Rivera – COOPER GENERAL NEWS

On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Trustees voted 11-0 to begin the process of designating a popular Diego Rivera mural as a landmark after the San Francisco Art Institute, which owns the $ 50 million painting, said that the sale would help pay off $ 19.7 million in debt.

Designating the mural as a landmark would severely limit the leverage of the 150-year-old institution, and officials behind the measure say the sale will likely be off the table for now. Removing the landmark mural would require approval from the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, which has extensive powers.

“There’s a lot of money in this city,” said Andrew Peskin, a board member from the district in which the institute is located and sponsor of the proposal. “There are better ways to get out of your mess than a mind-bending scheme to sell the mural.”

During a public hearing on the resolution Monday, Art Institute officials objected to the idea. Pam Rorke Levy, chairman of the art institute’s board of directors, said: “If the mural is milestone now, when there is no significant risk of sale, without taking sufficient account of the SFAI’s position, it would deprive the SFAI of its primary and most valuable asset . “

The 1931 work entitled “The Making of a Fresco Showing the Building of a City” is a fresco within a fresco. The tableau shows the creation of a city and a mural – with architects, engineers, craftsmen, sculptors and painters who work hard. Rivera himself can be seen from behind, holding a palette and a paintbrush with his assistants. It is one of three frescoes by the Mexican muralist in San Francisco that had a tremendous impact on other artists in the city.

Years of costly expansions and declining enrollments have placed the SFAI in a difficult financial position made worse by the pandemic and loan default. In July last year, a private bank announced it would sell the school’s collateral – including the Chestnut Street campus, the Rivera mural, and 18 other works of art – before the University of California’s Board of Regents bought the debt in October. A new agreement gives the institute six years to buy back the property. Otherwise, the University of California would take possession of the campus.

Faced with the threat of foreclosure, the school administrators have been looking for a suitable buyer, although Ms. Levy has said the school’s “first choice is to loan the mural on the spot and attract patrons or a partner institution who can raise substantial funds for it would allow us to preserve, protect and present the mural to the public. “

Last month, Ms. Levy discussed two options with board members and employees. For one, filmmaker George Lucas bought the mural for the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Los Angeles. (The museum said it wouldn’t comment on speculation about acquisitions.) Another would have seen the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art take possession of the mural but leave it as an adjoining room on campus.

However, a museum spokeswoman said nothing came from early discussions. “We have no plans to acquire or rent the SFAI mural,” said Jill Lynch, communications officer for SFMOMA, to the New York Times.

The school’s Chestnut Street campus has been a landmark since 1977, but it was possible that the mural could be sold as part of the interior or removed.

In recent days, former students and faculty members have organized to oppose a sale of the mural. This included the famous artist Catherine Opie, who published an open letter condemning the actions of the school board and announcing the withdrawal of a photo she was planning to sell in a fundraiser for the institute.

“I can no longer be part of a legacy that sells an essential unique piece of history,” she wrote.

After hearing that the mural would likely receive landmark status, Ms. Opie breathed a sigh of relief.

“I’m thrilled and relieved,” she told the Times. “I’m tired of seeing art being used as a first line of defense asset for institutions.”

The San Francisco Art Institute was on the verge of losing its campus and art collection to a public sale last fall when the University of California’s Board of Regents bought its $ 19.7 million debt from a private bank, to save the 150-year old institution from collapse.

The deal provides a lifeline, but the future of a beloved work of art – a $ 50 million mural by Diego Rivera that official figures could help balance the budget – is still in the air, and faculty and alumni are outraged.

The work from 1931 entitled “Making a Fresco Showing the Building of a City” is a fresco within a fresco. The tableau shows the creation of a city and a mural – with architects, engineers, craftsmen, sculptors and painters who work hard. Rivera himself can be seen from behind, holding a palette and a paintbrush with his assistants. It is one of three frescoes by the Mexican muralist in San Francisco that had a tremendous impact on other artists in the city.

Years of costly expansions and declining enrollments at the institute put it at risk, a situation that worsened during the pandemic.

The school has stressed that no final decision has been made to sell the mural. Behind the scenes, however, the institute’s administrators and directors are strongly pushing for it as it would pay off the debt and allow them to make ends meet on an annual operating budget of around $ 19 million.

In a December 23 email to employees in the New York Times, Jennifer Rissler, vice president and dean of academic affairs, admitted that a number of people had raised concerns about the possible sale of the mural. She added that “As part of its fiduciary duty, the board has voted to review all options to save the SFAI and continue to explore avenues and offers to furnish or sell the mural.”

At a board meeting on December 17, SFAI chair Pam Rorke Levy stated that filmmaker George Lucas was interested in buying the mural for the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art in Los Angeles. Details of this discussion were provided by a participant who asked for anonymity as the participant was not authorized to discuss internal matters.

Speaking to faculty members on Dec. 17, Ms. Levy outlined another plan that would see the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art take possession of the mural but leave it on campus as an adjoining room, said Dewey Crumpler, associate professor at the school .

A spokeswoman for the institute, Sara Fitzmaurice, the founder of the PR firm Fitz & Co., declined to discuss ongoing negotiations about the possible sale. “A number of discussions were held with several institutions about the possibility of renting or purchasing the mural in order to secure the future of the school,” she said in a statement.

In an interview last March, Ms. Levy said she would be receptive to selling the painting. “When you have an asset that is this valuable, there is always a discussion,” she said. “As a small college in an expensive city, we feel the pain.”

Faculty and staff have repeatedly raised objections. The final counter-argument came in a December 30 letter to the school community from a union representing their additional teachers, nearly 70 of whom were fired during the pandemic but who previously made up the majority of the faculty.

“The Diego Rivera mural is not a commodity whose identity and value is solely based on market valuation,” the letter said, “while selling it would resolve immediate financial bottlenecks,” it would represent a limited lifeline and would not appeal to samples Misconduct and mismanagement by the board and senior executives of the SFAI. “

In a statement, the institute described the allegations of bad leadership as “gross misrepresentation” and said that almost all board members joined the school after the debt arose.

The Rivera mural is intertwined with the legacy of the SFAI, which claims to be the oldest art school west of the Mississippi and has former students such as Annie Leibovitz, Catherine Opie and Kehinde Wiley. Selling the mural, having become such an important part of the institute’s identity over the past 90 years, may alienate the students, alumni, and faculties who value it.

“It’s insulting and heartbreaking,” said Kate Laster, an alumna of the institute who produced student exhibits in a gallery featuring the mural before graduating in 2019. “Selling the mural is an impractical option given the school’s duty to protect its own historical heritage.”

Aaron Peskin, an elected official in the district where the institute is located, also opposes the sale. “The idea of anyone, let alone the University of California, selling this is heresy,” he recently told Mission Local’s news site, which first covered the deal with the regents on December 30th. “It would be a crime against the arts and the city’s heritage. Educational institutions should teach art, not sell it.”

The money for the institute comes from a 2016 loan that was used to finance the construction of the new campus in Fort Mason. Collateral for the loan included the school’s older campus on Chestnut Street and 19 works of art. Last year, the financial burden led school principals to consider permanent closure. It remained open in limited capacity after receiving $ 4 million in donations.

But it wasn’t enough. In July, Boston Private Bank & Trust Co. notified the institution that it had violated the loan terms by failing to repay a $ 3 million annual credit line required to extend the loan. The bank issued a public sale notice in October listing the collateral, including the Rivera mural and frescoes, including those by Victor Arnautoff, whose paintings are threatened with destruction elsewhere in San Francisco.

The Board of Regents blocked the sale by buying the institute’s debt earlier that month. With the new agreement, the public university system acquired the institute’s charter and became its landlord. The SFAI administrators have six years to buy back the property. Otherwise, the University of California would take possession of the campus.

And if the institute lost its home, school administrators would have to make more difficult decisions about the future of the mural. “If the SFAI gets out of the Chestnut Street campus for good, we may have to move the Diego Rivera mural,” said Ms. Fitzmaurice. “We were informed that such a potential move could be a multi-year process, so we started to investigate what is possible in this case.”