March 27, 2005
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Los Angeles, Ca.
Dear Ms. Rich:
Let this letter serve to register my objections to your administration’s apparent acceptance of the great discrepancy of the age, as well as a number of other serious questions, that surrounds the 2004 Collectors Committee rug purchase.
Recently one of the chosen experts repudiated his opinion it was 16th century or even a circa 1600 example, like the museum hoped he would affirm, and dated it forward almost 200 years. Shouldn’t that raise serious concerns for your museum?
Why have not you or someone else repudiated your assistant director’s unfortunate statement:
No, ms Rich, LACMA must address this differently and realize allowing such an inferior work, at best a late-genre reproduction, to masquerade as a master-piece of anything other than the seller’s greed is both myopic and misguided.
“…the change of the carpet's date does not make it significantly less valuable…”
You don’t need more tests, the proof is there for everyone, who is knowledgeable or sensitive enough, to see.
Any comparison with genuine circa 1600 or earlier “Bellini”-type carpets reveals how deficient and inferior an example your former curator, ms Gluckman, championed for purchase. I know asking you to make such a comparison, or having it done for you, is as futile as asking rug collectors to write a letter like this to you. But if you did you would see what is wrong with the acquisition and if 100 collectors wrote a letter like this to you RK.com is sure it would have quite an effect.
Should you change your position I, or others I know, would be glad to help you rectify this, truly, unfortunate situation.
Oh, by the way, your ms Thomas finished her sentence with an emphatic:
“…and that it would not be returned to the dealer.”
Perhaps when you learn just how little value the rug’s acquisition bought to LACMA you, too, will agree how myopic and misguided her statement, and trying to cover this up, really is.
Weaving Art Museum