Skip to main content
40 best of the collection shipped to Sotheby's

Seven Years Ago Today

July 12, 2024

On July 12, 2017, seven years ago, the community learned of the Berkshire Museum’s intent to sell its most valuable art in a plan to fund their “New Vision.” At the time, 40 works of art, including two iconic Norman Rockwell paintings given by the artist to the Berkshire community, had already been removed from the Museum and consigned to Sothebys. The fact is, selling the Berkshire Museum’s most valuable art was a long-standing plan, in process well before a contract with Sotheby’s was signed.

The plan to sell the art was not revealed to the community until the art had already been removed from the Museum’s premises. This decision, made without the community’s prior knowledge, prompted immediate outcry and triggered widespread coverage in national and international publications. Hundreds of letters to the editor and extensive features in the local Berkshire Eagle followed.

Selling cherished and valuable art was in itself controversial. Using the sale proceeds for anything but direct care of the art challenged long-standing professional ethical practices, and was widely condemned by professional associations. Anita Walker, then director of the Mass Cultural Council, criticized the sale and declared it a violation of the public trust. An analysis by Stephen Sheppard, renowned economist of Williams College, examined the Museum’s claims of “structural deficit”, suggested they were exaggerated, and proposed other options. Multiple lawsuits undertaken by members of the community ultimately reached the state’s Supreme Court. Despite an extensive report by Maura Healey’s Massachusetts Attorney General’s office and generous offers for economic assistance to pause the sale, the art was ordered to be sold.

Director Van Shields, who crafted the plan, was replaced by Jeff Rogers, who left after just two years. Board attrition has also been notable – only two remain from that time period. Now, seven years later, the Museum announced scaled back renovations funded by the proceeds, and the facts of how this happened are being continuously revised. The lack of both financial transparency and diverse community engagement continue to this day.

Save-the-Art (STA), an ad-hoc citizens group, is long recognized in the Berkshires and beyond for its community advocacy and widely publicized protests outside the Museum and Sotheby’s. The Berkshire Museum’s recent publicity heralding its “third phase” of renovations, coinciding with the 7-year anniversary of the public announcement to sell the art, provides an ideal opportunity to remember what was lost – valuable art and the public’s trust – while recalling how it came to be.

  • FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY – The $5.5 million spent to date to address the museum’s infrastructure repairs is covered many times over by the @ $53 million raised by the sale. The recent announcement does not include the budget for upcoming aquarium renovation costs, current balance from art sale proceeds, or plans for use of the remaining funds. A report detailing this information is required by the AG  but has not been filed publicly.
  • PUBLIC TRUST – Accountability and diverse community input are critical to restoring trust in the Berkshire Museum. The Museum has an opportunity to accomplish this by inviting voices from throughout the community to be heard and in the process, help shape the future.
  • DEACCESSION – Professional museum associations temporarily relaxed deaccession rules during the pandemic to support institutions through the resulting financial hardships. The Berkshire Museum’s auctions preceded this time, yet this temporary change in guidelines has been used to retroactively justify the Museum’s actions.

The Save-the-Art website, savetheart.net, maintains an extensive archive of articles, documentation and related content. It outlines the sequence of events that led to the Berkshire Museum’s art collection sale. The website shares facts, personal stories, articles, timelines and reflects the voices of the community and the wider public. It exists for future generations to learn from, and provides a resource to support financially challenged institutions whose art collections may face threat of liquidation now or in the future.

This is what happened at the Berkshire Museum

2017 – 2018
Precedent Deaccession Sale of 40 Artworks

In 2018 a $53.25 million dollar sale resulted in the loss of 22 of the community’s most valuable works of art, held in trust by the Berkshire Museum. The sale, brokered by Sotheby’s and ultimately sanctioned by the State of Massachusetts, resulted in the transfer of the majority of these pieces to private ownership. Use of the net proceeds is somewhat restricted and interest generated from the $40 million dollar endowment currently used to support general operating expenses. This sale took place before COVID-19. The proceeds were not sought for nor are they used to diversify the collection or address staff pay equity.This precedent setting sale and the use of the funds continues to fuel current debate about deacession in general—how and why it is done, and the broad consequences related to professional practices.

Locally, the impact on our community is no less complex. Decisions made behind the scenes by the board, former leadership and legal advisers ultimately led to the loss of our art, cultural heritage and impact both present and future generations. We continue to watch and observe the museum’s role in the community and live with the consequences of those decisions on our small, regional museum that still has the word ART in its name.

 

22 sold art works from the Berkshire Museum

 

Of the 40 works of art removed from the Berkshire Museum collection, 22 were sold, netting $53.25 million. Eighteen objects were returned from Sotheby’s. Click on frame for more information

 

WHAT STRUCTURAL DEFICIT?
Does the Museum have a real problem?

The Museum has justified this sale primarily through two arguments. First, that the revised orientation of the Museum would improve the benefits generated by the museum for the community, and second that the Museum does in fact face an existential crisis in the form of a “structural deficit” that could force it to close in as little as 6 years. As expected, the proposed deaccession plan generated a firestorm of criticism (as well as some public support). Considerable confusion has remained concerning the nature and severity of the deficit. This confusion has not been reduced by the limited efforts the Museum has made to explain its calculations or the alternative approaches to dealing with the deficit short of deaccessioning. In what follows, I try to address and provide some answers to four questions that seem central to the controversy: (1) How has structural the deficit been defined? (2) Has the deficit been properly measured? (3) Does the Museum have a real problem? (4) What alternative approaches might be feasible?

Published By Stephen Sheppard
Professor of Economics, Williams College
Center for Creative Community Development
Read more
“The works that have been selected for deaccession have been deemed to be not essential to the Museum’s refreshed mission and do not directly contribute to its new interdisciplinary interpretive plan with its heightened emphasis on science and history.”
Rockwell donates work to museum

Shuffleton’s Barbershop

North Adams Transcript, Friday, August 22, 1958
“Recently acquired by the Calder Foundation, the sculpture was included in a group exhibition in the summer of 1933 at the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts; the Berkshire purchased the work, making it Calder’s first abstract sculpture to be acquired by a museum. In a statement for the exhibition catalogue, Calder wrote: “The orbits are all circular arcs or circles. The supports have been painted to disappear against a white background to leave nothing but the moving elements, their forms and colors, and their orbits, speeds and accelerations.”

What happened in 2017-2018 at the Berkshire Museum of History, Science and Art is documented on this website. At the time of the public announcement the artwork had already been consigned, crated and removed before the community was informed. Seven years later not one public, open forum has been held.

Berkshire Museum Unveils $60 Million Reinvention Plan
– The Berkshire Museum Press Release, July 12, 2017

Berkshire Museum Moves Forward With $60 Million Reinvention Plan | Funding strategy details announced as strong community interest and support emerges
– The Berkshire Museum Press Release, July 24, 2017

Statement on The Berkshire Museum Proposal to Deaccession Works of Art for Its Endowment, Operations, and to Fund Capital Investments
– American Alliance of Museums, July 25, 2017

Unsolicited Advice for the Berkshire Museum
– by Felix Salmon, Cause and Effect, August 6, 2017

Berkshire Museum art auction not discussed in focus groups – by Carrie Saldo, The Berkshire Eagle
August 17, 2017

Berkshire Museum signaled intent to sell works weeks before board vote – by Carrie Saldo,
The Berkshire Eagle, August 31, 2017

Press Release: Mass Cultural Council Statement
on the Berkshire Museum – September 20, 2017

Timeline of Events – Berkshire Museum Deaccessioning Timeline – by Larry Parnass, The Berkshire Eagle,
December 20, 2017

Donor Intent Watch: A Dispute at the Berkshire Museum Offers Lessons on Donor Intent – by Joanne Florino, Philanthropy Roundtable, October 26, 2023

Our Opinion: Transparency could disarm controversy for Berkshire Museum – Editorial, The Berkshire Eagle,
October 4, 2025

 
 
 

“As one of the 400 community members asked by Director Van Shields to participate in a focus group on the museum’s future, I can confirm the reporting done by The Eagle that the groups were not informed that the plan called for selling the 40 works of art. I can also add that last week I received a letter from Director Shields that explains such an ethical oversight by saying, “We did not flag that for you, because we wanted your unfettered input to test our ideas and make our final selection.” In addition he adds, “You were not asked to endorse our New Vision; rather, you played a role in helping us shape it.”

Berkshire Museum shows Calder 1933
In 1933, Berkshire Museum Director Laura Bragg exhibited the work of four Berkshire residents: Alexander Calder, George Morris of the Fiffh Avenue cubists, Calvert Coggeshall, and Alma de Gersdorff. While his fanily summered in the Berkshires, this was Calder’s first exhibit in the United States. Calder gained fame in Paris, where he used simple iron wire as his medium, twisting it into varying curves and forms. Calder was considered a pioneer in his use of industrial materials and fabrication proceses. In the opinion of many art experts, much of contemporary sculpture has been influenced by his work. Bragg purchased two of Calder’s early modern sculptures exhibited at this show for the Twentieth Century Gallery. In an Art Digest article about Calder’s work, written just after the purchase, Bragg said: “They succeed in giving freshly creative form of motion devoid from representation. Whether or not they are the introduction of a new art form, I am sure they have real significance. I have watched with curiosity their effect upon the general public. People sit quietly before them, apparently stilled and quieted by something, perhaps merely by the rhythm of the movement. But we have found it easy to make a Sunday afternoon crowd understand ‘abstract’ motion where they would be blank before abstract painting.” Bragg was the first American museum director to recognize Calder’s genius with her purchase of two motorized sculptures, The Arc and the Quadrant and Dancing Torpedo Shape. First American Museum to purchase Calder artworks