A 20th-anniversary celebration was an opportunity to ask what happens next. Instead, an important public conversation went missing.
On August 16, The Blade published an article, written by the journalism intern, Chantal Eulenstein, marking the 20th anniversary of the Toledo Museum of Art’s Glass Pavilion.
A museum anniversary is an opportunity to look backward—but also forward. What did this building mean to Toledo? Why was it created? What has happened during its first twenty years? And, most importantly, what does its next twenty years look like?
There is quite a story to tell about that last question.
The Toledo Museum of Art is now fundamentally changing the relationship between the Glass Pavilion and the collection it was specifically created to house. That change has generated serious concern among people who believe the Pavilion’s architecture, its glass collection, Toledo’s industrial history, and the history of the Studio Glass Movement form an extraordinary and irreplaceable whole.
But people don’t know what’s going on with the changes at the Glass Pavilion, and this article did not say anything about it.
Studio Glass 50-year Anniversary, 2012. Photo by Penny GentieuGlass Study Room, photo by Penny Gentieu 2014
It was misleading and inaccurate to report that “It also houses the first of the glass collections purchased by glass industrialist Edward Drummond Libbey in 1913.” These works were removed from the Pavilion in 2023 when the “Glass Study Room” was repurposed and cleared out. Unreported anywhere, but discovered on an employee’s Linkedin page, over 2,000 glass artifacts were removed in 2023 and put in storage. One can easily see on the TMA emuseum website that these works, that were added to the collection in 1913, the gift of Edward Drummond Libbey, are no longer on display.
They now have a “TMA Forever Exhibit” in that gallery, how ironic. (here is a link to my recent blog post about it:)
The Blade’s anniversary article did not explore any of these issues, but it could have.
In fact, a thoroughly researched guest editorial (shared with me) was submitted to The Blade specifically in response to the anniversary coverage. It examined the history of the Glass Pavilion, the relationship between the building and the collection, and the unique role Toledo played in the development of Studio Glass.
It asked this:
Why weaken something that Toledo has that no other city can reproduce?
The editorial pointed out that SANAA did not design an interchangeable exhibition hall that happened to contain glass. The building itself is part of the experience of the collection. It connected architecture, glass, transparency, reflection, sight lines, working furnaces, and Toledo’s history as the Glass City.
It also brought together a history that is rarely told as a whole: Harvey Littleton and Dominick Labino’s 1962 Studio Glass workshops on the Museum grounds; the subsequent development of the Studio Glass Movement; artists such as Dale Chihuly and Therman Statom; Toledo’s industrial history; and the collectors, donors and artists who helped make the Museum’s glass collection what it is today.
Toledo Museum of Art Annual Report 2001
In the 2001 Toledo Museum of Art Annual Report, the Museum itself described Therman Statom’s presence at its Centennial Ball and identified his dealer, Maureen Littleton, as the daughter of Harvey Littleton, whom the Museum described as having helped found the Studio Glass Movement in an old garage on the Museum grounds in 1962.
That is precisely the kind of history that could have made the Glass Pavilion anniversary story meaningful.
Instead, readers were given very little opportunity to consider what will be lost when the relationship between the building and its collection is fundamentally altered.
Meanwhile, The Blade Has Published Another puff piece
On September 3, The Blade published a letter praising its August 20 coverage of the finally disclosed traveling exhibitions and the Museum’s current direction.
The writer, John Fedderke praised the “complexity and global significance” of the project, the “professionalism, care, and thought” of Museum staff, and the decision to send major works from the collection around the world.
The letter repeated some of the Museum’s own framing of the project, describing the traveling paintings as “ambassadors for Toledo” and praising the Museum for “reimagining” itself.
It concluded by thanking Museum staff for their work and calling the project a “once in a lifetime” undertaking.
There is nothing wrong with a reader expressing enthusiastic support for the Toledo Museum of Art. One might question it though when that writer is an advertising professional, in fact John Fedderke used to be the Marketing Director at The Blade. But putting that little fact aside, there is a larger question here:
Where is the equally visible opportunity for readers to hear the substantive case against what is being changed?
This Is Not About Whether Someone Likes the Museum
The problem is that the public is being asked to understand a major transformation of one of Toledo’s most important cultural institutions without being given the full debate surrounding it.
The Glass Pavilion is not simply a building that can be repurposed whenever the Museum changes directors. Its architecture, collection, furnaces, history and Toledo’s identity as the Glass City are deeply intertwined.
Interior of the Glass Pavilion, with donors’ names etched on the glass walls. Photo by Penny Gentieu
Those relationships deserve examination before they are dismantled—not after.
The Glass Pavilion is only one part of a much larger transformation now taking place at TMA. Major galleries are being dismantled or redesigned. The Museum’s collection is being reorganized. Major works have been sent on extended international tours. And Toledo residents have raised serious concerns about what these changes mean for their Museum.
More than 1,700 people have signed the petition “Enforce Libbey’s Will and Protect Toledo’s Art.” A formal request for review has also been submitted to the Ohio Attorney General’s Charitable Law Section.
Whatever one’s position on those questions, it is difficult to characterize them as nonexistent.
The Toledo Museum of Art is undertaking one of the most consequential transformations in its history.
That deserves more than celebration.
It deserves scrutiny.
It deserves competing viewpoints.
And it deserves a newspaper willing to ask difficult questions before the changes become irreversible.
The Glass Pavilion’s first twenty years are worth celebrating.
Its next twenty years are worth fighting for.
Update: September 8: The Blade, founded in 1835, has announced that it will be closing down if it does not find a buyer by the end of the year.
While most of the museum is closed for renovation and reinstallation, a new show has been announced: TMA Forever. Did they just think of hanging some art in Toledo? Could it be in reaction to the Petition to Enforce Libbey’s Will?
It will be at the recently repurposed Glass Pavilion, in the old Glass Study Room. The Glass Pavilion was built for the glass collection, but they have changed it from its singular purpose. Now they can do whatever they want with it, such as using it for sound shows, jewelry and cursed art exhibits, the local artist Community Gallery, and for hanging some paintings from the collection, calling it “TMA Forever,” to help us understand identity politics art. A warm-up for the dreaded transformation of our museum that we loved just the way it was.
Cleaning out the old building
Claiming to have to do it for the HVAC system, they closed the historic white marble columned museum building and emptied it out. While they are transforming the Toledo Museum of Art into a world art history museum, they are ironically deleting the history of the museum and many of the artists it has held in its collection. They are on a special DEI mission to be the great influencer for American museums that must be changed. (“TMA’s strategy calls for us to become the model art museum in the United States for our commitment to quality and our culture of belonging.”) Not that the Toledo Museum of Art itself had ever been guilty of racism – far from it – but it doesn’t mind sacrificing itself for the cause.
Everyone is thinking of re-installations and reinterpreting collection 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. – Diane Wright TMA Curator of Glass, TMA Symposium, Expanding Horizons, July 20, 2023
They bought 1,300 new pieces for the museum, including these two:
Early Kiddush Cup, cost $4,000,000, which is about three times the annual draw of the Edward Drummond Libbey Endowment for the purchase of art.
The Kiddush cup continues something of a busy spree at the Toledo Museum of Art, Levine said, citing the roughly 1,300 acquisitions it had made through gift and purchase over the past five years. ARTnews, November 6, 2025
The same year they bought the cup, in 2025, they bought this painting by a relatively unknown painter for another estimated $5,000,000, as a part of a bailout of a small college in Alabama.
“My objective and the objective of the Toledo Museum of Art is to support Talladega College.” Adam Levine, New York Times, “To Avert Crisis, Talladega College Sells Its Art Treasures” October 29, 2025
“Much of the African American population of Toledo traces its genealogy to individuals who fled on the Underground Railroad, so this will be deeply meaningful for our audience.” Adam Levine, Forbes, “Art Imitates Life: Hale Woodruff’s ‘The Underground Railroad’ Headed North To Ohio” November 1, 2025
They claim that whatever they put up will be fine –
“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, Forbes, Feb. 28, 2022
They are replacing the 17th and 18th century Italian Baroque paintings in the Great Gallery with this:They moved the historic glass installed at the Glass Pavilion for reinstallation in the renovated museum building:
“It would be senseless not to have glass showcase alongside these other media, and to divorce glass history from overall art history,” Levine said. The Blade, August 2025
Conceived as a building of glass to display one of the world’s greatest art collections, where glass would be made, glass would be taught, and the history of glass would be studied, in a city known as the glass capital of the world, that gave birth to the studio glass movement in 1962, in a museum founded by a ground-breaking glass industrialist, it was in beautiful working order, as designed by master architects, to work together like a Swiss watch. Why did it stop?
Meanwhile…
The museum has set out to increase their international footprint and relevance. In the past, the museum had plenty of international relevance right here at home. The museum was visited by luminaries from around the world, such as the King and Queen of Greece. In any given year, the museum had been regularly visited by people from every state of the nation and over 50 countries around the world.
But now, instead of bringing people to Toledo to see the fine collection, the collection has been sent on tour, along with museum staff including curators and the art restorer. Many of the best paintings are either on loan or are being rented internationally. The art is put to work to fulfill their “transformative” mission, and the travel budget is going through the roof.
These paintings have been prepared for extensive wear and tear by reframing them with glass. You can imagine the many years it took to prepare so many paintings for such stress. For example, the two-year loan of four paintings to the Hudson River Museum that commenced in June 2025 and will end in June 2027 was arranged in 2023, as indicated on the adjacent plaques.
Rarely seen, except on the Mona Lisa, glass is used on canvas to protect it from damage. To glaze a painting, the art restorer has to crack open the frame, remove the artwork, and add glass to the frame. Then, the installation of spacers along the inside of the frame to keep the glass from touching the surface of the painting. As some depth of the frame has been taken up by the glass and the spacers, the canvas spills out of the back. A retro-fitted frame job is not the ideal framing for the valuable artwork. The paintings, like this one, have to be hung from hinges at the sides of the frames instead of from the back. I went to see some, in Yonkers, New York.
Here’s what Toledo’s art restorers did to the paintings to add glass — to upwards of 150 of paintings —
No wonder museum attendance has been pathetically low, considering that the curators’ attention has been focused on making shows for the rest of the world, instead of putting on good shows at the actual Toledo Museum of Art.
Edward Drummond Libbey Will
…all paintings, pictures and other works of art by it or them acquired by expenditures from said income, shall at all times be properly and appropriately housed in one or more rooms of The Toledo Museum of Art in said City of Toledo,each of which rooms shall at all times be designated and plainly marked “The Edward Drummond Libbey Gallery”; each and every of said painting, other pictures and works of art shall at all times be plainly marked “Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey”, and shall be kept adequately insured against loss from fire, theft and other causes…
Florence Scott Libbey Will
…in the purchase of paintings, statuary, furniture and other works of art, each of which, when so acquired, shall have designated thereon, or near thereto, the following words: “Florence Scott Libby Bequest in Memory of her Father, Maurice A. Scott”, and shall be permanently installed in one or more rooms of the building or buildings of said Museum of Art, each of which shall be designated and known as the “Maurice A. Scott Memorial Gallery”…
What don’t they understand about Libbey’s intentions for the art to be for the people of Toledo? Instead, the curators — all new to the museum — are using the great art belonging to the people of Toledo, risking and renting it all over the world. The Toledo elites are all in. So is The Blade, which supports the museum whole-heartedly, and the museum advertises in The Blade. (Update, September 8: The Blade announced that it is closing down if it is not sold by the end of the year, and the managing editor Mike Brice has a new job now promoting commercial concerns in Ohio. The Blade is in free-fall, so is it any wonder why they no longer publish fair journalism; see post dated September 6 right before it was announced, What The Blade Didn’t Publish About the Glass Pavilion)
Living far above it all, none of the movers and shakers understand the importance of the museum to the community. They don’t understand that you can’t take that away for all these years without changing the character of Toledo forever.
Telling a story in the “Everything Has a Story” Exhibition at the Hudson River Museum, Yonkers, New York
Four American paintings were lent to the Hudson River Museum and are the only paintings in the museum with glass on them. They look bad and Toledo looks bad. The wall text was written at the height of Toledo’s post-pandemic anti-colonialist revisionism panic, and it was unlike any of the other wall text on the rest of the art. For example:
The Toledo Museum of Art explains to the foreign press that the reason the museum can “loan” so many masterworks at one time is because back home they are doing a massive renovation. But in fact, that excuse is only to make the museum look good to the foreigners. At home, the museum is closed for an unnecessary renovation along with an unwanted reinstallation. It is taking years and the museum will have not have any additional gallery space. In fact current gallery space will be reduced for the addition of new bathrooms and a lounge. Storage space will be not be added, even though in the past five years they have acquired 1,300 new art objects for the dreaded reinstallation.
As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the museum’s Wikipedia page claims that the museum is in the midst of a massive “campus expansion.” That’s great for international PR, for the people who will never set foot in Toledo but will pay admission fees overseas to view our art.
As for the “campus expansion,” the museum actually sold an important campus building – the art deco Professional Building, that housed the Symphony and Toledo Arts Commission, to the American Numismatic Society for $2 million one year ago. That is hardly “campus expansion.”
56 of 60 Impressionist thru Modern paintings on multi-year world tours, mangled with glass on them:
53 Old Master paintings on multi-year world tours, mangled with glass on them:
What we are losing:
Instead of presenting the great art that has been painstakingly collected for over a century, the new crew at the museum is using the art to illustrate a presentation of a narrow view of politics.
The membership has dropped significantly, as has attendance, which never recovered after the pandemic. Who is paying for this transformation of the people’s museum? What strings are attached?
See more charts, graphs and data portraits analyzing the museum’s statistics on this page:
Edward Drummond Libbey (left) and Ibrahim Mahama (right). Composite image created for editorial commentary on cultural stewardship and institutional legacy.
What Toledo Is Losing: Stewardship Across Time
I find myself comparing Edward Drummond Libbey and Ibrahim Mahama. I began thinking about Ibrahim Mahama because my work along with my daughter’s work is currently part of an exhibition in one of the cultural spaces he has created in Ghana. More than a century apart, the two men each represent a different vision of how culture is built and sustained.
Ibrahim Mahama: Building for a Future He Will Not See
Ibrahim Mahama is a Ghanaian artist whose work engages collective memory and historical narratives deeply rooted in Ghana’s past and present. He has described his practice as a form of “time travel.” Internationally celebrated, Mahama has chosen to turn the profits of the global art market back into his home region of northern Ghana—building studios, research centers, archives, and public cultural spaces that serve artists and communities far beyond his own career.
Mahama’s work is often discussed in terms of materials, but its most consequential dimension may be institutional. Rather than withdrawing from Ghana after achieving international success, he has reinvested directly in place. His cultural spaces preserve memory, support research, and provide infrastructure for artists and the community.
Mahama does not dismantle cultural memory in order to innovate. He adds to it. His institutions are long-term civic commitments meant to outlast his own presence. They are built on the assumption that continuity itself has value.
Seeing what Mahama is building in Ghana made me reconsider what Toledo once understood a museum to be.
Edward Drummond Libbey and the Civic Ideal of the Museum
More than a century earlier, Edward Drummond Libbey made a remarkably similar decision. At the height of his success in the glass industry, Libbey endowed the city of Toledo with something radical for its time: a free, educational art museum meant to belong to the entire community. From its founding, the museum was free and educational, and civic at its core. It offered year-round Saturday art classes for children, college students, and adults. For nearly a century, it hosted the annual Toledo Area Artists Exhibition, a cultural touchstone that brought the local artist community together and helped launch countless careers.
Along the way, curators assembled an encyclopedic collection of art from around the world. The majority of the museum’s most valuable works were either gifted by the Libbeys or acquired through endowments they established. Edward Drummond Libbey and his wife, Florence Scott Libbey, articulated a clear governing principle: for every dollar spent on administration, an equal dollar should be spent on art. This balance was meant to keep the institution grounded in its purpose.
For much of the twentieth century, the museum thrived under long-serving directors who built steadily on this foundation. The Toledo Museum of Art was widely regarded as a model democratic institution—without having to announce itself as one.
Mahama reinvests success back into the community that produced it.
Libbey endowed permanence so art would remain available to those who lived with it. Different eras, different methods — the same ethic.
Continuity: How Stewardship Actually Works
Stewardship is the promise that what one generation builds, the next will care for and carry forward.
Cultural stewardship is slow. Its effects accumulate quietly over decades, often unnoticed while they are happening. Institutions like museums do not shape people through spectacle, but through repetition and presence—by being there year after year, generation after generation.
I understand this not only as an observer, but as a product of that system. I grew up with the Toledo Museum of Art as a civic constant, taking classes there from childhood through college. Art was not presented as exceptional or exclusive; it was simply part of life. That continuity mattered. It shaped how I understood art and culture as shared civic goods. Today, my work appears internationally, in an exhibition at the Savannah Centre for Contemporary Art in Ghana built by Ibrahim Mahama. That connection clarified something for me: Libbey’s legacy was never just a building or a collection. It was people.
What changes when art stops belonging to a place
and starts working for an institution?
Stewardship vs. Leverage
What we are seeing now treats legacy as something to be leveraged.
Leveraging art is part of the museum’s 2021 Strategic Plan – “TMA’s exhibitions will depart Toledo to traverse the globe, providing the Museum and its hometown the visibility it once enjoyed.” As Adam Levine stated to The Blade in 2022, “now we have a cultural shift and a new framework for how we can leverage this extraordinary collection to service the community.”
Dozens of masterworks — many long understood as highlights of the museum — have been removed from Toledo’s walls and sent abroad. Toledoans lose access, continuity, and presence, while the institution gains visibility, prestige, and philanthropic reach elsewhere. Whether or not these arrangements are called loans, they function like renting out the collection — converting Toledo’s inheritance into institutional capital.
This shift has been accompanied by a new level of opacity. At a December town hall, the director refused to disclose the total cost of the museum’s reinstallation. “The benefit of being private,” Adam Levine stated, “is that I don’t have to answer that question.”
With the collection built over more than a century through Libbey endowments and local stewardship, worth many orders of magnitude more than the physical systems used to justify its absence, the museum is undergoing a complete transformation, right down to the physical studs. It’s not merely a change in exhibition strategy, it’s a change in ethics. A museum founded on the principle that art should stay, teach, and belong now treats mobility as virtue and absence as acceptable. The people of Toledo are asked to trust – without transparency – that this leveraging of their inheritance will serve them.
Frank, a museum guard at the Glass Pavilion, 2014
Stewardship Includes Labor
Tourists [will be] shocked and delighted to be welcomed by a diverse and empowered staff so clearly loving what they do and the institution they serve.” – 2021 Strategic Plan.
The irony.
For generations, the museum guards at the Toledo Museum of Art were not simply security. They were trained, knowledgeable, and deeply embedded in the daily life of the museum — often serving as the most human point of contact between Toledoans and their art.
Longtime interpreters and art ambassadors, the replacement of museum guards with a third-party contract service signals another quiet shift: away from relational knowledge and toward transactional presence.
Additionally, “visitor services” workers at the entrances are being replaced by kiosks. Labor is increasingly treated the way the collection is: something to be optimized, externalized, and leveraged.
When a museum distances itself from its workers, it distances itself from its public. And when labor becomes peripheral, the institution risks hollowing out the very relationships that once made it matter.
The Central Question
Would Edward Drummond Libbey have wanted his museum dismantled, its masterworks dispersed, and its educational core deemphasized and long-time workers replaced in the name of reinvention?
And how would Ibrahim Mahama feel if the cultural institutions he is building today were stripped of their purpose a century from now and repurposed into something unrecognizable?
The most radical act a cultural institution can take is not reinvention but continuity—honoring the trust placed in it by the past while making room, carefully and responsibly, for the future.
These two men belong to very different moments in history, but both understood that culture does not sustain itself. It survives only when someone decides it is worth building — and worth protecting. The question for Toledo is what kind of stewardship it now believes in.
Mahama builds so culture can endure where it is made. Libbey endowed a museum so art would belong to the people who lived with it. That is the standard Toledo was given. And it is the standard against which this moment should be measured.
Within five years, changes were made at great speed—resulting in mass removals of artwork, off-site storage across the country, and a wholesale transformation of the museum’s physical space. I have documented this sequence here:
Fortune Magazine 1938: To Edward D. Libbey’s art museum – his enchantment draws 2,500 children every Saturday and 104 per cent of the population of Toledo in a year.Education was the central mission throughout the entire Twentieth Century.Map of Toledo (light gray) and the greater Toledo area (green) that the museum has always served compared to the circled two-mile radius of audience the focus for the reimagined museum.A student of the first photography class offered in the children’s Saturday classes, photographing in the Impressionist Gallery with Cezanne, Renoir and Van Gogh, 1979.In 2022, our three famous French Impressionist paintings by Matisse, Renoir Cezanne were taken off the wall and sold for $59 Million. And that was just the beginning.The Glass Pavilion, which opened in 2006, was built expressly to house the renowned glass collection. It will now be used for a different purpose.Headlines from 95 years of the Toledo Area Artists Exhibition, which ended in 2014.The Cloisters, installed in the museum in 1930_, was closed on Feb. 2, 2025 to be dismantled and moved two galleries over, next to the Ancient Court, as to compress time as art is arranged chronologically.Poets Bob Philips, Nick Muska and Joel Lipman before a poetry reading at the Cloisters, Toledo Museum of Art, 1979 and a reshoot in 2015.The heavy words of Toledo Museum of Art’s inspirational word cloud shown at their symposium, Expanding Horizons: New Approaches in Display and Interpretation, July 20232024: The art museum is renovating. Glass art will be interspersed amongst other artwork in the main building, arranged chronologically. The Impressionist paintings have already been relocated 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, it’s because the museum is renovating! But they had already moved these paintings to the Glass Pavilion, built in 2006 — are they also renovating THAT building? Yes.A schematic rendering of how the museum will look, shown to the public in November 2024. It was not received well.The closure of the museum, 2025 – 2026 – 2027, in order to renovate “right down to the studs” and rearrange the collection chronologically. Art is being sent to art storage rooms across the country.Some of the 57 Impressionist – 20th Century masterworks that were lent to museums in New Zealand and Australia in 2025 and 2026.These 144 post-Civil War paintings were off view by April 2025.The Crowning of St. Catherine, Peter Paul Rubens, 1631, Brian Kennedy standing in front of it on August 26, 2011, at the opening of the 93rd Annual Toledo Area Artists Exhibition. Brian Kennedy left abruptly in 2019, 18 months before the end of his contract.The Crowning of St. Catherine taken down in December 2025. Photo: Toledo Museum of ArtThe Great Gallery, dismantled in December 2025. Photo: Toledo Museum of Art. Where did the art go? To art storage rooms across the country. You might see some of your favorites when it opens again in late-2027, but then, you might not ever see your favorites again.
Meanwhile, at the SCCA in Tamale, Ghana…
Museum of Modern Art curator Smooth Nzewi looking into our collaborative generational project, “The Beyond,” at the Savannah Centre for Contemporary Art (SCCA) in Tamale, Ghana. My daughter’s Vertigo Cube features peepholes to the past – Victorian interiors photographed by my great great grandfather in 1894. Photo: SCCAAmong our 21 photos on display at Ibrahim Mahama’s Savannah Centre for Contemporary Art (SCCA) in Tamale, Ghana is my photo of the implosion of the Toledo’s Jeep Administration Building on April 14, 1979.
The perspective offered here emerges from long-term observation, archival research, and a lifelong relationship with the Toledo Museum of Art. Photos @Penny Gentieu unless otherwise attributed.
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. And of course, The Blade plays along. Libbey’s gift of art for the people is being taken from away from the people to be used for political exploitation, corporate greed – public assets serving elite networks and lining corporate pockets 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.
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.
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 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 an 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 sometime in 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 using donor funds, now the museum plans to move it a few galleries over. Now it will be closed for three years.
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.
Additional permits, legal fees, or repatriation claims.
Extended project timeline costs.
Total Estimated Cost: $2.5 Million – $10 Million+
Cost to Toledo’s history and culture: Immeasurable.
On January 30, 2025 when the museum announced the closure of the newly renovated cloisters with only three days notice, there was a public outcry on the museum’s Facebook post with thousands of reactions and hundreds of comments, for example:
Announced in the Toledo Free Press article dated February 8, Patrons pay tribute to Cloister Gallery, the new location, to Galleries 3, 4, 5 & 6.
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 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 Scott Libbey. 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 Indigenous people who used to live on the land on which the museum is built, (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 TMA collection is splendid, with encyclopedic range and surprising depth. But, sadly, the museum seems intent on making race and grievance, not art, the center of visitors’ experience there. | By Brian T. Allen https://t.co/VYwIT2dZCu
The Toledo Museum of Art is getting national attention — but not in a good way. Unfortunately the unflattering critique by art critic, Brian T. Allen in the National Review is right-on. The museum is using its stellar collection to promote a trite, tired and divisive political point of view, reducing great art to the level of mere illustration, targeting the lowest common denominator. Dumb, dumb, dumb!
It’s missing a few points though…. like perhaps the museum has gone all out with their inclusion theme as a smokescreen to cover the bigger picture. They want us to look over here at their diversity theme and not follow the money. Like the questionable sudden selling of the museum’s three great Impressionist paintings for 60 million dollars and starting a whole new private fund with it. Taking from Edward Drummond Libbey’s bequest and defying his rules snd intentions. And who exactly bought TWO of these paintings?
Hopefully the Ohio Attorney General, in their current investigation of the Libbey Endowment Trust funds, will uncover it all.
The mayor is a dope
Toledo’s mayor, in a dollop of snark and a show of ignorance, said the museum catered to “Florence Libbey types,” which means a high-society dame, the kind who wear a tiara to weed the orchid patch. It’s safe to say he’s a dope. The museum’s not a colony of the country club. It has cultivated a broad-based appeal and affection. And a mayor shouldn’t trash the thing that adds the most class and cachet to his city. Toledo, after all, isn’t the Paris of Ohio. – Brian T. Allen, Toledo Museum: A Treasure Trove of the Best, National Review
Yes, the mayor of Toledo, Wade Kapszukiewicz, is a dope. And it is safe to presume that this line of thinking was fed to him by the museum’s newly appointed “Brand” department and manager — a man who lives in Colorado! Once you trash the beginnings of the museum, and the Libbeys, and the museum’s history — a museum built by progressive founders who gave the gift of the museum to all of the people of Toledo — the exact opposite of the image that the mayor of Toledo is promoting — it’s easy enough to trash the art inside of it and whisk it away.
As they destroy the museum’s legacy, they can easily sell off the museum’s masterpieces. If they can get away with secretly selling valuable paintings that were purchased with funds from the Edward Drummond Libbey Endowment, a publicly scrutinized trust fund, and move those assets into a secret private fund, or who knows what they do because the public no longer has access, they set a precedent and can keep doing it until the museum has no resemblance to the intentions of the founders.
If they were not going to buy art right away with the proceeds (as per the wishes of the Libbey trust) then why didn’t they simply put it back in the Edward Drummond Libbey Endowment Fund? I’ve read Libbey’s will in regard to the trust and there is absolutely nothing in it that would stop them from putting the money back into the endowment fund.
The wills of the Libbeys make it very easy for the Trustees to do what they think is best — but of course that freedom is predicated on the Trustees’ fiduciary duty. The Trustees are legally required to do their best to act in Libbeys’ stead, but it appears that they are breaching that trust. And they are dwindling the endowment away (check it out for yourself at the Lucas County courthouse — it’s public information) while the museum builds up a private fund. Is there a conflict of interest? Some of the same Trustees of the Libbey Trust are on the Board of Directors of the museum.
While they, to quote the article, “cater relentlessly to Toledans living within a two-mile radius of the museum” and “drag people from their homes to raise that percentage for what is, after all, an ego trip” (but never answer the emails of community members or respond to open letters on blogs, being the hypocrites they really are) they are actually stealing from the people of Toledo.
This happens because the mayor of Toledo, city council, museum board members, donors, members, etc., play along with them (after all, they go to the same parties and have the same lawyers) and they are all such dopes.
