proponents side or Opponents side?

Upon arrival, where to sit at the courtroom felt like where to sit at a wedding. The Berkshire Museum Trustees, Director Van Shields, and those in favor of the Berkshire Museum deaccession sale sat together on the left side of the courtroom. Opponents, numbering 2:1, sat in the center, off to the right, and spilled into the hall. With every available chair claimed some were left standing in the back.

TRUSTEES few smiles - Boston MA John Adams Courthouse -Berkshire Museum deaccession case oral arguments before SJO Justice Judge Lowy_Mar 20 2018 _102144 © catherine ryan (12)
Berkshire Museum Trustees March 20, 2018 at Massachusetts Supreme Court (front row far left Director Van Shields seated next to Trustees Chair Elizabeth McGraw)

Up first – Attorney Nicholas M. O’Donnell

of Sullivan & Worcester LLP law firm and Erika Todd on behalf of ‘Berkshire Museum Member Plaintiffs’: James Hatt,  Kristin Hatt,  and Elizabeth Weinberg 

ATTORNEY O'DONNELL AMICUS GOES FIRST Boston MA John Adams Courthouse -Berkshire Museum deaccession case oral arguments before SJO Justice Judge Lowy_Mar 20 2018 _102144 © catherine ryan

O’Donnell excerpt- “Massachusetts stands alone, this decision puts Massachusetts alone …That this court, this petition, this hearing, may be the ONLY obstacle left to account for this action should be unimaginable. IF a conclusory report of operational deficits can support the liquidation for the sale…Make no mistake, I say the art market is watching–”

Justice Lowy cut in- “Maybe they are. I’ve certainly read your key points, Maybe not. Systemic issues that flow from this are not my focus…”

Continue reading “Justice Lowy to Berkshire Museum Attorney Lee at Massachusetts Supreme Court: “So in other words, I have to tell you, I’m watching two different movies.”” →

Massachusetts Attorney General assent letter for Berkshire Museum battle

Posted on by Catherine

Here’s the complete official doc while awaiting Single Justice ruling. More to come.

Assent to Plaintiff's Motion for entry of Judgement Feb 9 2018.jpg

EXHIBIT A

Letterhead MA AGO Berkshire Museum decision.jpg

VIA EMAIL February 9, 2018
William F. Lee, Esq. WilmerHale 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109
Re: Sale of Works of Art by Trustees of the Berkshire Museum
Dear Attorney Lee,

Thank you for your and the Trustees of the Berkshire Museum’s (the “Museum”) continued cooperation while the Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) investigated the proposed sale of 40 of the Museum’s most valuable works of fine art in order to fund a “New Vision.” As the AGO indicated to the Museum last September, after reviewing the proposed sale of all 40 items and planned use of proceeds ($76 million or more based on auction estimates), the AGO concluded that the objects that have been deaccessioned and offered for sale are subject to restrictions that prohibit the Museum from selling them in the manner proposed absent court approval lifting or modifying the restrictions. As we have also discussed, and as we outline further in this letter, while we continue to believe that these restrictions apply, the investigation has led us to agree with the Museum that it would be impracticable for the Museum to continue its operations without a sale, subject to, however, certain guidelines. Therefore, the AGO is prepared to support the Museum in its request to the Supreme Judicial Court for approval to sell up to 40 items subject to certain agreed-upon sale parameters.

Proposed Sale:
The Museum first provided notice of the planned sale on June 22, 2017. The notice indicated that the Museum was proposing to sell 40 works of fine art from its collection in order to fund a “New Vision,” which will include the creation of a $40 million “endowment” and dedicate $20 million to facilities upgrades and repairs. Over the course of further communications with the AGO pertaining to the AGO’s investigation, the Museum asserted that it is in dire financial need and requires a significant capital infusion in order for the Museum to be able to continue to fulfill its charitable mission. Further, the Museum asserted that the only way it could achieve that necessary capital infusion was by selling the identified 40 of works of fine art from its permanent collection. The Museum stated that it had come to this decision as part of a two-year process undertaken by the Board of Directors to consider alternative directions for the Museum that would create a more sustainable financial future for the Museum.

-page 2 of 5-

AGO Investigation:
Upon receipt of the Museum’s June 22, 2017 notice letter, the AGO undertook a careful investigation of the Museum’s plans. As part of this review, the AGO requested and reviewed over 2300 documents bearing on the Museum and its Board’s decision-making process as well as donor intent and restrictions on objects donated or bequeathed to the Museum. These documents included, inter alia, board materials, minutes and agendas, committee materials, meeting minutes and agendas, board retreat materials. Museum policies and procedures, other internal Museum and board communications, files associated with each of the artworks that the Museum plans to sell, archival director files, and other historical files. The AGO also interviewed Museum employees, board members, and third party witnesses regarding, inter alia, the Museum’s history, the Board’s efforts to date to stabilize the Museum’s finances, the Board’s decisionmaking process related to deaccessioning and selling art from its collection, the Museum’s consideration of alternatives to selling art to revitalize the Museum, the intent of donors, and employee experience at the Museum.

In addition to the AGO’s review of documents and interviews with witnesses, the AGO also worked to understand all components of the Museum’s decision. In doing so, the AGO consulted with and relied on experts to provide the AGO with information regarding museum industry best practices, the Museum’s finances, and the impact of a decision to deaccession and sell art from a museum’s permanent collection.

The AGO is charged with review of the proposed sale for compliance with charities law, including an assessment of such factors as whether there are any restrictions that limit or prohibit the Museum from selling the chosen objects and whether, if such restrictions exist, it is impossible or impracticable for the Museum to fulfill its charitable mission and meet the intent of the donors without seeking court approval to lift or amend those restrictions. A summary of our conclusions related to this part of our review is described below.

1. Restrictions On The Works of Art Proposed for Sale
As detailed elsewhere (e.g., in its filings in the litigation referenced above) the AGO believes that all of the works of art deaccessioned and proposed for sale are subject to one or more restrictions that limit the Museum’s ability to proceed with its planned sale and use of proceeds to fund an endowment, pay for operating expenses and fund renovations. The Museum continues to believe no restrictions (beyond the Museum’s charitable purposes) apply. In light of certain findings from the AGO’s investigation described below, and in an effort to avoid unnecessary expenditure of charitable and government resources on litigation to determine which view of the restrictions would ultimately be found to be legally correct, the AGO and the Museum have agreed on a framework for requesting authorization for a sale under specific conditions. First, all of the 40 works of art identified for sale have been, until recently, part of the Museum’s permanent collection. These works of art constitute most of the monetary value of the Museum’s fine art collection and have historically been devoted to fulfilling the art component of the Museum’s three-part mission. The Museum has also long represented itself to donors and the public as an art museum (even though not solely an art museum). Further, the Museum policies and professional affiliations in place at the time the objects were selected for deaccessioning reflect a commitment by the Museum to hold its art for art puiposes, and

Continue reading “Massachusetts Attorney General assent letter for Berkshire Museum battle” →