LACMA DOES AN ABOUT-FACE ON ART SALE

An ancient Indian sculpture quietly consigned for sale in a New York gallery by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art will be returned to the museum, LACMA Director Michael Govan said, as the museum reconsiders policies on the perpetually controversial issue of such “de-accessions.”

“I’m very conservative on de-accessioning,” Govan said in a telephone interview Thursday. “LACMA’s existing policies are standard. You may see those policies change in the future -- you will probably see them get tighter -- but that will take serious consultation with curators and members of the board.”

Govan said the turnabout on the Indian work came in response to questions about the propriety of the sale raised earlier this week by retired LACMA curator Pratapaditya Pal, a leading scholar of Indian art.

“The process was carried out very carefully by all those involved,” Govan said. “But out of respect for a great man and somebody who has contributed enormously to the museum, I want to take his thoughts into consideration. The sculpture will be returned and discussed.”

Pal pronounced himself “very pleased” with Govan’s decision to spare an artwork Pal considers special because of its size, age, quality and individuality. “I felt that I had to save this piece,” he said. “That’s my duty, and I am quite passionate about it.”

The 38-inch-tall sandstone sculpture of Uma-Maheshvara, a pair of Hindu deities, was to go on view Tuesday -- with a $350,000 asking price -- in “Sacred and Sublime,” an exhibition at Carlton Rochell Asian Art, in the Fuller Building’s elegant gallery enclave on 57th Street. It was not the star attraction among 65 works of Indian and Southeast Asian art, several of which are valued at more than $1 million apiece. But LACMA purchased the Uma-Maheshvara in 1969 as part of a 345-piece collection amassed by dealer Nasli Heeramaneck and his wife, Alice. The acquisition immediately established the museum as a serious collector of Indian art.

“The Heeramaneck collection is what this museum is known for,” said Pal, who was hired in 1970 and spent 25 years at LACMA building on the early acquisition. Upon learning of the sculpture’s consignment, he sent an e-mail to museum administrators stating his objections to selling what he deemed “one of the rarest and most important Indian sculptures from the Heeramaneck collection.”

“While I am all for museums selling off duplicate and less significant works of art to improve the collection, I must say that the ca. 600 Uma-Maheshvara is neither,” he wrote. The sculpture is the “earliest representation of its kind” at LACMA and “the only monumental stone sculpture from the late Gupta period,” he wrote.

Govan said the sculpture was slated for sale because the curatorial staff thought similar objects in the collection were superior, had stronger exhibition histories and were more frequently on view at the museum. He also said that recent scholarship indicates that the artwork was made about 300 years later than Pal had dated it. Govan declined to detail the studies, saying that scholars disagree and all points of view will be considered in discussions of the sculpture.

But Pal defended the ascribed date, saying “the posture of the goddess, sitting imperious with her legs the way they are positioned, goes out of fashion in India after the 6th century.”

In his e-mail, Pal asked why the piece hadn’t been consigned to a public auction, but Govan said that isn’t always the best way to handle a sale. “Some things do better at auction, some at a gallery,” he said. “For me, the key thing is to do it in a public way.”

For Govan, approaching the end of an eventful first year as director, the dispute brings to the fore the vexing issue of selling works to acquire others. “At LACMA,” he said, “we are highly under-endowed in terms of acquisition funds. There has been pressure on curators to use de-accessioning as a primary tool to improve the collections. I think the key issue is to inspire more generosity in terms of what’s available for acquisitions.”

Pressure to upgrade the collection fueled the museum’s sale of 42 Modern artworks at auction in 2005. But Pal’s successors have added 432 works to the Indian and Southeast Asian collection and sold only two since his departure, Govan said.

One of those works, an Indian sandstone sculpture of a river goddess, came from the Heeramaneck collection, but Pal didn’t object.

“I did not raise a furor over that because it truly was a redundant piece,” Pal said, “but I would never de-accession anything from the Heeramaneck collection. It is very special collection.”

suzanne.muchnic@latimes.com