Dear Generation,

I should have known from the cover what to expect. Accompanied by an illustration of a museum yard sale, the headline reads, “The Albright-Knox Art Gallery is selling nearly 200 older pieces to fund new exhibits. Can concerned art patrons stop the sale of these treasured works?” Not “Should concerned art patrons…” and a promise of a careful examination of the facts, but rather a lead-in to more yellow journalism.

Inconsistent and misinformed, Mrs. Sullivan’s article does little to enlighten the UB population about an event that could profoundly affect their educational experience. The Albright-Knox is an invaluable learning tool for students from all areas of study, one that we should be encouraged to make more use of. The sale of these antiquities redefines that tool’s uses and should be explained and examined as completely as possible. Mrs. Sullivan fails in all respects.

In the first paragraph, I learned that Mrs. Sullivan has a very limited and myopic view of what constitutes art history and knows—or cares to learn—even less about contemporary art. Threatening that “New additions could include dead livestock arranged in glass boxes” or “giant projectors,” is apparently meant to scare gallery neophytes, rather than spark discussion on the relevancy of artists like Lucas Samaras or Damien Hirst.

In discussing “What is Deaccession, Anyway?” Mrs. Sullivan states that while deaccession “can prove to be troublesome, it is sometimes vital, especially when an institution is lacking funds or needs to consistently update its collection.” (Italics added for emphasis) She neglects to add that though we are second only to the Modern Museum of Art in New York in importance of our modern collection, we rank far below them in terms of attendance and finances. The AKAG is hardly swamped with visitors. Also, a contemporary gallery, by definition, “needs to consistently update its collection.” Over the past few years the AKAG has mounted some internationally recognized shows, and engaged a younger audience with its free Friday nights, while simultaneously having its state and county funding slashed, laying off necessary staff, and watching an apathetic community pay it nothing but lip service.

In accusing the museum of clandestinely orchestrating the sale, Mrs. Sullivan writes “Members have no real power in issues regarding the museum. The members of the museum elect the Board of Directors, but have no power over their decisions.” This sounds like the very foundation of democracy. You bought a membership to the gallery, not stock in a privately traded company. If you do not like what the Board is doing elect new members or turn in your membership.

Did Mrs. Sullivan even leave the Generation offices while writing this article? If she had actually spoken to Louis Grachos, any of his staff, or even a docent at the Gallery, she would have found them friendly, informative and open to discussion.

Another bit of inflammatory rhetoric Mrs. Sullivan, and fellow editor Stephen Boyd (in his “edit note – Artsy Fartsy”), lift from the Art Keepers’ playbook is comparing the deaccession to the demolition of the Larkin Building (not the Larkin House as Mrs. Sullivan reports). Nobody is proposing we hold a Bonfire of the Vanities in the sculpture court and destroy these treasures. It is a sale necessary to the continued operation of the gallery. The AKAG will never be an encyclopedic museum, able to showcase a continuous narrative of art history, putting everything in its context.

I wish we could not only keep the antiquities but also expand the collection and hire curators to handle it. Unfortunately that cannot happen. If we halt this sale, not only will it hobble the AKAG’s ability to properly run its business, but we will be left with a narrow collection of ever shrinking importance.

Tobias Hayduk