Benefits of the Codex Sale

I find it necessary to respond to Christopher Knight’s piece on the selling of the Leonardo da Vinci Codex, “The Hammer Falls on the Public’s Trust,” which appeared in Calendar on Nov. 15.

First, the UCLA Hammer Board of Trustees had nothing to do with the decision to sell the Codex. The board that administered the Hammer Museum from its opening until last April, when the management agreement with UCLA was signed, made that decision, which UCLA only later approved. The sale provided a cash escrow fund that UCLA required to protect the university against any indebtedness or lawsuits resulting from events taking place before the management agreement was signed. UCLA did not designate or suggest from where that fund should come.

Second, when UCLA became aware that the “old” board would develop the escrow fund by de-accession of works from the collection, that board was informed of the ethical guidelines established by the American Assn. of Museums (AAM), which suggest that de-accession funds should be used only for the purchase of other works of art. The “old” Hammer Museum was not a member of AAM, but nonetheless concurred that, once the pre-existing obligations of the museum were met, the principal and the accrued interest in the fund (after the agreed-to eight-year waiting period) would be used for art purchases.

Several days prior to Knight’s article, I had been quoted in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post as being determined to uphold this principle. Knight is correct that if no lawsuit is settled against the museum’s interest, the fund could represent about $40 million in accession funds, which would go a great way toward improving the collection he chooses to disdain.

According to AAM guidelines, the Codex was sold publicly, at auction, so that anyone could bid. Bill Gates, the purchaser, has given every indication that he is a responsive owner who will exhibit the work internationally. And, because of the notoriety surrounding the sale, probably many thousands more people will see it than would have at the Hammer Museum.

Knight also questioned whether the Hammer Museum is worthy to be salvaged. The university assumed management of the museum for sound reasons. The Hammer Museum agreement has given UCLA the opportunity to build the finest arts program of any major research university in the country. The UCLA Wight Art Gallery and Grunwald Center for Graphic Arts had outgrown their space on campus and the Hammer Museum offered a larger and more accessible facility.

*

Since our management began, two exhibitions have been presented, and both were reviewed by Knight: “The Assertive Image,” which he declared made the museum look better than ever before, and “The French Renaissance in Prints,” now showing, which he found to be the definitive scholarly work on the subject, and which, by the way, was curated by the Grunwald Center and will travel to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.

In addition, the UCLA/Hammer has instituted free Saturday interactive programs for children that incorporate musical and dance performances followed by storytelling. These children’s programs are presented by groups representing the many ethnicities that make up our wonderful and diverse community. Each Sunday, there are free musical performances. Each month, on Thursday nights, there are free readings by internationally renowned poets. Each Saturday, we teach courses in basic art appreciation to create future audiences for the arts. In the six weeks since these programs began, more than 1,500 children and adults have participated.

Come on, Christopher, would you rather see another empty building in Westwood with the collection totally dispersed? That could have happened had UCLA not joined with a new board to salvage the operation.