Archives Scrapbooks

The image is a page from a newspaper or newsletter titled "Independent," dated February 11, 1982. The page discusses issues related to the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University. Here is a detailed summary of the content:

1. Headline and Main Issues:

   • The headline reads: "THE FOGG IS UNDERSTAFFED, THE STAFF IS UNDERPAID, THE BUILDING IS IN REPULSIVE PHYSICAL CONDITION."
   • The article highlights concerns about the Fogg Art Museum, including understaffing, underpayment of staff, and poor physical condition of the building.

2. Stabilization Fund Idea:

   • The article mentions a proposal for a $3 million stabilization fund for the Fogg Art Museum, which was discussed at a faculty meeting.
   • The idea was to use the fund to buy art and then sell it to generate income for the museum.
   • The article argues that this idea is flawed and that the museum should focus on maintaining and improving its current collection rather than buying and selling art.

3. Discussion of Condemnation:

   • The article discusses the condemnation of the Fogg Art Museum by the Association of Art Museum Directors.
   • The condemnation was due to the University's decision to sell a painting by Seymour Slive to raise funds.
   • The article argues that the condemnation was justified and that the University should not have sold the painting.

4. Financial and Operational Issues:

   • The article mentions that the Fogg Art Museum is underfunded and that the staff is underpaid.
   • It also highlights the poor physical condition of the building, describing it as "repulsive."

5. Opinions and Statements:

   • The article includes statements from various individuals, including Seymour Slive, who resigned as the Fogg Art Museum Director, and Derek Bok, the President of Harvard University.
   • It also includes a letter from Ralph T. Coe, a member of the Visiting Committee of the Fogg Art Museum, expressing his concerns about the museum's condition.

6. Future Plans:

   • The article mentions that the University plans to build a new museum to replace the Fogg Art Museum.
   • It argues that the University should focus on improving the current museum rather than building a new one.

7. Photograph:

   • The page includes a photograph of a deteriorating ceiling in the Fogg Art Museum, highlighting the poor physical condition of the building.

Overall, the article is a critical examination of the management and funding of the Fogg Art Museum, arguing for better support and maintenance of the existing museum rather than selling art or building a new museum.

The image is a page from an article titled "THE FOGG IS UNDERSTAFFED, THE BUILDING IS UNDERPAID, THE BUILDING IS IN REPULSIVE PHYSICAL CONDITION" by Oleg Grabar, published in the Independent on February 11, 1982. The article discusses the controversies surrounding the Fog Art Museum, including its financial situation, decision-making processes, and the quality of the building.

Key points from the article include:

1. Financial Issues:

   • The University's decision to fund the Fog Art Museum with $3 million raised from donations and the sale of a garage, despite initial reluctance.
   • The Fog Art Museum's budget is underfunded, and there are concerns about the quality of the building and staff.

2. Decision-Making and Disagreements:

   • A contentious decision to sell a piece of art from the museum's collection to fund the project.
   • Criticism from members of the Association of Art Museum Directors, including Seymour Slive and Oleg Grabar, who found the decision inappropriate.
   • The Association's decision to withdraw from the project, citing the decision as a "deaccessioning plan."

3. Project Cancellation and Consequences:

   • The decision to cancel the project due to the controversy and financial uncertainties.
   • The cancellation was described as a "credence solution," with mixed reactions from the museum community.

4. Potential for Future Projects:

   • The article mentions that the University might consider a new project, the Modern Art Teaching Project (MATEP), but it faces similar financial and logistical challenges.

5. Personal Statements and Criticisms:

   • Statements from individuals like Derek Bok, President of Harvard, and Dean Rosensky, expressing their views on the project.
   • Criticisms of the decision-making process, including the lack of transparency and the potential misuse of funds.

6. Fundraising and Priorities:

   • Discussion on the priorities of the University and the potential misuse of funds, highlighting the financial strain and the need for careful management.

The article overall paints a picture of a contentious period for the Fog Art Museum, marked by financial struggles, ethical dilemmas, and disagreements within the academic and museum communities.

The image is a page from an article published in the Independent newspaper on February 11, 1982. The article is titled "The Fogg is Understaffed, the Staff is Underpaid, the Building is in Repulsive Physical Condition" and is authored by Oleg Grabar, Chairman of the Fine Arts Department.

The article discusses the dire conditions of the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University. Key points include:

1. Financial Instability and Decisions:

   • The university is facing a $3 million shortfall, leading to severe budget cuts and staff layoffs.
   • The Fogg's budget is under control, but the university is considering selling artworks to raise funds, which Grabar finds unacceptable.
   • A $3 million stabilization fund was proposed but rejected by the university.

2. Condemnation and Disposal:

   • The Association of Art Museum Directors met in January to discuss the sale of works from the museum’s collection. The Fogg was the only museum facing such a severe financial crisis.
   • The university's decision to sell artworks was compared to selling a family heirloom to pay debts.

3. Staff and Physical Condition:

   • The museum staff is underpaid and understaffed.
   • The building is in a poor physical condition, with a leaking roof, broken windows, and inadequate heating.

4. Protests and Responses:

   • The article criticizes the university's handling of the situation, calling it a combination of ignorance, ingratitude, and poor judgment.
   • Grabar and others protested the proposed sale of artworks, pointing out the severe impact on the museum's mission and reputation.

5. Future Concerns:

   • The article discusses the potential long-term damage to the museum's integrity and its ability to serve the public if these issues are not addressed.
   • It highlights the university's failure to adequately fund and maintain the museum, leading to an uncertain future.

The article is illustrated with a photograph of a leaking building and a quote from a meeting about the dire state of the museum. The overall sentiment is one of frustration and concern for the future of the Fogg Art Museum.

The image is a page from a newspaper, specifically the February 11, 1982, edition of the Independent. The article titled "The Fogg is Understaffed, the Staff is Underpaid, the Building is in Repulsive Physical Condition" by Oleg Grabar, Chairman of the Fine Arts Department, discusses the financial and operational challenges faced by the Fogg Art Museum.

Key points from the article include:

1. Budget and Staffing Issues:

   • The Fogg Art Museum has been understaffed and underpaid, with a significant deficit in its budget.
   • The university is facing severe financial difficulties, which have led to the decision to close down the Fine Arts Faculty on January 31.

2. Condemnation and Sale:

   • The Fogg Museum's collection is in jeopardy due to the lack of a stable funding source. The university is considering selling a significant portion of the collection to raise funds.
   • The Association of Art Museum Directors has been involved in discussions regarding the collection's future.

3. Financial Decisions:

   • The university's financial crisis has led to decisions like the cancellation of the building renovation project, the reallocation of funds, and a drastic reduction in staff.
   • The decision to close the Fine Arts Faculty was made despite its importance and contributions to the university.

4. Public and Institutional Reactions:

   • The article mentions the criticism from various stakeholders, including the Association of Art Museum Directors, for the potential sale of the collection.
   • The Fogg's future appears precarious, with the museum potentially facing closure or drastic changes in its operations.

5. Future Plans:

   • The article hints at a future uncertain for the Fogg, but also notes the university's commitment to finding solutions to the financial and operational challenges.

The article emphasizes the dire financial situation and the urgent need for strategic decisions to ensure the museum's survival and continued relevance.

THE FOGG IS UNDERSTAFFED, THE STAFF IS UNDERPAID, THE BUILDING IS IN REPULSIVE PHYSICAL CONDITION

Oleg Grabar

CHAIRMAN, FINE ARTS DEPARTMENT

No one claims credit for this idea anymore. Rosovsky explained, “This stabilization fund idea of $3 million was my idea. I thought, a very sound one to be sure, that this deaccession art to the tune of $1.2 million would not have seriously affected the quality of the collection.” The University thought it would sell some of its material and some of the relatively unimportant stuff left to it by the Fogg bequest. The University would establish a fund that would be used to meet operating deficits. The principal was not to be touched. The Fogg’s budget was under control, the Sarg and other collections were to be protected.

“We were happy with the plan to deaccession,” said Grabar. “It was clearly a cause of dismay. But we were prepared to accept it. We were not happy with the idea that there is nothing more frustrating than sitting and getting no reward.” In this event is not only good and imaginative, it is inflation continues, every museum will have to do it.

Like Selling One’s Daughter

Silve and the Fogg staff swallowed the deaccession idea, reluctantly. But President Bok and the Corporation apparently approved it, in principle, at the last meeting of the Visiting Committee for the Fogg in the fall of 1981. On January 26, the Association of Art Museum Directors met in New York City. The Association is a very powerful body, and the Fogg is a member. The Association has a rule that no member may legally dispose of a work of art from its collection to pay operating expenses. It is selling one’s daughter.

The Association voted unanimously at its January 26 meeting to condemn Harvard’s plan to sell even the most trivial objects to raise money for the Fogg. The resolution of condemnation reminded Seymour Slive and Derek Bok that the Fogg is a member of the Association of Art Museum Directors.

The deaccession and disposal of a work of art from a museum’s collection, regardless of its quality, should be related to policy rather than the expenses of the moment, and the proceeds should be used to replace the collection.

In effect, the condemnation meant that no member of the Association could provide aid to a deaccessioning plan. Not Seymour Slive, not his successor.

The University has been under severe financial pressure. For the spring of 1981, Slive had announced his intention to resign effective fall 1982. The University was seeking a new director, someone with the skills to raise the Fogg from its present disarray. The Association of Art Museum Directors.

The condemnation of the Association was a qualified success. Harvard’s deaccession plan was stopped. The University decided to suspend the fund. The Fogg’s budget was under control, the Sarg and other collections were to be protected.

Ignorance, Incompetence, or Prudence?

The Fogg project was up against a February 1 deadline. On February 1, the Corporation met to consider the Building at $7.8 million. The project would have to be reduced, undoubtedly coming in at a higher cost. The Corporation was not happy with the project. The Fogg was $3.1 million short of what everyone agreed it needed, and the only plan on the table for raising that money had been rejected.

On January 30, the Fogg’s Visiting Committee met. Derek Bok met with Slive and several Fogg officials who had been involved in the project. Bok announced his decision to the Fogg staff at a regular Fine Arts faculty meeting on Tuesday afternoon. The University released a terse official statement Thursday morning. The statement said that the University would not proceed with the project because of the risks and financial burdens to the University. The Fogg’s budget was under control, the Sarg and other collections were to be protected.

Bok announced the decision to the Fine Arts faculty at a regular Fine Arts faculty meeting on Tuesday afternoon. The University released a terse official statement Thursday morning. The statement said that the University would not proceed with the project because of the risks and financial burdens to the University. The Fogg’s budget was under control, the Sarg and other collections were to be protected.

The University’s decision was a stunning blow to the Fogg. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The Fogg had been promised the money. The

The image is a page from a publication dated February 11, 1982, titled "INDEPENDENT." It features a series of articles and letters concerning the Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University.

Main Articles and Letters:

1. Headline: "The Fogg is Understaffed, the Staff is Underpaid, the Building is in Repulsive Physical Condition" by Oleg Grabar

   • Content: The article criticizes the conditions at the Fogg Art Museum, stating that it is understaffed, the staff is underpaid, and the building is in poor physical condition. The author, Oleg Grabar, the Chairman of the Fine Arts Department, expresses concerns about the deteriorating state of the museum and the implications for the staff and collections.

2. Letter: "Like Selling One's Daughter"

   • Content: This letter, signed by several members including Slive and the Fogg staff, discusses the decision to deaccession (sell) certain artworks to raise funds for the museum. The letter expresses strong opposition to this idea, comparing it to selling one's child and arguing that it sets a bad precedent and undermines the museum's integrity. The Association of Art Museum Directors condemned this plan, and the Fogg staff was advised to reconsider.

3. Letter: "Ignorance, Ignominy, or Prudence?"

   • Content: This letter criticizes the Fogg project's planning and management. It questions the sudden rush to sell artworks to fund a new project and highlights a lack of transparency and communication. The author, presumably a member of the community, expresses dismay over the handling of the museum's financial and operational issues.

4. Response from the Corporation:

   • Content: The Corporation members are taken aback by the reaction to the deaccessioning plan, noting that the Fogg's current state is untenable and requires immediate action. They argue that the museum's problems need to be addressed promptly.

5. Harvard’s Financial Priorities:

   • Content: This section discusses the broader financial priorities of Harvard University. It mentions the cancellation of the Medical Area Total Energy Plant (MATEP) and how the savings could potentially be redirected to the Fogg Museum. It also touches on the financial struggles and the university's decision-making process regarding budget allocations.

6. The Future:

   • Content: The university acknowledges the urgent need to address the Fogg's conditions. They plan to proceed with fundraising and restructuring to ensure the museum's future viability.

Visual Elements:

• A photograph by Eric Gower shows an interior view of a section of the Fogg Museum, illustrating the physical condition of the building.

Tone and Concerns:

The overall tone of the articles and letters is one of concern and urgency. Contributors express their dismay at the management decisions, the physical state of the museum, and the financial strategies proposed to address these issues. There is a clear call for better communication, more ethical handling of the collections, and improved working conditions for the staff.

This image shows a printed newspaper page or a newsletter with a vintage look. The main headline states, "THE FOGG IS UNDERSTAFFED, THE STAFF IS UNDERPAID, THE BUILDING IS IN REPULSIVE PHYSICAL CONDITION." Below the headline is the byline, "Oleg Grabar, Chairman, Fine Arts Department."

The page is filled with densely packed text in columns, resembling traditional newspaper layout. The articles discuss various issues concerning an institution named the Fogg, presumably related to art or a museum due to references to fine arts, deaccessioning, and museum directors. There are sections named "Like Selling One's Daughter" and "Ignorance, Ignominy, or Prudence?" that suggest a blend of news reporting and opinion pieces. The piece also refers to budget issues, staffing concerns, and prioritization of projects within an academic or museum setting.

There is an image captioned "PHOTO BY RICK GUBER" at the bottom, depicting what looks to be an architectural feature, possibly related to the Fogg institution mentioned in the text. The footer of the page dates the publication to February 11, 1982, and identifies it as 'INDEPENDENT 5.'

The style of the newspaper, its focus on institutional critique, and the reference to budget and staffing issues suggest that it might be an internally-circulated publication, possibly from an academic institution critiquing its management or financial decisions.

The image is a newspaper or magazine article page titled "The Fogg is understaffed, the staff is underpaid, the building is in repulsive physical condition." The article is authored by Oleg Grabar, Chairman of the Fine Arts Department.

The page contains multiple columns of text discussing issues related to the Fogg Art Museum. Topics include criticisms of the museum's financial situation, deaccessioning artworks (selling works from its collection to address expenses), and the implications of these actions on the museum’s reputation and operations. There is mention of the University and Fine Arts faculty's responses to these challenges, as well as quotes from individuals involved in discussions about the museum's future.

The article has sections with subheadings such as "Like Selling One's Daughter," "Ignorance, Ignominy, or Prudence?" and "Priorities Priorities Priorities," indicating different angles or perspectives on the topic.

In the center of the page, there is a black-and-white photograph showing an architectural detail of a building — specifically a set of arches framed by classical columns, with a statue visible under the arches and windows above. Below the photo, there is a caption that reads: "A lingering feeling that art museums are for cocktail parties with old ladies who 'ooooohhh' and 'aaaaahhh.'"

The publication date on the page reads February 11, 1982, and it is from "INDEPENDENT." The page number is 5. The overall tone of the article appears critical, focusing on the challenges and controversies surrounding the museum's condition, funding, and management.

This image is a page from the February 11, 1982, edition of The Independent, a student newspaper at Harvard University. The page features a headline that reads, "The Fogg is Understaffed, the Staff is Underpaid, the Building is in Repulsive Physical Condition." The article discusses the cancellation of the Fogg Art Museum expansion project, which was intended to provide additional gallery space and improve the museum's facilities.

The article provides background on the Fogg project, including its proposed budget of $3 million and the University's decision to cancel it. It quotes various individuals involved in the decision-making process, such as Derek Bok, the University President, and Oleg Grabar, the Chairman of the Fine Arts Department. The article also touches on the financial challenges faced by the University and the potential consequences of the cancellation for the Fogg Museum and the broader Harvard community.

The page includes a photograph of the Fogg Art Museum, showing its exterior and some of its architectural features. The article is accompanied by a sidebar titled "Priorities, Priorities," which discusses the University's priorities and the challenges it faces in balancing them. The sidebar also mentions the Medical Area Total Energy Plant (MATEP) project, which faced similar financial difficulties and was eventually canceled.

Overall, the image provides a glimpse into the financial and administrative challenges faced by Harvard University in the early 1980s, as well as the impact of those challenges on the Fogg Art Museum and the broader Harvard community.

Description of the Image:

The image shows a page from a publication, likely a newspaper or magazine, dated February 11, 1982, as indicated at the bottom right corner. The page is titled "THE FOGG IS UNDERSTAFFED, THE STAFF IS UNDERPAID, THE BUILDING IS IN REPULSIVE PHYSICAL CONDITION" and is attributed to OLEG GRABAR, who is identified as the CHAIRMAN, FINE ARTS DEPARTMENT.

Layout and Content:

1. Headline and Attribution:

   • The headline is prominently displayed at the top in bold, large text, emphasizing the critical state of the Fogg Art Museum.
   • Oleg Grabar's name and title are clearly stated below the headline, establishing his authority on the subject.

2. Main Text:

   • The article is structured into multiple paragraphs, discussing various issues related to the Fogg Art Museum.
   • Key Points Discussed:
     • Funding and Financial Mismanagement:
       • The article mentions a $3 million stabilization fund idea, which was explained as a "very sound one" but ultimately dismissed.
       • The university is criticized for not seriously considering the quality of the collection, which was sold off, raising concerns about the loss of valuable artifacts.
       • The university is accused of understaffing and underpaying the staff, leading to operational inefficiencies.
     • Physical Condition of the Building:
       • The building is described as being in a "repulsive physical condition," with issues such as inadequate lighting, poor ventilation, and general disrepair.
     • Selling the Collection:
       • The article discusses the controversial decision to sell parts of the museum's collection, including a daughter of an artist, to raise funds. This decision is criticized as a desperate measure, with concerns raised about the ethical and financial implications.
     • University's Response:
       • The university is portrayed as dismissive of the problems, with officials like Bok (presumably the university president) and others being criticized for their inaction or inadequate responses.
       • The article highlights the university's prioritization of financial gains over the preservation and proper functioning of the museum.
     • Future Prospects:
       • The article ends with a note of uncertainty about the museum's future, suggesting that the university may continue to prioritize financial solutions over genuine improvements.

3. Visual Elements:

   • There is a photograph embedded in the article, showing a person (likely Oleg Grabar) standing in front of what appears to be the Fogg Art Museum. The individual is dressed formally, and the background includes architectural details of the building, reinforcing the context of the article.
   • The photograph is placed centrally, drawing attention to the subject matter and providing a visual representation of the author or a key figure involved in the discussion.

4. Additional Textual Elements:

   • At the bottom of the page, there is a caption that reads: "Like Selling One's Daughter", which serves as a metaphor for the controversial decision to sell parts of the museum's collection.
   • The page number 5 is visible in the bottom right corner, indicating this is part of a larger article or series.

5. Design and Typography:

   • The text is set in a classic serif font, typical of newspapers or magazines from the early 1980s.
   • The layout is clean, with clear headings and subheadings to organize the content.
   • The use of bold and italicized text highlights key points and emphasizes the severity of the issues discussed.

Overall Impression:

The image presents a critical and passionate critique of the Fogg Art Museum's condition, focusing on financial mismanagement, understaffing, poor physical conditions, and controversial decisions regarding the sale of the museum's collection. The inclusion of Oleg Grabar's authoritative voice and the visual element of the photograph add weight to the argument, making the article a compelling call to action for the preservation and improvement of the museum. The tone is urgent and concerned, reflecting the gravity of the issues at hand.