It is ironic that this new TMA Facebook post boasts of having every color of the rainbow in their galleries using unidentified paintings that they don’t even have hanging on their walls! And the colored stripes they cropped out of their new acquisition of a rainbow flag (using Edward Drummond Libbey Endowment funds) — they don’t even have THAT on display! They don’t identify the art they are exploiting but they make sure to identify the politics! Where’s the art?
Not on View!
no kidding!
Why did they buy it if they are not going to hang it?
Is the museum promoting Pride or is Pride promoting the museum? If the art doesn’t hang on the gallery walls but instead is used to make derivatives of the art for institutional advertising, there is not much to be proud of at the Toledo Museum of “Art.”
Ownership of art does not come with the right to exploit the artist’s copyright for advertising or promoting a brand by incorporating it into their giant size overbearing logo. I hope the museum licensed that right from the Gilbert Baker estate as his copyright runs through 2087.
Identity politics yes but forget about the artist
As for moral rights — recently the museum has dropped the all-important information of identifying artwork they exploit on social media by omitting the name of the artist, title of the artwork and the year of creation, indicating that they view that artists are no longer individuals — that artists belong to the “collective” now. The museum presents itself as the “Artist.”
The Painter Charles Conder — who knew?
Where did the painter Charles Conder go? He went to a small but hip and exclusively gay Chicago gallery in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, the Wrightwood 659, for a show titled The First Homosexuals: Birth of a New Identity. The gallery is open only 2 days a week, but for June in celebration of Pride, it’s open 3 days a week. Be warned, it’s for adults only:
Content Advisory: The First Homosexuals contains sexually explicit content. For mature audiences only. Some portions of the exhibition contain sexual violence, violence against Indigenous peoples, and racist depictions.
Don’t plan on seeing it though even if you want to – it’s so exclusive that tickets may be impossible to get. Is this what the Toledo Museum of Art is about now? Would the Libbeys like this?
Perhaps Toledo’s greatest artist of all, for what she created and gave to the people of Toledo
some works of art that Florence Scott Libbey contributed to the Toledo Museum of Art, and works bought with funds from her bequest in memory of her father, Maurice A. Scott
The Architect’s Dream, 1840. Thomas Cole (American (born England), 1801-1848), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1949.162
If it wasn’t for Florence Scott Libbey, there would be no Toledo Museum of Art. The land it’s built on, the building, the additions, and most of the artwork in the museum is a gift of Florence Scott Libbey and her husband, Edward Drummond Libbey. She gave the gift of art to all Toledoans. She ensured that the museum would always be free, so that people from all walks of life could benefit from the collection of high quality art and the performance of great music in an outstanding Peristyle theatre in the East Wing.
Early Pilgrims of New England Going to Worship, George Henry Boughton (American, 1833-1905), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1957.30
Florence Scott was born on January 11, 1863, in Castleton-on-Hudson, Rensselaer County, New York to Mary Brown Messinger and Maurice Austin Scott, who was born on September 23, 1830, in Ridgefield, Fairfield County, Connecticut. Florence comes from a long line of fierce Puritans, non-conformists who had the strength and gumption to pull up their roots in England in search of religious freedom. They arrived in the New World to build a better life, as hard and challenging as it was. They were pioneers. Six generations lived in Fairfield county, Connecticut, before they migrated to Ohio in the early nineteenth century. Florence’s grandparents, Jesup and Susan Wakeman Scott and sons Maurice, Frank and William contributed greatly to the development of the brand new city of Toledo. Toledo is profoundly fortunate for all that they contributed, including several city parks, the University of Toledo, and the Toledo Museum of Art.
Starrucca Viaduct, 1865. Pennsylvania, Jasper Francis Cropsey (American, 1823-1900), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1947.58Roman Newsboys, 1848. Martin Johnson Heade (American, 1819-1904), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1953.68
In 1835, Jesup Scott purchased the land on which the museum would later stand in 1912. Over the years, the close-knit extended family lived in Maumee, Connecticut, and Castleton-on-Hudson, which is where Florence was born and raised. Florence’s uncle Frank Scott was an architect and world traveler, possibly explaining where Florence got her sophistication and love of art. She went to finishing school in Germany. In the 1880’s the Scotts moved into a new house built at 2449 Monroe St. marking the precise location that would soon enough be the entrance to the museum.
Across the Salt Marshes, Huntington, abt 1905. Edward Jean Steichen (American, 1879-1973), Gift of Florence Scott Libbey, 1912.4Auvers, Landscape with Plough, 1872-1877. Charles-François Daubigny (French, 1817-1878), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 2015.18The Sickle, 1962. Jim Dine (American, born 1935), Gift of Florence Scott Libbey, by exchange. 2004.84A-BRooks in a Field, 1891. Laurits Andersen Ring (Danish, 1854 – 1933), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott and with funds given in memory of Sarnoff A. Mednick, 2016.13Still Life with Oranges, 1818. Raphaelle Peale (American, 1774-1825), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1951.498Village Tavern, 1813-1814. John Lewis Krimmel (American, 1786-1821), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1954.13Scene from Spenser’s “Fairie Queene”: Una and the Dwarf, 1827. Samuel Finley Breese Morse (American, 1791-1872), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1951.295
I should mention here that in 1888 Edward Drummond Libbey moved his glass plant to Toledo from Cambridge, Massachusetts after meeting Florence at a dinner party. They were married on June 24, 1890 at Florence’s home, the spot of the future museum. It was the social event of the season. Florence and Edward were not royalty, they were in fact everyday people, but because their hearts were big and they could do, and did do, so much good for the people of Toledo, they were elevated to the highest level of greatness that Toledo has ever seen. And rightly so. When Mayor Carty Finkbinder initiated the Toledo Civic Hall of Fame in 1998, guess who was the first inductee?
Italian Landscape, 1814. Washington Allston (American, 1779-1843), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1949.113
Founded in 1901 with other like-minded citizens including artists, the museum opened in 1903 in a house provided by the Libbeys on the corner of Madison and 13th Street. Right away the museum was integrated into the community. Art classes began right away, including weekly children’s classes with 50 children. Later, after the white-marble museum was built on land donated by Florence, the School of Design was opened in an adjacent house on the property that was the former house of Florence’s uncle William. They had classes in drawing, painting, photography, pottery, needlework, lettering and home decoration. The museum gave hundreds of lectures a year and was a hot-bed of activity, designed “to bring our citizens the understanding of the principles and the benefits of art in their lives and in their work.” (Edward Drummond Libbey, 1921) The mission was both art education and the safe-keeping and exhibition of art. Then, during the Depression, the Peristyle was built, which employed countless Toledoans, thanks to the kindness and generosity of Florence Scott Libbey. She ensured in her will that the museum be free for everybody in perpetuity, and that the musical performances would be free or affordable for all walks of life.
Madonna and Child with Saints, probably 1759. Giambettino Cignaroli (Italian, 1706-1770), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1971.6Scene from Ariosto’s “Orlando Furioso” The Damsel and Orlando, 1793. Benjamin West (American, 1738-1820), Gift of Florence Scott Libbey, 1912.10The Washerwoman, abt. 1733-1739. Jean-Siméon Chardin (French, 1699-1779), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her
Father, Maurice A. Scott, 2006.2The Washerwoman, abt. 1733-1739. Jean-Siméon Chardin (French, 1699-1779), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her
Father, Maurice A. Scott, 2006.3Van Campen Family Portrait in a Landscape, Early 1620’s. Frans Hals (Dutch, ca. 1581 – 1666), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, and the Libbey Endowment, Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, Bequest of Jill Ford Murray, and Gift of Mrs. Samuel A. Peck, Mrs. C. Lockhart McKelvy, and Mr. and Mrs. Frederick S. Ford, by exchange, 2011.80Portrait of a Black Man in a World of Trouble, 1990. Kerry James Marshall (American, born 1955), Purchased with funds from the Jamar Art Fund of Marvin and Lenore Kobacker, the Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Barber Art Fund, the Mrs. George W. Stevens Fund, and the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 2022.22
A note about the Portrait of a Black Man in a World of Trouble –
Would Florence Scott Libbey like this little painting of a burnt American flag? Her ancestors helped build this country and fought in the American Revolution. Florence and Edward were upstanding American citizens who founded the museum. They would never burn a flag. Is the museum trying to make a point here? The museum also used funds from the Kobakers and the Barbers, who fought under the flag in World War II. This little scribble of Kerry James Marshall’s is hardly one of his best — it was not in his 2016 retrospective of about 100 of works at the Met. It was owned by the father of a Brooklyn Museum curator with whom the Toledo Museum was planning a Nigerian art show for the Summer of 2023. It was bought from an Ohio art dealer who listed it at an art fair in April 2022. The next year, the museum accepted a donation of a large number of prints from this same art dealer. An iconic Kerry James Marshall painting for the museum would have been nice, especially since they just sold three iconic Impressionist paintings for diversity sake making $61M. The former contemporary art curator wrote on Instagram that this painting would be used in their programs. Perhaps because it fits in a spiral bound notebook and is easy to carry to the museum’s new offsite art classes in the Projects, to condescendingly show the fledgling art students that the Art Museum bought this painting of a black man in a world of trouble. See, he burned the flag. So please come to the museum.
Head of an Old Man, about 1883. Frank Duveneck (American, 1848-1919), Gift of Florence Scott Libbey, 1923.19John Ashley, 1799. Gilbert Stuart (American, 1755-1828), Gift of Florence Scott Libbey, 1912.12Hester, Countess of Sussex, and Her Daughter, Lady Barbara Yelverton, 1771. Thomas Gainsborough (British, 1727-1788), Purchased with funds from the Libbey Endowment, Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, and with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1984.20John Banister, 1798. Robert Feke (American, 1706/7-1752), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1945.16Mrs. Nathaniel Cunningham, 1730. John Smibert (American, 1688-1751), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1948.19Young Lady with a Bird and a Dog, 1767. John Singleton Copley (American, 1738-1815), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott, 1950.306Lisa Jean, 1987. Henry Speller (American, 1900 – 1997), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott and gift of the Souls Grown Deep Foundation, 2021.28A Young Lady Named Georgia Alice Fixing to Get Married and Got on Her Wedding Dress, 1987. Georgia Speller (American, 1931 – 1988), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott and gift of the Souls Grown Deep Foundation, 2021.27
A note about Lisa Jean, A Young Lady Named Georgia Alice Fixing to Get Married and Got on Her Wedding Dress, and the Souls Grown Deep
In 2019, the museum jumped on the nation-wide museum bandwagon to buy the self-taught art and quilts of a small community in Alabama from the Souls Grown Deep Foundation. The museum chose to further Florence Scott Libbey’s legacy by using her Bequest for many more pieces, see here. By buying these pieces from Souls Grown Deep, the museum agreed to their policy of resale rights, so it’s a financial arrangement as well. And note that every acquisition is not only purchased with the funds of Florence Scott Libbey in memory of her father, every one is also a gift of Souls Grown Deep.
What a wild contrast these works make for the collection of Florence Scott Libbey’s bequests. Would she like them? Or is her memory getting jerked around by the new leadership of the museum?
The School of Design has withered away to nearly nothing. While the museum bragged that it was “bursting out of the walls” with its classes in the Projects, the truth is that, for years, it had been quietly dismantling the real school — the one that served generations of everyday people. For decades, it was a respected, working institution with deep community roots and enormous potential for growth. But instead of nurturing that legacy, the museum shifted its focus. Today, its outreach is largely limited to its new pet demographic: those living within a two-mile radius.
One thing is for sure, the portraits Florence bought for the museum have made much better artists of Toledoans. Toledo artists are particularly skilled at rendering the human form and capturing a likeness. For example, Leslie Adams, Chelsea Yonkman, Aaron Bivins, Michael Sheets, Richard Reed, Diana Attie to name a few. Ironically, the Libbeys started the local art shows at the museum, that Brian Kennedy, the museum’s 9th director, ended in 2014. The museum ridded itself of storing years of local artist purchase awards. As a result, this great collection of Toledo art has disintegrated into thin air. Then the museum buys this low quality self-taught folk art from a single region in the South. They have to build more storage just to store it — the sculpture, Trip to the Mountaintop, shown below, is 11 feet tall and 7 feet around. Adam Levine is quoted in a national publication that he is not only committed to showing these works, he’s committed to storing them too.
Woman Keeping Her Eye on What She Got, 2001. Thornton Dial (American, 1928-2016), Purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott and gift of the Souls Grown Deep Foundation, 2021.17Trip to the Mountaintop, 2004. Thornton Dial (American, 1928-2016), Gift of Arthur J. Secor, by exchange, purchased with funds from the Florence Scott Libbey Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott and gift of the Souls Grown Deep Foundation, 2020.28
The Land Acknowledgment of 2023
The Toledo Museum of Art’s 2023 Land Acknowledgment after 122 years of Florence Scott Libbey’s continuous generosity:
The Toledo Museum of Art is located on the ancestral homelands of the Erie, Kickapoo, Ottawa, and Seneca. We recognize that many other native tribes have also conducted trade on and called this region their home including the Lenape, Miami, Ojibway, Peoria, Pottawatomie, Sauk, Shawnee, and Wyandotte. We at the Museum acknowledge and honor the past present and future lives of indigenous peoples in the Toledo area and thank them for their resilience as stewards of the land on which the Museum’s campus now resides.
Such a trendy token gesture, as if to apologize for the museum being built on the ancestral homelands of four separate native tribes, and the many others who roamed the region who also called it home. Is the museum going to give it back then? Rather thoughtless, too, because it fails to acknowledge the museum’s own ancestral donors who were the last of any people to live on the land on which the museum now resides. Does this glaring omission of recognition suggest that Florence Scott Libbey and her family did something wrong? Time will tell. They generously donated the land that made the museum possible, along with the art, the time, the leadership, and the money. They gave jobs to ingrates, like the ones who recite this overreaching yet insufficient land acknowledgment whenever they have a chance.
Likewise, on Martin Luther King Day in 2022, the museum opened on a Monday, believed to be the only Monday in its history to be open. It was also the 110th anniversary of the opening of the brand new Beaux Arts white marble Toledo Museum of Art. Did the museum celebrate that anniversary along with Martin Luther King Jr.? No way! They kept it secret. You have to wonder why the anniversary of the museum could not be celebrated on Martin Luther King Day. The museum has no pride? Self-hate? Or is it that they just can’t reconcile having the two celebrations together?
As for respecting Florence Scott Libbey’s wishes for flowers to be put on the Libbey’s grave on Easter Day, Memorial Day and November 13, which is a requirement of the Endowment, (and it’s not really asking too much), just look at the unkept mess that was the Libbey grave on Easter Day in 2023!
Florence’s will was clear: the museum was meant for everyone—free admission for “all conditions of life,” and musical performances priced so anyone could attend. The school, the lectures, the art – it was a gift to the whole community, without barriers. That was the founding spirit of the museum: free and open to all, and they wanted everyone with them.
Now, under Director Adam Levine, he talks of “problems with the beginnings of museums,” as if our museum shares the same legacy of elitism of other museums that he does not name. It couldn’t be further from the truth. Yet this flawed projection seems to justify what he calls a “complete transformation”—a revolution. Into what? We’re simply told we should want it. That we should love what he’s doing. That it will “put Toledo on the map.”
And then comes the rebranding: the museum is now for all people, not just some. As if it wasn’t always. That message doesn’t honor the museum’s roots—it distorts them. It mocks the vision of Florence and Edward Libbey, who built this museum not as a monument to power, but as a community center for education. A museum for everyone. From the very beginning.
Off the Wall
It’s May 15, 2025 today as I write this page and none of these 144 iconic paintings are on view, most of these being the gifts of Edward Drummond Libbey —
The museum makes its own art now. Living off of its great reputation, it runs on fumes.
“The superpower that an art museum has is when something goes up on the wall, it’s considered good. We set the canon.” Adam Levine, 11th Director of The Toledo Museum of Art, quoted in a Forbes interview in 2022.
“Our audience is changing dramatically – our average age of a visitor has dropped by almost 20 years over the past four years, and our visitation is more diverse than the Metropolitan Statistical Area.” Adam Levine, City Paper May 9, 2025
DEI took over the museum and all of a sudden the museum is a condescending love-fest celebrating every holiday for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and the disabled. But the 72% white population of the city is expected to step aside. Art is about identity politics now and the European art has to go. They are teaching a new world order now.
These usurpers plan to transform the museum “right down to the studs.” They don’t have contractors lined up, they don’t know where the money is coming from, but they have already taken the post-Civil War European and American art off the walls.
“Our audience uses the museum as a place to expand their horizons – which is an incredible thing,” said Adam Levine, a New Yorker outsider who is now the 11th director of the museum (the 4th in the past 15 years.) He is ripping it apart as if it is a toy for him to play with. He’s very into surveys, checking everyone’s age, sex, race, religion and address, and the reason why they like to visit the museum. He found out that all sorts of people in Toledo like to expand their horizons at the museum! As if it hasn’t been that way since the Libbeys built the museum for us! As if he is surprised about our intelligence! He can’t imagine other spaces where people of different backgrounds can come together and do such a thing! Well, Adam, Toledo even has a university (thanks to Florence Scott Libbey’s grandfather, Jesup Scott) — image that! People in Toledo of different backgrounds go to concerts too, they use the public library, and they even travel!
“Change is hard for people, especially when people are used to something,” said Levine, who must have paid a PR firm $100,000 for that line, using Libbey funds.
That’s right Adam Levine, people don’t like having their art taken away that was given to them by Florence Scott Libbey and Edward Drummond Libbey, and they don’t like their heritage erased and replaced. People don’t want to go back to the Stone Age, to be forced to walk through your revised art history experiment. We don’t want to be told how to think. We don’t want our great museum torn apart by outsiders who endeavor to make a global name for themselves, an “example for other museums to follow,” at the expense of our fine community, selling our art along the way. We are not your guinea pigs for your experimental labs. People want their fine museum back. We expect museum employees to be good stewards and care for the art and the museum to which they are entrusted, and so do the Libbeys.
Edward Drummond Libbey would be livid knowing what they are doing to their gift of an art museum meant for the people of Toledo — They gave it to all people, not just the few who live in a two-mile radius.
Libbey is a role model for capitalists. He gave back to the community. Many might argue that he should have given to the poor instead of building an art museum.
It is an old argument, but the world needs museums as much as it needs soup lines.
More importantly, how one gives back to the community is an individual matter in our society. Libbey was blessed that his passion for art, love of glassmaking, community vision, and hope in education came together in a single project. His focus was on children and education, which benefited society. Libbey approached philanthropy differently than most other capitalists. He wanted true community involvement in his giving. He didn’t just give Toledo an art museum, he made Toledans part of the building. He made the museum a community center for education. Art and industrial art education were part of the museum’s mission. Libbey found encouragement, not just in the number of visitors to the art galleries, but in the number of students enrolled in training at the museum. He even promoted visits by workers and industrial designers to infuse art and manufacturing into the curriculum.
The museum today remains a spiritual legacy to Edward Libbey. Walking through, you can sense his spirit and direction. The glass collection is a tribute to the glass industry, and a living example of the fusion of industry and art. The diversity of the collection is striking in itself and reflects the central role of art that Libbey envisioned. The museum is still inviting, as Libbey had envisioned. It is in every aspect an art museum for the average person.
––Quentin R. Skrabec, Jr. Edward Drummond Libbey, American Glassmaker, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2011
What these artists have in common is that each one has more than one painting of their work in the collection of the Toledo Museum of Art.
But now there is only one Cézanne painting, and only one Matisse painting, because the other two paintings by Cézanne and Matisse the museum had in their collection were sold to the same buyer on May 17, 2022 for US$57 million. The reason given by Adam Levine, director of the museum, was that “The Toledo Museum of Art has never sought to have multiple examples by the same artist.”
I think they were acquired intentionally. And they were quite valuable.
And these are just the artists that are represented by two or more PAINTINGS. The Toledo Museum of Art has even a bigger collection of multiple examples of the same artist in other categories, such as in their print collection, drawing collection, photography collection, sculpture collection, etc. The museum has multiple works by many artists, and it has always been their intention to have multiple examples by the same artists. The museum is a teaching museum.
The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, led by TMA Board Secretary Thomas Winston, approved an $11M bond (part of a $25M total with Cleveland-Cuyahoga $7M and Columbus-Franklin $7M) for TMA’s HVAC system, exceeding the building’s $23.16M value (now $27.9M post-2024 tax hike). Vice Chair Sharon Speyer sits on both boards. This “port authority facility” funds a shift from Libbey’s “art for the people” to global elitism, as 57 masterworks head to Auckland.
The museum went to the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, asking them to install Port Authority Facilities into the museum in the form of an HVAC system. The port authority agreed and posted a bond for the museum as a part of their .4 mill operating levy that was passed by voters on November 5. More money came from the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority and the Columbus-Franklin County Finance Authority for the total of $24.89 million for a new HVAC system.
How does the cost of an HVAC system exceed the value of the museum building itself? And why would the museum get the Port Authority involved? Why do they even need to replace the HVAC system when they recently paid Air Force One $605,020 in 2019 to replace the temperature controls?
We’ve been told that the museum is undergoing renovations, but if the AC costs this much – payments guessing to be around $2M per year for a 30-year term, where is the money coming from for the rest of the “improvements,” “remodeling” and “reinstallation?”
The recently renovated Cloister gallery gets disassembled (unbelievable, and will cost millions) to be moved just 40 feet to the northeast. New technologies and seating for every gallery, with art shifted around and arranged chronologically. The Glass Pavilion, which cost $30 million to build in 2006, will be repurposed (also unbelievable) as the glass gets removed and scattered amongst the art in the main building arranged by date.
The museum did not provide details about the cost for moving The Cloister. The spokesperson wrote that TMA is privately funded and the project is one small part of the larger reinstallation that is being funded through individual and corporate philanthropy.
Oh, really?
What will fall through the cracks during this seismic shift?
The Impressionist gallery will be replaced with the history of glass in Toledo and the Libbey Glass Co. – a boon for the City of Toledo but a lousy consolation prize for its citizens. I’m sorry Toledoans but we’re taking your paintings. But here’s something to make you feel proud about living in the Glass City. You get to know all about the 19th century history of the glass industry AND the museum history. It’s not quite the famous Impressionist paintings you love and expect to see here, but trust us, museums have a magic power to put anything on the wall and it will be deemed great and you will love it. “The superpower that an art museum has is when something goes up on the wall, it’s considered good. We set the canon.” (Adam Levine, 2022)
Remember the sale of the three French Impressionist paintings for $60 million in 2022, and the promise for new art from it, which never happened? From paintings gifted by Edward Drummond Libbey, they took the proceeds and made themselves a separate, private fund with it, duplicating the size of the Libbey Endowment, instead of putting it back into the Libbey Endowment, thereby both distancing themselves from the founder and keeping the money secret from the public. My guest editorial in The Blade published on March 18, 2023 called for an investigation.
I got flack from the establishment for this editorial, and I wasn’t allowed to share it on FB groups. The museum even tried to get most of my editorial retracted, but in the end, they couldn’t change one word because everything I wrote was either factual or my educated opinion. It is notable today that the TMA budget is actually $5M more now ($23M), when in 2021 they projected it to be only $2M more ($20M). Soon it will be $7M more, with the port authority assessment–a 40% operating cost increase in just 5 years. They don’t have much in recent exhibitions to show for it, and that includes the current show, “In a New Light,” specially hung paintings from their own collection that is presently being dismantled four months before the end of the show. It is my opinion that their dive into politics is a smokescreen for what is really going on, praying on Toledo’s modesty and blind trust to allow them free rein. That new branding on which they spent a fortune? It wasn’t made with Toledoans in mind.
A promise broken
A promise was made to always keep the remaining Impressionist paintings on the walls, but now a secretive loan to Auckland of 57 masterworks for a show called “A Century of Modern Art” breaks that promise, as they pull works off the wall and changing the end date of “In a New Light” with no explanation. They don’t care how this looks to the locals.
If our mission is to integrate art into the lives of people, then rehanging our collection is only half of the equation. The reinstallation offers us a chance to go back to the conceptual as well as the physical studs, rethinking the museum experience for the 21st century. We are developing exciting plans on this front that we believe can create different paradigms for engagement. –Adam Levine
trading public funds for private prestige—
undermining its independence, veering from its roots
Such a massive export under the guise of renovations: 57 of Toledo’s most valuable paintings, Impressionist through 20th-century “offering a sweeping survey of the visionary painters who transformed modern art.” (Wow, wouldn’t we love to get to see that show?) This loan, which I believe is over four times larger than any other loan has ever been from the Toledo Museum to another institution (such as 12 to the Frick in 2002 for the celebration of TMA’s centennial), is on a par as if the Louvre was making the loan, a world-famous museum that has 7,500 paintings, not a mid-sized museum with only 750 paintings. These museum “stewards” are trading Toledo’s heritage for global prestige. They want to be a “global player” at the local public’s expense. Local government loves the free publicity. Libbey’s gift of art for the people is being taken from away from the people to be used for political exploitation, boosting international clout – public assets serving elite networks instead of serving the modest Toledo public as Libbey’s gift was intended – it is an utter betrayal of Toledo’s soul.
The founders’ vision was for a museum that “took art away from exclusive capitalism and gave it to the people.” But the new director takes art away from the people and trades it in for global elitism based on opportunistic capitalistic greed.Demand transparency if you ever want to see this painting again.
The heavy words inspiring the reinstallation of the Toledo Museum of Art don't have much to do with art.
Subject: Urgent Follow-Up: Further Concerns Over TMA’s Disposition of Core Artworks and Lack of Transparency
Dear Ms. DeHoff,
I hope you are well. I am writing again as a deeply concerned citizen regarding the troubling decisions at the Toledo Museum of Art, and to follow up on my February 10 email—which, like my previous correspondence, has not received a response. I have reached out on numerous occasions, yet my genuine inquiries continue to be met with silence and, more recently, outright censorship.
I am particularly disturbed by recent developments regarding our museum’s core collection.
I recently learned through a news report from New Zealand that TMA is loaning 57 Impressionist and 20th-century paintings—many are gifts from Edward Drummond Libbey and are featured in the museum’s “Masterworks” book—to the Auckland Art Gallery while TMA’s building undergoes renovations.
What is especially ironic is that Auckland is currently celebrating the recent bequeath of the art collectors, Julian and Josie Robertson with an exhibition called “The Robertson Gift: Paths through Modernity” Feb 9, 2024 – Feb 1, 2026, a collection of 15 paintings valued at $190 million.
Yet by interjecting the TMA loan into the mix, the Auckland Gallery is, in effect, dwarfing the impact of the Robertson Gift, since just two or three paintings from the Toledo collection are worth more than the total Robertson bequest that Auckland professes to be so honored to be given, and the Toledo show, “A Century of Modern Art,” consists of 57 bigger, better paintings.
Meanwhile, back in Toledo, the museum-going public is witnessing the shoving aside of the treasured Impressionist masterworks as the museum gets them out of sight, a core collection of gifts from Edward Drummond Libbey, and an important promise that has been broken.
Seems like all around the world, the gifts of generous museum donors are being dishonored.
In 2022, the day Director Adam Levine announced the sale of the beloved three famous Impressionists paintings, in the very same email*, he promised museum supporters that the other Cezanne, Matisse and Renoir paintings would always remain on view on the museum’s walls. Now to send these paintings away under the guise of renovations when the museum boasts of 280,000 square feet of gallery space is a real betrayal, and alarms are going off that something is seriously wrong with the museum’s stewardship.
Moreover, when I asked the museum for the complete list of the 57 paintings, Adam Levine dismissed my request, telling me that “this information of course will be public domain since the works will be on display in New Zealand!” (That is, if I want to hire a detective.) He said that sharing the full list would “just be used to sensationalize” my concerns. I should be talking to him directly instead of talking about this publicly, he said, in an attempt to shut me up.
This total lack of transparency, the efforts of censorship, coupled with sudden actions by the museum make me wonder, will we ever see these Impressionist paintings hanging on the walls of the Toledo Museum of Art again? After all, in just a few short years, the museum has sold three paintings, moved the other paintings from the prominent galleries in the main museum to the Glass Pavilion across the street, and now is sending this large collection to the other side of the world without any announcement, leaving museum supporters to find out from a news article from New Zealand; bringing light to a broken promise and the museum’s total lack of transparency, all while the community is stunned over the closing of the Cloisters, and unbeknownst that the Impressionist paintings are on their way out. All of this underscores suspicion.
Considering that the museum is under the spell of DEI (DEAI) and promotes the idea that people want to see themselves on the walls, it seems that these French paintings have been banished because they are too European for the demographics of the two-mile radius of the museum that the museum is using to advance their radical DEI agenda. Maybe it’s all a guise to sell the valuable paintings, who knows?
Adam Levine certainly has minimized the importance of the Libbey Endowment to the museum by selling the three paintings in 2022 for $59 million and making a private fund out of the money. The museum has lost all credibility of being trustworthy – the one thing a museum must NEVER lose, as at the Toledo Museum of Art the current leaders are the custodians of the wonderful gift of cultural heritage that came from Edward Drummond Libbey and Florence Scott Libbey.
It is telling is that at the very same time of the January 29 announcement in New Zealand that didn’t reach the Northern Hemisphere until a week later, TMA announced the closure of the Cloisters on January 30, with only three days’ notice, announcing it on Facebook, spurring hundreds of impassioned comments from the community.
The Cloisters, consisting of ancient columns, capitals, and arches that were sourced from 12th to 15th century medieval sites in southwest France to evoke a medieval monastery cloister, collected and permanently installed into the museum over the span of five years, was the highlight of the east and west wing expansion of 1933 and symbolizes the heart of the museum. It was just renovated and reopened in 2022. But now it’s excised and relegated to the far east wing next to the Ancient court, replacing four nice little gallery rooms, just so the museum can put everything in alphabetical, oh, that is chronological order, a conveyer belt style loop design forcing visitors to look at art through a specific political prism. It sounds frankly hideous; hardly an idea worthy of gutting the museum. Adam Levine plans to use what’s left of our superlative collection for his radical ideology that he plans to use to set as an example for all other museums to follow.
Radical plan to gut museum was only revealed this month, February 2025
I ask that you ensure that our public heritage is not sacrificed at the whim of the current museum director who doesn’t seem to like the museum and wants to change everything about it, right down to the “physical studs” of the building itself, as he was quoted saying in a recent Channel 11 news article.
If our mission is to integrate art into the lives of people, then rehanging our collection is only half of the equation. The reinstallation offers us a chance to go back to the conceptual as well as the physical studs, rethinking the museum experience for the 21st century. We are developing exciting plans on this front that we believe can create different paradigms for engagement. –Adam Levine
There is nothing in the 2021 five-year plan about gutting the museum and redoing it down to the studs. Back in 2018 there were plans to renovate and money was collected for that but the plan seemed to be abandoned when the museum announced their five-year plan in 2021. What happened in-between was that the director Brian Kennedy resigned just one year short of his contract, leaving the museum in the lurch. After a year or two Adam Levine was hired. But right away Adam Levine made the blunder of telling people that the museum would stay neutral during the George Floyd demonstrations. Having to walk back his statement, ever since then the museum has been practicing self-flagellation — the DEI (DEAI) came in and made sweeping changes to the museum administration, adding layer upon layer of bloated bureaucracy, and here we are now, at the sacrificial alter offering up our entire museum, the gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, witnessing it becoming a shadow of its once self.
A collection created by donor funds and connoisseurship collecting, now it’s done by identity politics, federal dollars, and the turning of the back on the founders by a director who stated publicly in a 2022 Forbes interview:
The superpower that an art museum has is when something goes up on the wall, it’s considered good. We set the canon. –Adam Levine
Levine sold a Cezanne, Matisse and Renoir with the excuse that the museum never intended to have multiple examples by the same artist in their collection. But that is not true. I researched it – see my list of multiple paintings by the same artist; of the roughly 800 paintings in the TMA collection in 2022, 57 are by the same artist. Collecting these paintings was clearly intentional.
The Toledo Museum of Art has never sought to have multiple examples by the same artist-fewer than 11% of the artists in our collection are represented by two or more paintings; masterpieces by Cézanne, Matisse, and Renoir will remain regularly on view on our walls. –Adam Levine
He cut ties with the founder Edward Drummond Libbey by selling gifted paintings for $59 million and not putting that money back into the Libbey Endowment but instead into a private fund. (see, April 8, 2022 email to museum supporters.)
The three paintings being sold will provide the Museum with more than $40 million, greater than the total corpus of the current Libbey Funds supporting our art purchases. We will use these proceeds to create a new acquisition endowment –Adam Levine
The museum did not provide details about the cost for moving The Cloister. The spokesperson wrote that TMA is privately funded and the project is one small part of the larger reinstallation that is being funded through individual and corporate philanthropy. –Doreen Cutway, museum spokesman and senior public relations manager
The museum went to the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, the President and CEO of which is also the Secretary of the Toledo Museum of Art Board of Directors, Thomas Winston, asking them to install port authority facilities into the museum in the form of an HVAC system. The port authority eagerly agreed and posted a bond for the museum as a part of their .4 mill operating levy that was passed by voters on November 5. More money was asked from the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority and the Columbus-Franklin County Finance Authority for the total of $24.89 million for a new HVAC system.
The museum has received many millions of dollars from Ohio and from the federal government in recent years, all grants are public record on the corresponding Ohio and federal websites. Grants that are hurting the fundamentals and founding principles of the museum.
The museum is probably taking advantage of the generous NEA Arts & Artifacts Indemnity Program to insure our 57 artworks for a billion dollars or more to send them off to New Zealand. Otherwise the loan wouldn’t be feasible. And if that program is stopped, in the current political environment while our paintings are abroad? Oh well, it’s mostly the work of old white men anyway.
As I noted above, in asking for the complete list of 57 renowned paintings going to New Zealand, Adam Levine refused to share it, saying he was afraid that I would use it to sensationalize my concerns. What is left for me to sensationalize? Adam Levine has provided all the sensationalism himself already.
I respectfully urge you, as Chair of the Board, to address these issues publicly. The Toledo Museum of Art is a treasured institution built and endowed by the Libbeys as a gift to the people of Toledo, and decisions of this magnitude must be made with full transparency and not just pushed on community using tactics like censorship and gaslighting. I ask that you halt the destruction of the Cloisters, cancel the loan to New Zealand and rehang the Impressionist and 20th century paintings.And then find new leadership that will provide proper stewardship and keep our museum intact.
Thank you for your time and attention to this critical matter. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Penny Gentieu
Again, I’d like to point out Adam Levine’s statements in his April 8, 2022 email about the sale of the Cezanne, Matisse and Renoir:
The Toledo Museum of Art has never sought to have multiple examples by the same artist-fewer than 11% of the artists in our collection are represented by two or more paintings; masterpieces by Cézanne, Matisse, and Renoir will remain regularly on view on our walls.
For the record, here is a list of 16 of the 53 artists of the 57 artworks going to New Zealand, major works for which information has been released to the “public domain” as Levine put it, as reported in the Auckland press release. The artists in bold have only one painting in the TMA collection. There are 37 other artists (4 artists have more than one artwork in the show) and the museum refuses to make those names public at this time. But with this list of 16 names only, it seems like the entire museum collection of Impressionist to Modernity may be shipped off. What would Edward Drummond Libbey and Florence Scott Libbey think of that? What does the public think?
Cezanne
Degas
Helen Frankenthaler
Édouard Manet
William Merritt Chase
Modigliani
Berthe Morisot
Monet
Pablo Picasso
Pissarro
Robert Rauschenberg
Renoir
Vincent van Gogh
James McNeill Whistler
Gauguin
Mondrian
*Adam Levine rationalized the sale of the three impressionist paintings by saying that it was never the intention of the museum to have multiple examples of the same artist, that fewer than 11% of the artists in our collection are represented by two or more paintings; here is a list that I made of multiple paintings by the same artist. It’s obvious that the purchase of multiple paintings by the same artists was intentional.
Regarding the much-loved highlights of Toledo Museum of Art’s internationally-renowned collection being sent overseas
The objection is not that TMA is lending one or two paintings, the objection is that 57 is a huge number of beloved masterpieces to be taking away from public view and sending to the other side of the world — 57 — outrageous! And why didn’t the museum publicly announce this loan of an extreme number of paintings being sent to New Zealand for a special exhibition?
Cezanne Degas Helen Frankenthaler Édouard Manet William Merritt Chase Modigliani Berthe Morisot Monet Pablo Picasso Pissarro Robert Rauschenberg Renoir Vincent van Gogh James McNeill Whistler Gauguin Mondrian
Sent by email on February 6, 2025:
Dear Charitable Law Section, Ohio Attorney General’s Office,
I write as a concerned citizen to follow up on my previous correspondence regarding the Toledo Museum of Art’s (TMA) reckless decisions concerning its core cultural assets. In addition to the issues raised earlier—namely, the planned dismantling of the historic Cloisters, the demolition of the Wolfe Gallery, and the repurposing of the Glass Pavilion (a $30 million structure built in 2006 specifically to house its renowned glass collection)—breaking news from New Zealand now reveals further alarming developments.
Reports from across the world indicate that TMA is loaning 57 Impressionist and 20th-century paintings—many being gifts from Edward Drummond Libbey and described as “the much-loved highlights of Toledo Museum of Art’s internationally-renowned collection”—to the Auckland Art Gallery in New Zealand while TMA’s building undergoes renovations. Notably, most of these paintings had already been moved to the Glass Pavilion one year ago, and this decision to send such core works overseas has not been publicly announced on TMA’s website or through any press release. Given that TMA houses 280,000 square feet of gallery space and these works form the core of its collection, their removal not only deprives the local public of access to many of their most beloved paintings but also puts these invaluable works at significant risk. How are these works insured? Is TMA relying on the NEA’s Arts & Artifacts Indemnity Program or another mechanism to safeguard artwork potentially valued at up to $1 billion? Is it safe in today’s climate to depend on federal funds for such crucial protections?
Furthermore, this move is particularly alarming in light of the Auckland Art Gallery’s current major exhibition, “The Robertson Gift: Paths through Modernity.” This exhibition, which displays art movements very similar to those represented by the loaned TMA works, is effectively duplicative—ironically underscoring the historical and cultural significance of donor gifts while highlighting TMA’s pattern of secretive decision-making. Adding to the dismay is a stark reminder of an April 8, 2022 email from Adam Levine, in which TMA assured the public that “masterpieces by Cézanne, Matisse, and Renoir will remain regularly on view on our walls,” emphasizing that fewer than 11% of the artists in their collection are represented by multiple works. Clearly, these current actions contradict that promise.
It is outrageous that TMA now plans to relocate the historic Cloisters—featuring authentic 12th- to 15th-century columns gifted by Edward Drummond Libbey—to the site currently occupied by the Wolfe Gallery, at an estimated cost between $2.5 million and $10 million. This move risks irreparable damage to these fragile, centuries-old artifacts. Equally troubling is the decision to demolish the Wolfe Gallery—a space renovated just 13 years ago with a $2 million donation from Frederic and Mary Wolfe, two esteemed patrons who have since passed away. Such actions blatantly disregard donor intent and raise profound ethical and financial questions regarding TMA’s management.
Moreover, the repurposing of the Glass Pavilion is equally disturbing. Designed and funded specifically to house TMA’s world-renowned glass collection, plans now call for removing much of that collection to be integrated into the main museum. This decision not only undermines the Pavilion’s purpose but further endangers priceless works of art.
The lack of transparency surrounding these decisions is deeply disconcerting. The public was only informed of these drastic changes days ago with the sudden announcement of the Cloisters’ closure—a clear indication that museum leadership deliberately sought to avoid scrutiny.
I respectfully urge your office to investigate whether these actions align with TMA’s legal obligations regarding charitable gifts and responsible nonprofit governance. The pattern of secretive, reckless decision-making displayed here is eroding public trust in cultural institutions and endangering priceless works of art.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter.
Poets Bob Philips, Nick Muska and Joel Lipman at a poetry reading at the Cloisters, Toledo Museum of Art, 1979 and a reshoot in 2015.
What’s happening to the museum? Core collection getting sent off to New Zealand while slated for being in a show at the Glass Pavilion and the Cloisters getting dismantled — a total shock and all at once!
pages from Toledo Museum of Art Masterworks, published in 2009
On January 30, 2025 the museum announced on Facebook that it would be closing the Cloisters on February 2, until 2027. You had to dig into the comments to find out that they plan to dismantle it and move it two galleries over.
The Cloisters at the Toledo Museum of Art was a gift of Edward Drummond Libbey.
Although it underwent an expensive and extensive restoration and renovation three years ago, now the museum plans to move it a few galleries over. It is now closed until sometime in 2027.
Relocating the Cloisters requires careful planning, engineering expertise, conservation efforts, and logistical coordination. It will be a massive undertaking with risks to the artifacts’ preservation and historical integrity. It will cost millions of dollars.
WHAT FOR?
The Cloisters gallery was carefully assembled to recreate the feeling of a medieval monastery using authentic architectural elements, including the columns, capitals, and arches. These pieces were salvaged from European sites and brought to Toledo, where they were integrated into a new, custom-designed space.
The columns, capitals, and arches were sourced from various medieval sites in Europe. Dating from the 12th to 15th century, two different rows of columns representing the Romanesque era came from Languedoc-Roussillon in southern France near the Pyrenees. One from the Benedictine monastery of Saint-Pons-de-Thomieres, and another from the monastic priority of Espira-de-l’Agley. Another came from the late Middle Ages, the Gothic style from the cloister of Notre-Dame-de-Pontaut, a Cistercian monastery in southwestern France.
Ninety five years ago, the Toledo Museum of Art’s curators created a floor plan and structural layout that would allow the columns to be displayed in an authentic-looking cloister setting. The arrangement richly evokes a medieval monastery cloister, where arcaded walkways surrounded an open courtyard.
Since the columns were not originally designed for this space, engineers reinforced them with modern supports. Some columns may have been cut, restored, or modified to fit the proportions of the museum. The stone elements were mounted on modern bases to provide stability.
Each column was positioned carefully to align with the capitals and arches above. The museum likely used mortar and hidden steel reinforcements to secure them while maintaining an authentic historical appearance.
The surrounding stonework and flooring were designed to blend with the medieval elements, enhancing the historic ambiance. Lighting and display techniques were added to highlight the carvings and textures of the ancient stone.
The wishing well, a central feature of the Cloisters, was also a salvaged artifact. In medieval cloisters, wells were essential for water collection and often had religious or symbolic significance. It was installed as a focal point, inviting visitors to interact with the space in a contemplative way.
What the move will be like
Moving the Cloisters at the Toledo Museum of Art would be a complex and delicate process due to the historical, structural, and logistical challenges involved.
The columns, capitals, and arches are centuries old and made of fragile stone, which may have cracks or weaknesses from age. Disassembling them could risk damage or breakage, especially since they were modified and reinforced when installed in the museum. The hidden supports and reinforcements that stabilize the structure may make removal difficult without causing unintended damage.
The solution to that is to conduct a structural assessment using 3D scanning and imaging technology, carefully documenting how the pieces were assembled before dismantling. They need expert stone conservators to ensure safe handling.
The columns and arches are made of heavy stone, which requires specialized lifting equipment and precise handling. Moving them intact would need custom crating and heavy-duty transport methods.
They will need to use cranes, forklifts, and specially designed supports for moving and reinforce fragile parts with protective padding and structural braces.
Each column, arch, and capital fits together in a specific way. If pieces are lost or damaged, it could compromise the historical accuracy of the reassembled cloister. The original mortar and reinforcement materials may not be reusable, requiring careful restoration.
They will need to create a detailed reconstruction map of how each piece fits together, label each piece precisely before removal, and consult architectural historians to ensure the authenticity of the reconstruction.
Changes in temperature, humidity, and lighting at a new location could accelerate the degradation of the stone. Moving might expose the artifacts to vibrations, pollutants, or handling-related damage. They will need to maintain climate-controlled storage and moving conditions.
The heavy words of Toledo Museum of Art's reinstallation inspirational word cloud shown at their symposium, Expanding Horizons: New Approaches in Display and Interpretation.
they will tell you exactly how to think.
They will tell us what art we can make.
They will make their own art.
It’s a new year with lots of action at the Toledo Museum of Art. They are putting into motion the changes they deem necessary due to the colonial and racial history of the museum. They can’t help themselves from offering up the Toledo Museum as a sacrifice, and by doing so, it is their goal to be the example for all other museums to follow.
They hosted a symposium on July 21, 2023, attended by dozens of museums nationwide, to discuss the changes that need to be made as retribution for the sins of our non-Native American-born ancestors, and the art they collected. This is regardless of the Toledo Museum of Art having been the most progressive of museums from the very beginning, thanks to the generosity and forethought of the founders Edward Drummond Libbey and his wife Florence. But somehow the ever-expanding Museum Board of Directors have allowed these ambitious outsiders to use our venerable populous institution for their collective frustrated-artist projections.
After the ritual land-grab apology to the Native American ancestors who used to live on the land on which the museum is built, and their descendants, (but notably no apology given to the artists of Toledo for taking away their culturally rich nearly 100-year old annual Toledo Area Artists Exhibition) the symposium commences by pointing out the troubling colonial and racist histories and legacies of the museum.
“Everyone is thinking of re-installations and reinterpreting collections today especially as a field and as institutions we’re coming to terms with the colonial and racist histories and legacies of our own institutions and their continued impact on what we do and how we do it today.”
The following are a few comments by Diane Wright, Curator of Glass and Decorative Arts: (who is perfectly fine with dismantling the Glass Pavilion to distribute the glass art chronologically throughout the main building.)
“Making efforts to get things right, we will inevitably get things wrong too.”
“My hope is that this will not inhibit us from taking risks finding our collective and our individual voices and using the light that day, maybe the angle of our hand that we’re holding our kaleidoscope, or just how we experience color and structure and patterns.”
“As museum professionals we are focused on content structure and creating connections. Yet it is the individual human engagement with our museums that is what turns this into something truly extraordinary. And making efforts to get things right most creativity that we can muster being true to who we are as Museum professionals and institutions to connect art and people.”
Accompanying Diane Wright’s presentation is a word cloud defining their collective goals for the museum:
I asked AI to write a story about an art museum, using their word cloud words. What it came up with is so weird, and oh-so eerie. It was written in the past tense! Lo and behold, this is what the computer wrote —
The Museum of Continuities
Nestled in the heart of Toledo, a city known for its resilience and rich history, stood the Museum of Continuities, a revolutionary institution dedicated to exploring the intersections of art, society, and humanity. From its inception, the museum sought to dismantle traditional boundaries, inviting visitors to step into a dreamscape where the past, present, and future collided.
A Network of Interconnected Themes
The museum’s galleries were designed as ecosystems, each exploring different facets of the human experience. The Networks of Power exhibit examined the invisible structures that shape societies, from colonialism and globalism to modern-day economic systems and technology. Visitors traced the chronology of humanity’s struggle with (in)equality, resistance, and the resilience of marginalized communities.
In another wing, Interiors of Memory & Memorial invited reflection on trauma and the continuity of kinship through time. Interactive displays used cross-cultural exchanges and storytelling to explore how families and communities have navigated war, gentrification, and displacement. Toledo’s local stories were interwoven with global narratives, emphasizing shared humanity and the power of collective memory.
Art and Intersectionality
At the center of the museum was the Intersectionality Atrium, where gender, race, and class converged in bold installations. One piece, Dreams of (In)Equality, juxtaposed images of feminist mythmaking with depictions of the labor industry, exploring how materiality and mythology shape identity. Another installation used vibrant fabrics and recycled materials to symbolize the intersection of climate, energy, and health within modern agricultural practices.
A nearby exhibit, Borders and Nations, deconstructed the politics of colonialism and its lingering effects on modern-day race and racism. Interactive timelines allowed visitors to explore how the concept of nationality evolved alongside trade, medicine, and cultural change.
Fantasy Meets Reality
One of the museum’s most popular exhibits, The Dreamscape of Humanity, blended fantasy and reality, reimagining the world through a child’s eyes. Using augmented reality technology, visitors could wander through vibrant environments filled with mythical creatures, industrial landscapes, and symbolic depictions of spiritual resilience. The exhibit challenged viewers to consider how mythology and childhood fantasies shape adult notions of identity and spirituality.
The Humanities of the Future
Dedicated to exploring the intersection of humanities and science, the Health and Humanities gallery highlighted advancements in medicine and disability studies. Visitors could engage in discussions about the ethics of healthcare, the politics of gender and race in medicine, and how global climate change impacts public health.
Another forward-thinking space, Art in the Age of Globalism, showcased works that addressed the environmental impact of modern industry and the need for sustainable energy systems. Pieces emphasized how art can drive social and political change, encouraging resistance against exploitative systems while imagining a more equitable future.
Kinship Across Time
The museum concluded with Kinship and Continuities, a celebration of family, community, and the timeless bonds that connect people across borders and generations. Visitors left with a sense of empowerment, their hearts and minds brimming with inspiration to enact change in their own lives.
The Museum of Continuities in Toledo stood as a beacon of hope and transformation—a place where the humanities collided with pressing global issues, reminding all who entered of the interconnectedness of humanity and the enduring power of art to inspire change.
###
I asked AI to tell a story about the downfall of the Museum of Continuities
The Downfall of the Museum of Continuities
The Museum of Continuities was born from an audacious vision: to connect humanity’s diverse histories, struggles, and dreams within a single, evolving institution. For years, it thrived as a beacon of progressive thought in Toledo, drawing acclaim for its interdisciplinary approach and global partnerships. Yet, the very ambition that defined its success also laid the groundwork for its downfall.
Overreach and Financial Instability
The museum’s expansive vision demanded equally expansive resources. Its commitment to addressing complex issues—intersectionality, globalism, climate change, and the politics of identity—required cutting-edge technology, an ever-growing staff, and a continuous influx of groundbreaking exhibitions. However, as operating costs soared, its reliance on grants and philanthropic donations exposed its vulnerability to economic systems beyond its control.
The 2030 global recession hit the museum hard. Several key donors redirected funds to more immediate humanitarian crises, and grant opportunities dwindled as governments prioritized basic infrastructure over cultural institutions. Efforts to stabilize finances by monetizing popular exhibits like The Dreamscape of Humanity alienated the museum’s core audience, who saw it as a betrayal of its egalitarian principles.
Internal Conflicts
As financial pressure mounted, the museum’s leadership fractured. The intersectionality-focused Equity and Inclusion Council clashed with the board of directors, who prioritized solvency over the museum’s social justice mission. Debates over whether to commercialize exhibits like Borders and Nations or cut staff from the Health and Humanities program led to resignations and public criticism. Accusations of racism, sexism, and colonialist attitudes among board members further eroded trust.
Gentrification Backlash
While the museum claimed to champion community and resistance to gentrification, its presence in Toledo’s urban core had unintended consequences. Real estate prices in surrounding neighborhoods skyrocketed, displacing many of the working-class families the museum sought to serve. Activists began protesting the museum, accusing it of hypocrisy and demanding reparative action. The Museum of Continuities found itself at odds with the very community it was meant to uplift.
Climate and Infrastructure Challenges
In a cruel twist of irony, the museum’s location became a liability as extreme weather events, exacerbated by climate change, took their toll. Persistent flooding damaged the building’s state-of-the-art technology, while the soaring cost of energy to maintain environmentally sensitive exhibits drained its dwindling budget. Efforts to secure emergency funding were hampered by political resistance, as critics labeled the museum a “vanity project” for elites.
A Fading Dream
By the late 2030s, the museum had become a shadow of its former self. Its once-thriving galleries stood empty, the vibrant voices of artists and activists replaced by silence. The Dreamscape of Humanity exhibit, once hailed as a masterpiece, was dismantled and sold to private collectors.
In its final days, the museum attempted one last exhibit: Memorials and Memory. It sought to reflect on its legacy, the challenges it faced, and the stories it told. The exhibit drew modest crowds, a poignant reminder of the museum’s impact, but it was too little, too late.
In 2040, the Museum of Continuities officially closed its doors. Its downfall became a cautionary tale about the challenges of sustaining ambitious cultural institutions in a world grappling with economic inequality, political division, and environmental catastrophe. Yet, in its absence, its mission lived on in the hearts of those it inspired, proving that even in failure, art and ideas have the power to endure.
###
How much of the collection of the Toledo Museum of Art today would be irrelevant in this Museum of Continuities, tell a story about how it fits in and how it doesn’t
ChatGPT said:
The Toledo Museum of Art (TMA) holds a diverse collection spanning centuries, from ancient artifacts to contemporary works. While the Museum of Continuities would embrace much of TMA’s art for its emphasis on interconnected histories and global perspectives, certain pieces and categories might face challenges in fitting into its highly thematic, activist mission.
How TMA’s Collection Fits
Global Art and Cross-Cultural Exchange:
TMA’s ancient Greek and Roman artifacts, as well as its Asian, African, and Islamic art collections, would align well with the Museum of Continuities‘ focus on cross-cultural exchange and globalism. These works illustrate the blending of traditions and ideas across borders, a central theme for the Museum of Continuities.
The museum’s contemporary art, which often addresses issues like identity, gender, and politics, would also resonate. Pieces from feminist artists or works tackling themes of race and colonialism could easily find a home in exhibits addressing intersectionality and resilience.
Glass Collection as Environmental and Industry Commentary:
TMA’s renowned glass collection could anchor exhibits on materiality, industry, and climate. Glass, as a material tied to both ancient craftsmanship and modern industrial processes, serves as a symbol of the intersection between art, technology, and economic systems.
Mythology and Spirituality:
The museum’s paintings and sculptures inspired by mythology, including works from the Renaissance and Baroque periods, would fit into exhibits exploring how mythology shapes cultural identity and spirituality.
What Might Not Fit
Purely Aesthetic Works:
Many works in TMA’s collection, particularly those from the Impressionist and Post-Impressionist eras, might struggle to find a place. While beautiful, these works were often created with less explicit attention to the social and political themes central to the Museum of Continuities. For example, Monet’s landscapes or Renoir’s portraits, while masterpieces, may be seen as disconnected from pressing narratives of intersectionality, trauma, or globalism.
Western-Centric Historical Narratives:
Works that reinforce colonial or Eurocentric perspectives might face reinterpretation—or exclusion. For instance, depictions of “exotic” subjects painted by European artists during imperial eras could be criticized for perpetuating stereotypes. The Museum of Continuities would likely demand a critical lens to reframe these works within broader discussions of racism and colonialism.
Decorative Arts without Context:
Decorative arts like ornate furniture or purely ornamental pieces may not align with the museum’s activist mission unless contextualized within broader discussions of class, labor, or material economies.
Toledo Museum facebook post dated January 1, 2025. (behold, the museum’s transformative power with art) And what to do with this post-colonial Tiffany lamp? Let’s paste it on the European painting, which must be the most creativity Diane Wright could muster, being true to who she is as a museum professional and as the Curator of Glass and Decorative Arts.
Story: A Place for Reinterpretation
In the Museum of Continuities, an exhibition titled Glass: From Industry to Ecosystems prominently features TMA’s glass collection. One piece, an 18th-century Venetian goblet, is juxtaposed with a modern glass installation addressing climate change. The exhibit explores the journey of glass as a material shaped by the hands of artisans and mass industrialization, linking it to themes of labor, environment, and resilience.
Meanwhile, a small gallery is devoted to The Shadow of Mythology, reframing classical works like TMA’s Greco-Roman sculptures. These pieces are displayed alongside modern reinterpretations by feminist and indigenous artists, creating dialogue about how mythology is co-opted and reshaped by different cultures.
In contrast, a corner of the museum’s Impressionist works lies largely unvisited. A Renoir portrait hangs with a new caption: “The Absence of Intersectionality: Aesthetic Beauty in Isolation.” The lack of critical social engagement in these works leaves them at odds with the museum’s thematic priorities, relegating them to an exhibit of “historical artifacts of an era of artistic privilege.”
The Absence of Intersectionality: Aesthetic Beauty in Isolation.Historical artifacts of an era of artistic privilege: Pierre-Auguste Renoir, The Green Jardinière
Conclusion
While much of the Toledo Museum of Art’s collection would thrive in the Museum of Continuities due to its historical depth and global scope, certain works would require reframing or risk irrelevance. This recontextualization challenges traditional narratives of art, pushing visitors to consider the deeper social and political implications of the works they admire, according to the current art museum authorities.
—————
what is the estimated worth of the artwork that won’t thrive?
ChatGPT said:
The estimated worth of the artwork in the Toledo Museum of Art collection that might not align with the thematic focus of the Museum of Continuities—particularly Impressionist and Post-Impressionist works—can be substantial. For example:
In 2022, the museum deaccessioned three significant Impressionist works by Cézanne, Renoir, and Matisse. The sale of these paintings alone fetched around $60 million. These works included:
Henri Matisse’s Fleurs ou Fleurs devant un portrait (estimated $15–$20 million).
Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s Nu s’essuyant (The Bather) (estimated $3–$4 million).
Paul Cézanne’s Clairière (The Glade) (estimated $30 million)【259】【260】【262】.
While these specific pieces have been sold, they reflect the general high market value of similar works in the collection. The value of other Impressionist works that might not thrive in a socially critical institution like the Museum of Continuities could potentially exceed this amount, particularly if more iconic or highly coveted pieces are included.
This highlights a tension between preserving traditional aesthetics and reconfiguring collections to align with contemporary sociopolitical themes, a challenge many museums face today.
You said:
how about their 20th century paintings, abstract to 1970’s
ChatGPT said:
The Toledo Museum of Art’s 20th-century paintings, especially those in abstract and modernist styles up to the 1970s, hold significant value, both culturally and financially. Their worth depends on specific artists, pieces, and market trends. For example:
Significant Works: The collection includes pieces by renowned artists like Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Wayne Thiebaud, whose works often fetch millions at auction. For instance, works by Pollock can sell for tens of millions depending on their size and historical importance【268】【270】.
Cultural Context: These paintings are central to understanding mid-20th-century art movements like Abstract Expressionism and Minimalism. However, if the Museum of Continuities focuses heavily on sociopolitical themes and intersectionality, abstract works that are seen as apolitical or rooted in Western traditions might be considered less relevant.
Value: If sold, mid-century masterpieces could generate substantial revenue. Similar auctions of high-profile 20th-century works have fetched between $10 million and $50 million for single pieces, depending on the artist and the artwork’s historical significance【269】【270】.
The value of these artworks lies not only in their monetary worth but also in their ability to provoke thought about the artistic and cultural shifts of their time. The Museum of Continuities would likely retain pieces that align with its themes, such as those exploring identity, trauma, or the interplay of technology and art, while others may face reinterpretation or deaccessioning.
You said:
how many painting does the TMA have from about 1850 to 2000?
ChatGPT said:
The Toledo Museum of Art has over 30,000 works of art in its collection, with many falling within the time period of 1850 to 2000. While a specific count for paintings in this range isn’t explicitly provided, the museum holds significant works from key movements, including Impressionism, Modernism, and Abstract Expressionism. These include notable pieces by artists such as Claude Monet, Pablo Picasso, Joan Miró, and Jackson Pollock, all housed within their vast 40-gallery campus【276】【269】. For a detailed breakdown, their eMuseum database offers insights.
You said:
would these paintings fit in at the Museum of Continuity?
ChatGPT said:
Whether the Toledo Museum of Art’s paintings from 1850 to 2000 would fit into the Museum of Continuities depends on how they are interpreted and contextualized.
Works That Could Fit: Many Modernist and Abstract Expressionist paintings explore identity, emotion, and social upheaval, aligning well with the Museum of Continuities‘ focus on intersectionality, resilience, and political change. Artists like Picasso or Pollock often addressed universal themes that resonate with the museum’s mission.
Challenges: Paintings emphasizing pure aesthetics or Eurocentric narratives without broader social context might require reinterpretation to align with the new museum’s activist and thematic framework.
Would you like detailed examples or a specific exploration of their alignment?
You said:
yes
ChatGPT said:
Paintings That Could Fit Well:
Modernist Works: Artists like Picasso or Joan Miró often challenged traditional norms, explored identity, and addressed social change. These themes align with the Museum of Continuities’ focus on intersectionality, resistance, and globalism.
Abstract Expressionism: Paintings by Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko evoke themes of trauma, emotion, and the human condition, which could be framed as responses to war or cultural shifts.
Surrealism: Works by Salvador Dalí or similar artists could fit into exhibits on dreamscapes or fantasy, connecting to psychological and spiritual exploration.
Paintings That Might Need Reinterpretation:
Impressionist Pieces: While aesthetically significant, works by artists like Claude Monet or Renoir may be viewed as disconnected from the social and political narratives central to the Museum of Continuities.
Eurocentric or Colonialist Narratives: Paintings reflecting imperial ideologies or purely decorative works might require critical reframing within contexts of colonialism or global inequality.
How They Could Be Reframed:
Impressionist Landscapes: Positioned as reflections of industrial change and environmental impact.
Portraits: Interpreted through the lens of race, gender, and societal hierarchies.
Abstraction: Framed as universal expressions of resilience or the effects of trauma.
In this way, the Museum of Continuities could adapt TMA’s collection, retaining works that contribute to its mission and critically engaging with those that don’t naturally align. Would you like specific examples of paintings from TMA’s collection analyzed?
yes
ChatGPT said:
The Toledo Museum of Art’s collection includes numerous significant works from 1850 to 2000, ranging from Impressionist paintings by artists like Monet and Renoir to powerful American modernist pieces by artists such as Thomas Cole and George Bellows. Additionally, there are modern and abstract works, including masterpieces by Pollock, Rothko, and others, that reflect the evolving art movements of the 20th century.
Fit with the Museum of Continuities
Perfect Fits: Many of the museum’s paintings would align well with the Museum of Continuities. Works like Thomas Cole’s The Architect’s Dream (1840) could be reframed within themes of mythmaking and the interplay between industry, environment, and time. Similarly, American works from the Harlem Renaissance or Abstract Expressionism could highlight intersections of race, resilience, and identity.
Needs Reinterpretation: Impressionist pieces, while aesthetically important, might require new narratives to align with the Museum of Continuities’ emphasis on social and political themes. For example, Monet’s Water Lilies could be integrated into an exhibit on climate change and the environment.
Value and Potential Issues
Pieces that do not align thematically, such as more decorative works or purely aesthetic landscapes, might be relegated to secondary roles or considered for deaccessioning to fund more relevant acquisitions. However, with Impressionist and Modernist works from TMA having fetched tens of millions at auction in the past, the financial implications of these choices would be significant.
###
Wow. What a gold mine. If it weren’t for the fiduciary duty of the museum staff and board of directors to care for the art for future generations, they could sell whatever art they deemed to be politically “irrelevant” and cash in BILLIONS of dollars…. but I wonder who is going to stop them?
The art museum is renovating. Glass art will be interspersed amongst other artwork in the main building, arranged chronologically. They have already relocated, one year ago, the impressionist paintings to the Glass Pavilion. UPDATE: Feb. 7, 2025 — they are lending 57 of the impressionist and 20th century core art collection to New Zealand, and according to New Zealand, they say it’s because the museum is renovating! But they already had moved these paintings to the Glass Pavilion, built in 2006 — are they also renovating THAT building?
Why don’t they just build their own museum?
“Our visitors will see their histories on display,” so says the new director Adam Levine, who is from New York, as he and the former director John Stanley, also of New York, have their way with Toledo’s once and future
Toledo Museum of Art.
Famous Impressionist paintings thrown out the door.
The museum conducted surveys of all the people living in the two-mile radius of the museum. They want to get them to come. They are trying everything. They must completely redo the museum.
They rebranded at great expense, creating a $200K operating deficit for 2023 (they spent much more than that). The redesigned logo looks like a gun scoping you out. It’s animated and dominating and goes back and forth tracking everything you look at. Don’t get in the way because it’s about to kill the artwork. Especially the American and European artwork because it’s not politically correct.
Enough with the European paintings that the Libbeys and others donated. That kind of art, that the museum was built on, does not speak to the people. They don’t like that kind of culture even if it is great art. The amazing thing about a museum is that it has this amazing ability to say whatever the museum puts up on the walls – it’s instantly going to be great art. This is what the new director says after previous directors really did collect great art, which is what really made the Toledo Museum of Art so great. But the new guy replaced the connoisseurs with culture workers and lowered the bar. Because the museum sets the canon. Boom!
Instead of adding to the collection to create more diversity, he is subtracting from it, and the money’s good. They sold three French Impressionist paintings for 59 million dollars! They can get billions for all the irrelevant art they can subtract from the collection. Boom!
The new Glass Pavilion was designed by the famed Tokyo-based architects Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa specifically for the glass art collection in 2006 for $30 million 18 years ago. But in hindsight that was a mistake and they will correct that — the fixers have arrived.
They are taking the glass collection out of the Glass Pavilion and it will be spread around the 2-D art in the main building, arranged chronologically. The Glass Pavilion will be for special exhibitions and to serve as the graveyard for Impressionist paintings, which have already been removed.
In place of the prominent Impressionist gallery that showed Impressionist art, they will install a display showing Toledo’s glass industry history and the history of the Museum.
The museum’s campus-wide reinstallation is mostly led by employees and consultants who are brand new. The museum doesn’t bother to mention it in the five-year plan, nor in the 2023 annual report. That’s because they just thought of it. Spending as much money as they can, they hire numerous firms, consulting curators and simpatico fellows to help them, making sure that they are all from out of town.
The Chairman of the Board of the Museum, Sara Jane DeHoff, is thrilled that such noteworthy architects competed for the job, commenting to The Blade in the November 22 article, “I can’t tell you how many international designers applied for this project.” Who wouldn’t want the cushy job of an ambitious renovation and reinstallation from an ambitious museum with supposed unlimited funds?
According to the new architectural renderings, the redone museum will look like a hospital with a bad facelift. The walls are white and devoid of art, and on the floor are curvy glass display tables mazed throughout what looks to be the Great Gallery. People are not happy about it.
Imagine, The Crowning of Saint Catherine, considered to be the best painting by Peter Paul Rubens that is in America, the two paintings called Lot and His Daughters, one by Guercino and one by Artemisia Gentileschi, along with many others being taken off the walls of the Great Gallery. Oh yes they will.
They advanced the rumor that they were getting rid of the Cloisters, only to let it leak that they are just moving the Cloisters. To a smaller area behind the the ancient art. Imagine the dismantling the ancient tile floor and the taking apart of the delicate and very old four walls of columns, all related in history, that form the Cloister gallery. It will never look or be the same.
To find a spot for the Cloisters, they will dismantle the 12-year old Frederic and Mary Wolfe Gallery that was built for contemporary art. It too was a mistake made by previous museum directors that the new people are going to fix now. Two million dollars towards the renovation of the former glass gallery that was made into a contemporary art gallery (mistakenly) was donated (stupidly) by Mary and Fritz Wolfe, who are both dead now.
Fritz Wolfe served 27 years on the Museum board and Mary Wolfe co-chaired the 100th anniversary celebration in 2001.
The new museum people don’t care about respecting donors. They get their money from the government now.
Museum floor plan in 2014, note the purple + bright blue will be moved to the orange galleries — the museum’s greatest paintings, European, Renaissance now hanging in the Great Gallery and adjacent galleries getting shoved aside, in a much smaller area. The Cloisters to be moved to where the new two-story Wolfe Contemporary gallery is now.
Sketch presented by the museum to other museums at the symposium they sponsored in the summer of 2023.So much for the “stewards” of the “art museum” and their “fiduciary duty” to “care for the art” so that it is “passed on” to “future generations” of “Toledoans.” Adam Levine, a “financial” “crypto” “specialist,” sees the future of museums as being “screen-based.” He is not the best person to be put in charge of caring for and keeping the art and the art museum, let alone to be given the right to remodel it.
It is very risky as well. Remember the disastrous fire of Notre Dame was caused by a mistake made during a renovation.
For Toledoans, including the Toledo Museum Board of Directors, if they don’t stop this disastrous dismantling of the museum we love, the history being made now will leave them with a pathetic legacy, and will leave the city with the loss of what made it so good.
Contact the board members of the Toledo Museum of Art if you agree with me.
This is a photo of the Libbey grave on Easter 2023 showing that the museum left it in tatters in spite of the directive of the Libbey Endowment. The Libbeys are the founders of the museum.
Why are Toledoans letting this happen to the museum that was meant for them?
See, here, for detailed research on the Cloisters move.
The Glass Pavilion was built in 2006 to display the glass collection.
New at TMA: The Glass Pavilion as Dumping Ground
Toledo Museum of Art’s outstanding collection of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings have been moved to a back room gallery at the Glass Pavilion.
The Glass Pavilion, with its curved glass walls was built in 2006 to display the museum’s glass collection.
But since then, the leadership of the museum has completely changed. The new people, not from Toledo and with little if any experience running a museum, are having a field day “rebranding” the museum and selling off valuable paintings from the Impressionist collection. They act with no regard for the museum!
The Impressionist paintings hung in two front galleries of the museum — they were often the first galleries a visitor would go to. The famous French paintings, made by white men, had to go, regardless of how important they are to the history of art, and to the museum’s collection.
Islamic and Asian art, regardless of the importance of this collection to the museum, will occupy the former Impressionist galleries — contemporary Asian art all the way back to ancient Asian art. Visitors can now contemplate the politics of looted art (which is also on view in the African collection in the opposite front gallery).
It was just last year that they took the American art from the American Galleries in the west wing that had been thusly funded by the Barbers, and moved it all to the back of the museum, shaming the art with controversial wall text.
The relocation of the popular paintings from the museum to the Glass Pavilion makes it hard for visitors with mobility issues to have equal access to artwork. Visitors must go down 26 steps to get to Monroe Street, then cross the four-lane busy street without a traffic light to follow a long curvy sidewalk leading to the Glass Pavilion. The relocation contradicts the principles of the newly formed Access Initiatives Department. This issue exists, in spite of the new Conda Family Manager of Access Initiatives (the department manager’s salary being perpetually funded by an endowment from the Conda family). How does the manager of Access Initiatives, Katie Shelley, justify her salary after she let that happen? She starred in a video, describing the long trek over to the Glass Pavilion, and blaming the historic museum for its lack of access – this – after the museum purposefully moved the paintings out of reach.
It seems that nobody running the museum these days cares about art, least of all the new donors like the Condas, and also the Savages (the namesake of the new “community gallery” which has proven to be an insult to local artists.) Donors of the past as well as board members used to be great art aficionados — check them out — but today’s museum board’s appreciation of art is questionable to say the least. The museum’s stellar reputation for being a great art museum is running on fumes.
How long before the Toledo Museum of Art is entirely dismantled? They work fast!
art is not mentioned in the museum’s new mission statement
The museum can’t stop spending money on surveys and branding and rebranding. Here are some quotes from the design firm, Scorpion Rose Studio, who designed the museum’s new spyglass logo, about how the museum came to them for branding because they wanted to look modern and inclusive.
We answered with a total rebrand, including strategy and a holistic design system, that will help TMA continue its journey toward the kind of modern museum they strive to be – one that has its doors open to all.
We grounded the rebrand on a strategic platform: The transformative power of art is for all of Toledo.
TMA’s previous brand voice – academic, critical, elite – created a barrier to expanding its audience to those who felt historically excluded.
B.S.!!
I took art classes at the museum for years. Everyone was included, no one felt unwelcome. Then two years ago, they hired a Brand Manager from Colorado for a new branding department who branded the museum “academic, critical, elite” to justify the “new” branding of being inclusive and welcoming – the very qualities the museum possessed from the beginning.
THE MUSEUM IS FREE FOR EVERYONE, THANKS TO THE FOUNDERS.
The Toledo Museum of Art was built on the principle of community.
November 1919 in front of the art museum: looks like inclusion to me.
a wicked opportunity
Adam Levine, who is from New York, came to our democratic museum in 2020 as the new director. He made a huge blunder right away by saying the museum should remain neutral during the George Floyd crisis. Ever since then he’s been bending over backwards, blaming the museum for being racist. He condescendingly reduced the standards of the museum, as if it is morally necessary to lower the quality to what he perceives to be the lowest common denominator. Is Adam Levine an opportunist? Read this blog post from April 2022:
Could all of this be a smokescreen for selling off our famous Impressionist paintings by Cezanne, Renoir and Matisse to private collectors — making $61 million on the three paintings in 2022? The woke quote floated by museum insiders in 2022 was, “Who cares about a few old white men?”
Three famous French Impressionist paintings – a Matisse, Renoir and Cezanne – thrown out the door of the white marble pillared museum and sold to the highest bidder, grossing $61 Million, on May 17, 2022.
“Museum-goers want to see themselves on the walls!”
In 2012 the museum came up with the bright idea to invite Toledoans to pose for a community portrait that would be a part of an exhibit in Gallery 1. Since then, most of the community has been crossed out, along with the Impressionist paintings.
With an engorged staff having been added for a new department for “Belonging” and another for “People” and another for “Access Initiatives” as well as for the “Branding” department, the museum started concentrating on the nearby black community exclusively, actually going personally to their doors to get them to come to the new woke museum, all redone to what Adam Levine condescendingly thought would be to their liking. Now, what to do with those paintings by old white men? They have to go! Conveniently, the paintings are so valuable as well…
about being a good steward and having a fiduciary duty
Soon after the Ohio Attorney General’s investigation commenced, Adam Levine moved the Impressionist paintings across the street to the unlikely room in the Glass Pavilion. How very arrogant to appear so untouchably righteous.
Edward Drummond and Florence Libbey, the museum’s founders, would wonder, who are these people entrusted with their generous gift to the people of Toledo, and what do they think they are doing? And that is why the museum is being investigated by the Charitable Law Section of the Ohio Attorney General’s office.
“The superpower that an art museum has is when something goes up on the wall, it’s considered good. We set the cannon,” told the new Director of the Toledo Museum of Art, Adam Levine, to Forbes.com in 2022.
