Thursday, January 28, 2010
Particularly heartening for me were reactions to my discussion of Coaccession's potential to contribute to the cultural sector's response to its challenges. Osterman noted the cultural endowment at his son's school, while Joy said he'd like to discuss the endowment concept further. No one had a negative word to say. One of the participants even requested that I send along a couple of paragraphs giving the gist of my proposed Illinois Arts Endowment.
Here's hoping that Coaccession can indeed contribute substantially to the cultural sector's comprehensive response to the challenges in its changing circumstances. Fortunately, the cultural sector has historically created so much financial value to complement its cultural value that a successful adaptation should be a forgone conclusion. Crafting a creative response is within our abilities with leadership like that shown by Osterman, the panelists and the audience.
The lllinois Arts Endowment
The State of Illinois has invested in artworks for its buildings and landscapes through much of its history, establishing over the years a public art collection with tremendous cultural and financial value. Extending that history of wise arts investments is essential in these challenging fiscal times, as that strategy will continue to offer the great cultural and financial returns that it has in the past. Fortunately, Coaccession(tm) offers Illinois a way to mobilize its existing investment in artworks to support continuing arts investments.
By creating investment opportunities in the Illinois public art collection, Coaccession can let Illinois offer the public the same stable store of financial value that has benefited the State through its history, generating proceeds to establish a new pool of income-generating assets that can support continuing investments in artworks and in the cultural sector that enhances their cultural and financial value. Tapping the financial reserves embodied in artworks now can help Illinois extend its history of wise investments.
Coaccession: Artworks supporting the arts.
* when CAN-TV plays the tape, you can judge how nervous I sounded -- of course, only I know how nervous I was.
UPDATE 2/23/10: A good friend saw my discussion point on CAN-TV and thought I sounded fine.
Monday, January 25, 2010
When even museum trustees tend to ask museum directors to sell artworks to support supposedly-vital museum programs, you can just imagine politicians' skepticism toward arts directors requesting more government funding in the face of the current public attitudes ably documented by the Fine Arts Fund. Perhaps a new message will indeed change those attitudes, but that bet's both risky and remote for arts and museum boards across America that now face nearly universal cutbacks and the prospect of rapidly rising closures.
In fact those programs truly are vital, but you can't blame the trustees and politicians for wondering a bit when the museums' professional associations insist that death with dignity is far preferable to deaccession and dishonor -- a point the need for Dobrzynski's arbitrated deaccessions plan illustrates.
So far FASB 116 and uncapitalized collections have mostly kept a lid on debates over existing government support for the arts, but if politicians and the public widely knew what trustees already know about all the money that's sat in basements for years without seeing the light of day, much less the enormous fortunes hanging on the walls, you might see some pretty strong sentiment for cutbacks. These days those appropriations might better head off hunger and disease than ennui and alienation.
Rather than hoping the right spin will increase the arts' share of declining public and private discretionary budgets, museum trustees and directors need to decide whether their programs and arts programs generally are worth saving right now with financial value held idle in their mortmain model. If a few deaccessions can make the difference between survival and death for a museum, mobilizing the collection's financial value more fully could fund a substantial increase in programs -- spending that could help the arts sector and the national economy.
If growing museum and arts programs now meant a lot of deaccessions, a survival diet would make more sense. But these days partial title systems like the Maroney plan and my own Coaccession method can let a museum have its Monet and money, too. Generations of philanthropists have endowed major art museums with some of the best financial investments of the past century, turning them into repositories of a significant share of the national wealth as well as its culture. Mobilizing that financial value in this cultural crisis doesn't risk our cultural heritage nearly as much as does leaving it idle while hoping, perhaps vainly, for better attitudes and better days.
Museum directors like the fundraising argument that exposure to the arts and sciences stimulates the innovation that enhances the nation's wealth and wellbeing. Why, then, doesn't the impetus for financial innovations that can strengthen our cultural legacy come from inside our museums? Artworks can support the arts, so why do the arts lack support? Those allocating public moneys may ask.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
How many masterpieces are major universal museums missing because their mortmain model doesn't let them mobilize the overwhelming strength of their collections' financial value to acquire these artworks when they're available? Partial title sales -- the Maroney Plan and Coaccession are the methods I know -- let a museum have its Monet and money, too. Once that financial strength ensure the existing collection's cultural value is maximized by museum operations -- exhibitions, research, conservation, administration, complemented by music, dance, theater and other arts in the venue -- there's nothing to stop museums from investing in more Monets at auction and turning around to raise more money with partial title sales. In fact, they could go to auction first and tend to operations later, if they're willing to let down public expectations of the kind of comprehensive experience a museum could and should offer.
Maybe existing museums will just let the new collectors' models supersede them. Coaccession is available to any incorporated collecting institution that's open to the public. With it, the financial value of the artworks (or antiquities or specimens or ...) creates the operating endowment to maximize their cultural value. Artworks can support the arts. It's a shame the arts are suffering now in the midst of the great plenty vouchsafed by prior generations of donors -- and held by current generations of prospective donors.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Existing "ethical" guidelines expect a failing museum to gift its permanent collection to a successful museum (aka "merge") so the successful museum can assure continued care for that permanent collection. The rich get richer, and the poor fall by the wayside, and it's all facilitated by the existing mortmain model with its uncapitalized collections and stranded values. Insidious indeed.
[Mark Gold, considering deaccession rules,] writes: "At the end of the day, the survival of the museum is really the best way to protect collections for the benefit of the public." True enough, but the unspoken corollary is that the death of the museum is the best way to aggregate collections for the benefit of insiders. And what do the profession's rules promote? Small dead museums!
There's no suggestion here that the AAMD grandees actually got together and said "Let's think up some rules that ensure we end up with all the art!" The rules arose more insidiously than that. On the other hand, though, the fact that the deaccession rules promote this outcome is unlikely to make big rich museums any less zealous in enforcing them. With this pressure, poor little museums will need to a strong constitution to stand up for their own best interests.
That's where Coaccession can help. When museum trustees take the entire institution into account, rather than just the permanent collection, they'll use the full value of the collection -- financial as well as cultural -- to create a thriving community of experts, investors, and visitors around the collection. Fully funded by investors, the experts perform the research, acquire the objects and mount the exhibitions that celebrate the permanent collection with visitors, increasing both its cultural and financial value, which rise together. With Coaccession, they can keep the entire collection together, even expand it, while mobilizing its financial value to strengthen the programs that celebrate it in a virtuous circle.
Poor little museums, resist the urge to merge. And don't deaccession, Coaccession. Strengthen your museum by using your collection's value fully, not partially, so you can thrive rather than just survive.
UPDATE: Mark Gold writes: I think that FASB 116 advantages ALL museums – both large and small, by not having to disclose the value of collections. I think it was a bigger issue for the larger museums, and that the ethical rule limiting the use of proceeds was, at least in part, a response to the FASB pressure and driven by the larger museums. I think the ethical rule disadvantages smaller museums over larger. But I don’t think FASB 116 does.
I had originally written "Mark Gold and Michael O'Hare have noted FASB 116's ongoing advantages for large museums and disadvantages for small museums." That projected Michael O'Hare's take, I believe, and my own on Mark Gold, making an unfair characterization of his position. Still, in our defense, to the extent that small museums don't capitalize their collections, they look weaker financially than they would if they did (and they are weaker financially to the extent they don't mobilize their collections' financial value). But in Mark's defense, FASB 116 doesn't prohibit capitalizing collections, it just lets museums choose not to. Almost all museums, large and small, now take that option explicitly, or implicitly by publishing a capitalization with no connection to current market values.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Apparently independently, they note that wealthy museums don't want the public to know just how much wealth they're holding -- or mindlessly hoarding, as O'Hare calls it. Mark Gold ties the "ethics" rules on deaccession to the efforts of large museums to avoid having their accountants capitalize their collections. O'Hare says the real ethical problem is letting museum managements get such minimal returns from the huge assets they're entrusted with. If accounting statements reflected the market values of collections, we'd expect more.
Responding to attorney Mark Gold's September 2009 AAM piece about the deaccession rule's history, "Nothing Ethical About It," history professor at Central Connecticut State University Briann Greenfield writes that "While museum professionals know that deaccessioning can play an important role in collection management, the public see museums as perpetual caregivers. If mismanaged, high profile sales can wreak havoc with the public trust and alienate donors, both past and future."
The public sees museums as places to visit and learn. It's the museum profession and museum donors that see them as perpetual caregivers. If you really want to wreak havoc with public trust, let museums start closing their doors. As far as donors go, they'll likely be happier if museums Coaccession rather than hoard or deaccession. Once they see their donation not only add to the museum culturally but financially too, they'll be that much more satisfied.
Here's my comment on Greenfield's post at the Connecticut Humanities Council's website:
Gold's point about extremely wealthy institutions hiding their assets so they can keep asking donors for more resources rather than face calls to share their existing vast fortunes with their communities is overdrawn, but the grain of truth in it suggests these institutions should consider alternative ways to mobilize those resources.
Financially-driven deaccessions make a museum choose between having its Monet or having money. Modern alternatives let a museum have its Money and money, too. James Maroney's plan uses tenancy in common, while my own uses equitable servitudes. Both let museums share their collections with collectors and investors in ways that ensure the museum always has ultimate control over the objects used to raise money.
Even with arts communities of all kinds suffering, our wealthiest institutions shouldn't just liquidate their collections to help avoid layoffs and shutdowns. But if these art museums can mobilize their collections' financial value without jeopardizing their cultural value, then it makes sense for artworks to support the arts.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Mark White, who was in the lively [Artropolis] audience, proposed that museums think of creative ways to monetize the value of their collections. He is working on an idea rooted in the property-law notion that a piece of property is a bundle of sticks, with each stick representing a different right or attribute. Under one of his proposals, a museum would retain all but one of the rights associated with a work in its collection. It would sell the right to others to display the work in their homes when the museum is not displaying it or conserving it or a scholar/historian is not studying it.
[An eminently fair description of Cultural Titles and Collector Titles.]
As various panelists and audience members pointed out, there are some problems with this idea.
[Perhaps at first glance, but not after due reflection.]
For example, how does the museum assure that the buyer will care for the art and not display it in direct sunlight?
[The buyer owns the artwork too, and is no more likely to ruin it if the museum retains rights to it than if he owns it outright. Museums, of course, have to use Coaccession wisely, keeping very delicate works under their own direct care, and maintaining open communications with co-owners and insurers of their more robust works. And while the open communications might be a financial burden under the old mortmain model of collections management, under the Coaccession model, the artworks provide their own endowment for care and outreach, among other things.]
Equally important, there is more to a museum’s mission than just displaying work. The art must be available to scholars who want to study it.
[The museum has the right to access the artwork to exercise its retained rights, and those include scholarly research. The artworks will be available to scholars the museum approves, and of course co-owners should be eager to cooperate since publication adds to the artwork's provenance and hence its financial value. Even if a highly eccentric co-owner proves uncooperative, though, the museum has the legal tools to enforce its access.
This does bring up an important point, though. The existing mortmain model severely limits museums' financial capacity to fulfill their missions. In many cases they cannot even provide proper conservation, much less proper research and exhibitions, and public outreach. By using at least part of the financial endowment inherent in the artworks that they own, museums will have the capacity to fulfill much more of their mission much more adequately. ]
But there was a disturbing undercurrent in these specific concerns. The notion that a work of art could be divided into fractional interests was characterized as too dangerous, a slippery slope, and troubling. We understand the specific concerns, but museums have had not been troubled by the notion of fractional interests in works of art when it comes to devising tax schemes that entice donations of fractional interests in works to museums. The fractional interest structure has permitted museums to lockup donor commitments before minds can change. As the legislative history to the Pension Protection Act of 2006 points out, there were abuses of fractional gifts, abuses that involved collusion between donors and museums. Under the practices that evolved, donors retained possession of the art. The museums didn’t seem all that concerned about sunlight or broken water pipes in those instances.
One audience member came to White’s defense, arguing that museums need to pursue creative solutions to their financial problems. Although White’s idea may need some tweaking,
[I'm eager for suggestions!!]
and may not even be viable,
[Precedents have indeed gone both ways for equitable servitudes on chattel, but Coaccession is definitely on the side of the favorable precedents.]
he is at least thinking creatively about how to finance aesthetic sensibilities.
[Like Jack Maroney, who also has a plan that lets museums have their Monet and money, too, so artworks support the arts.]
In essence, the audience member argued that the curators should show the same open-mindedness to finance that they demand of the public when it comes to art.
[Here, here. It's high time to start moving past the mortmain model of collections management!]
Jack's Coaccession comments are part of a great post on the 2009 Artropolis panel session, Museums on the Line: Cutbacks, Closures and Opportunities, which touched on many topics illustrated by the closure of the Rose Art Museum at Brandeis University. Read it all!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Museums have more latitude to monetise their core assets than they may think. James Maroney has his tenancy in common plan and I have my equitable servitudes plan, both designed to let a museum have its Monet and money, too. By selling partial titles rather than full titles, museums keep full cultural control over their entire permanent collection, yet raise substantial funds from collectors and investors.
Since museums should only care about their permanent collection's cultural values, letting their communities hold the collections' financial values costs museums virtually nothing in mission terms. Yet operating and programming benefits of changing those financial values into stocks and bonds paying dividends and interest greatly elevates the cultural mission and insulates museums from financial worries.
Partial title sales should be one of the surprisingly reassuring responses prompted by this moment's circumstances.
Dr. Mark White
Coaccession - at - gmail.com
The Art Newspaper kindly gives commenters 1000 characters to make their point -- if they gave 1500, I would have done worse!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Here's my response to the letters at her original post:
Regarding James N. Woods's January 8, 2010 Letter to the NYT Editor on your Jan. 2 Op-Ed, he and I agree that you deserve thanks from all who care about art museums, and especially public access and the public domain, for raising the deaccession issue that few speak of. But unlike Mr. Woods, I also agree with your conclusion — that a museum's financial crisis can justify selling artworks — and do so based on the issues he cites as his two reasons to disagree. First, I believe your plan and others aimed at capitalizing collections could indeed alleviate many financial crises and put museums on sound financial footings, and second, I think the "unintended" consequences from other capitalization plans could greatly increase public access and the public domain.
Artwork prices have risen so much in recent decades that selling one or two major or a few relatively minor artworks outside of a museum's core strengths can still raise very substantial sums relative to the small sizes of most existing cash endowments. Such sales let museums continue to conserve all their relevant, good, and thereby potentially important, artworks, and fund additional public access. The substantial sums available from artworks sales can make this a solution permanent, not a stopgap. Indeed, deaccessions can be a long-term solution raising substantial amounts that lets museums prosper mightily even with only just the endowment spending that preserves principal, and other approaches can even let museums preserve or expand the public domain at the same time.
An unintended consequence of capitalizing collections could indeed change a board's fiduciary perception more toward asset management than philanthropy, but that's not necessarily bad. Human nature shows us that most of us would prefer to invest our money than give it away, so a board that finds and embraces workable alternatives that fund museums more with investments than gifts may expand public access and the public domain far more than those that simply expect all supporters to give away their money. Boards should seize such alternatives as long as they give potential and past artwork investors and donors comfort as to the future use of their assets and gifts.
Deaccession alternatives that sell partial titles rather than full titles -- the James Maroney plan and my own are the ones I know -- offer ways a museum can have its Monet and money, too. These approaches let museums tap some of the huge hidden capital gains embedded in their uncapitalized collections to improve public access and expand the public domain. The existing "mortmain model" completely ignores these possibilities, going beyond conservative to monastic. If boards and executives are to contribute to the maximum of their capacity, they must contribute thinking as well as cash, and not just continue to do things the way museums have always done them. Financial resources are too central to the integrity of museums to be ignored, even if some insiders insist on trying to hide them under "ethical" covers. There's noting ethical about maintaining a pure posture until bankruptcy scatters a collection to the four winds.
Dr. Mark White -- Coaccession - at -gmail.com
This was before Judith posted her response to the letters. When she did, she addressed all their major points. My comment focused on her response to Jeffrey Abt's plan to require cash operating endowment donations accompany art gifts and operating endowment investments accompany art purchases. This makes theoretical sense from a "mortmain model" point of view, but, as Judith notes, it would "truly discourage donations of art."
To preface my comment submission, I wrote Judith: "Appreciate the pub of my response to letters, and liked yours, particularly for the food for thought on Abt. Hope you like my comment -- as I say, Coaccession makes me feel like I can draw plans in perspective while mortmain forces most others to just stack everything up in the plane. Here's hoping the museum profession bears with creative breakthroughs in real time as well as they would like to think they would."
Only Judith knows if my preface made a difference, but she did publish my comment:
You make a very good case, JHD, for arbitrated deaccessions as a last resort to avoid bankruptcy. Of course, since we all want to avoid financially-driven deaccessions, we should look for earlier resorts to enhance museums' financial stability before they need arbitrated deaccessions.
Jeffrey Abt's proposal to tie art gifts to cash operating endowment donations tries to do that, but you're right that insisting a donor pony up cash to accompany their artwork could be a bridge too far. What the "mortmain model" overlooks, though, is the fact that the operating endowment donation comes bundled right along with the art gift.
The partial title sales of the Maroney Plan and the Coaccession method let museums raise funds for the operating endowment -- and for future artwork purchases to boot -- without the art gift leaving the permanent collection. That's having your Monet and money, too! The museum need not ask the donor for cash when socially-responsible museum investors can supply it based on the gift's financial value.
Museums are only interested in their collections' cultural value. There's no cultural cost to letting communities invest in their collections' financial value and a great deal of cultural benefit from the enlarged operating endowments. Financial problems would be far less likely when partial title sales let communities literally invest in their museums' collections. Let's use the full cultural and financial value in permanent collections to avoid financial deaccessions -- arbitrated or otherwise.
Mark White -- Coaccession - at - gmail.com
Here's hoping museums will apply some financial creativity to fulfilling their cultural missions.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Museums certainly shouldn't deaccession for financial reasons now that Coaccession(tm) offers them an alternative that raises funds while retaining all cultural rights in perpetuity.
This novel, useful, subtle variation on equitable servitudes -- patent-pending, of course -- divides the fee simple title into a Cultural Title(tm) that the museum retains and a Collector Title(tm) that the museum sells. Divided interests, James Maroney -- are you listening?
If the museum is not currently exercising its Cultural Title rights over the object for display, research, conservation or other purpose, the collector can exercise his or her Collector Title right of possession. The museum can retake possession any time it needs its object -- in effect taking the object out of external storage for as long as active use continues. When the museum no longer actively uses the object, it goes back to the collector's possession -- a right the collector can hold in perpetuity, or resell at any time for what the market will bear.
With Coaccession, museums really would look for investors, rather than just calling donors investors because it sounds nicer to ask for an "investment" than a gift. All those objects in the collection could underpin in part people's savings for college and retirement and major purchases (like artworks!) -- offering a socially-responsible route to greater diversification.
Since a community can afford to invest much more than it can afford to donate, museums would have much larger resource bases to work with in preserving and presenting the objects in permanent collections (not to mention access to the whole community's homes, offices, schools, churches, etc., for storing objects not in use).
Existing museums could begin to care for and display their permanent collections like the wealthy institutions that they are in many cases, and new museums could start up much more easily when the need arises to accumulate and preserve a new collection to present some important part of the community's culture.
Great benefits will come from rejecting the existing "mortmain model" handed down from feudal times (as we might call it with a nod to Lee Salomon) and letting modern ideas and modern methods mobilize finance to elevate culture.
Like Mr. Maroney, I'm very happy, even eager, to describe my Coaccession method in detail, comparing and contrasting it with other proposals like arbitrated deaccessions, collection-based loans, collection rentals, and tenancy-in-common. You can write me at coaccession-at-gmail.com.
The comment didn't post -- Judy Dobrzcynski moderates -- but it did prompt an email from JDH to me:
Dear Mark White:
Thank you for your comment. I have not published it because it reads like an advertisement, and because ArtsJournal sells advertisements on my blog, it would be a conflict to publish.
I do plan to post again about deaccessioning, and I'll read your comment again at that time with an eye toward mentioning the concept (attributed to you, of course).
Thanks again, and regards,
JHD @ RCA
Dear Judith Dobrzynski,
You're absolutely right about how my comment reads -- although I think of it more as an incitement than an advertisement. When Charles Desmarais writes "Indeed, if the restrictions on deaccession proceeds were not in place, [trustees] might justifiably make the ethical argument that a museum has no right to ask for money it "does not need" (now that there is another source), when there are so many unfulfilled social needs elsewhere," I think he cuts right to the heart of the "mortmain model's" problem. It takes valuable assets out of circulation so they don't provide full societal benefits. Coaccession keeps cultural rights and access in the public domain while fully mobilizing financial values to support cultural activities. America's wealthiest art museums are wonderfully positioned to underwrite a cultural renaissance in their cities, given the trillions in assets they hold. All they have to do is let households, mutual funds, pension funds and insurance companies trade their stocks and bonds for Investor Titles(tm) to iconic works on permanent display and Collector Titles to selected works in storage and they will have billions in annual income to support the arts, humanities and sciences.
Your op-ed and post about your arbitrated deaccessions proposal really help advance the conversation on financial deaccessions. I hope Coaccession will take financial deaccessions completely off the table, though, by showing museums how they can have their Monet and money, too. It's awfully hard, though, to get museum people to consider a different approach towards capitalizing collections, which is quite ironic considering what Mark Gold writes about the museum world's victory on FASB Standard No. 116. I do hope you'll mention Coaccession as an alternative when you next post on deaccession, and in the meantime let me post a toned-down comment.
All the best,
PS If you're interested, here are some additional perspectives on Coaccession:
(see especially the three paragraphs discussing audience reaction to Mark White's idea)
(especially the comments starting with Paul Klein's first, and most especially my two comments)
(especially my comment)
... and my comment:
JHD, your op-ed and post stimulated some great discussion on deaccession, but for me the most important comment was James Maroney's. Given all the cash-strapped institutions cutting cultural programs today, finding workable alternatives to financially-driven deaccessions (as opposed to culturally-driven deaccessions) should be the museum profession's highest priority. Workable is the key word here. Wishful thinking will not preserve all our cultural institutions and their permanent collections intact when private and public donors face their own tight constraints on giving.
Like Maroney, I have a plan that does not sell art, which once sold is gone forever. Rather than selling partial, undivided interests in the titles to selected artworks to join museums with private collectors in a Tenancy in Common, my plan sells one part of a divided title to collectors who have right of possession when museums would otherwise store the selected artworks, and retains the divided title's other part so museums have right of possession when they need the piece for display, research, conservation or other cultural purposes. With this Equitable Servitude on their artworks, museums have the cultural rights they need for their cultural mission, as well as added funding for that mission -- in essence, this plan lets you have your Monet and money, too. Rather than temporary emergency financing, my plan lets museums permanently turn most of the financial value of their permanent collections into stocks and bonds paying dividends and interest to support their cultural mission, and lets households, mutual funds, pension funds and insurance companies hold divided titles to museum artworks as the most socially-responsible part of their financial portfolios.
Here's hoping that the silver lining to the current hard times includes stimulating more alternatives to the existing "mortmain model" for cultural institutions (hat tip to Lee Salomon for the moniker). By immobilizing the financial value of their permanent collections, museums paid a very high price to win the "victory" on FASB 116 that Mark Gold describes. If the right alternatives emerge, it might be time to begin climbing down from that position. Like Maroney, I would be pleased to describe my plan in greater detail to folks interested in developing and using workable alternatives to deaccession.
Dr. Mark White -- Coaccession-at-gmail.com
... prompted this response from Judy:
much better, and published.
This sounds like kind of a partial gift in reverse...is there a time-frame for the agreement, or till the death, or...
Also, are there tax benefits for the collector-investor? Why would a collector do this?
My answer to her questions:
Responding to fair criticism tends to make texts much better, even publishable. I'm happier with the second version, which appeals more to thoughtful readers thanks to you.
Some Coaccession applications (there are many) can indeed sound like kind of a partial gift in reverse, and others like kind of a partial gift, and yet others like some sort of securitization. When this idea of structuring shared ownership on divided rights rather than percentages of the full rights bundle first came to me (to encourage archaeologists and collectors to work together rather than fight each other) I had no idea that its ramifications would make it so similar to so many existing ownership and leasing structures, yet so distinct in crucial particulars and implications. Of course, I also had no idea it was a novel and subtle application of the law -- my doctorate is in finance, not law -- and that my associates and I would be working though these ramifications de novo. Feel free to ask for comparisons, and I will do my best to point out the similarities and distinctions.
Partial gift in reverse? When a collector with full title divides it and donates the Cultural Title to a museum, the museum immediately has in perpetuity all rights except possession, plus the ability to take possession as needed to exercise its rights. The collector retains the Collector Title with the right of possession in perpetuity and takes actual possession any time the museum does not actively use the artwork for its cultural mission (storage doesn't count as active use -- that's when the collector enjoys possession). That collector's donation is in fact a partial gift (albeit not the standard partial gift of fractional ownership of a full undivided title), and the collector can take a tax deduction for the Cultural Title's value (which I maintain is one-tenth the value of the sum of the divided titles, which sum is in turn slightly more than the value of a full undivided title thanks to the divided titles' flexible applications). So, when a museum with full title divides it and sells the Collector Title to a collector, retaining the Cultural Title, it's fair to say in that sense and that application that Coaccession sounds like kind of a partial gift in reverse. The time-frame for the transactions is perpetuity, since titles and consideration change hands, and the obligations to the museum run with the Collector Title to the artwork. This is quite distinct from James Maroney's tenancy in common till the death agreement, which is more an innovation in application than an innovation in common law (which Coaccession is, in the history of equitable servitudes).
Tax benefits? Coaccession can open up art investing to a much larger cross-section of the public, including a vast middle class that tends to be much more interested in holding a diversified portfolio of appreciating assets than in finding write-offs to lower taxable income. A major museum with an iconic work on permanent display could sell an Investor Title instead of a Collector Title, offering millions of "shares" to small investors though an lPO on a Chicago Board of Art. An Investor Title obliges the museum to forever use the artwork actively for its cultural mission -- it can only come off display for research or conservation or restoration. Museums then must be very sure of an artwork's iconic status before they issue an Investor Title. Once they do, though, the IPO proceeds will let them be very sure they have the financial resources to properly care for their icon, which will be all the more in the public's awareness thanks to daily reports on its share trading in the CBOA. (How did your Starry Night do today? Would you like to get into some Nighthawks or American Gothic, or do you want to pull in your horns and just hold some Fidelity Diversified Art Fund for now?) Museums can serve the broader community seeking better investments by offering a socially-responsible, historically-strong, better-diversified, bankruptcy-proof asset class, rather than serving just that narrower slice that asks if there are tax benefits for the collector-investor. The new collector class would do this for all the benefits listed above. The existing collectors? Tax advisors assure me that Coaccession can offer new angles for the wealthy, even if that's not the main thrust of its. And the museums? The investing public and its intermediaries in mutual funds, pension funds and insurance companies can offer undreamed-of resources to support the cultural missions of these cultural property repositories. The museums just have to learn to share ownership rather than hoarding it under the "mortmain model."
I expect existing museums will shrink from Coaccession absent extreme duress, because the development model with Coaccession is so dramatically different than those they're used to. Extreme duress stalks the cultural landscape these days, though, so perhaps Coaccession's initial market will consist of more than just start-up institutions, and some of those IPOs will be available relatively soon. I believe Coaccession ought to have a broader market soon, since it mobilizes finance to elevate culture like no other proposal I've seen. When museums facing milder cutbacks see how Coaccession can generate resources without compromising cultural access, they should start to follow suit.
Is this how the inventor of perspective felt? It feels like a new way of seeing things. Sorry, though, that my answers to your questions go so long. Thanks for bearing with me.