Why was not the DMA former director John R. Lane questioned
about his "irrevocable" statement made in the "Fast Forward"
catalogue? Why has not the DMA opened its vault to the
agreements made by each of the promising donors? What
assurance does the museum-goer and the general public have
that the third remaining promising donor, the Roses, are not (and
have not) hatching similar shenanigans?
We are not alone in voicing this concern about the art world in
the U.S. The nonprofit Rand Corporation in 2005 published "A
Portrait of the Visual Arts: Meeting the Challenges of a New Era"
which echoes the concern of many. In
its conclusion the Rand Corporation states "We suspect that as
long as museums, in particular, continue to respond quickly and
concertedly to each controversy with public reprimands and new
policies and guidelines, new government
regulations of museums are unlikely." If visual arts organizations
do not police themselves, toothy government regulations will do it
for them.