In early 2022, the Orlando Museum of Art (OMA) in Orlando, Florida found itself embroiled in a federal scandal regarding its exhibition of a previously-unseen collection of what were purportedly Jean Michel Basquiat paintings (Sokol, “In Orlando”). Consisting of 25 works initially wholly attributed to the artist, discovered among personal belongings long forgotten in a storage locker until 2012, the collection drew scrutiny from Basquiat experts and the F.B.I. based on solid evidence suggesting the pieces are forgeries (Sokol, “In Orlando”). Despite the discovery of posthumous materials in the collection, museum leadership incredulously maintains the paintings are authentic Basquiats (Sokol and Stevens). The F.B.I. openly seized the collection from the museum’s walls in full view of the public during an orchestrated raid in June 2022, citing its false provenance and illicit procurement (Sokol and Stevens).
Reactions of museum leadership in the wake of these investigations demonstrate layers of ethical misconduct on the parts of OMA’s board of directors and former director and CEO Aaron De Groft. De Groft and the board accepted the loan of the collection for exhibition from ex-convicts known for fraud, forgery, and trafficking without ascertaining the full history of the pieces (Sokol, “F.B.I. Investigates”). Further, they promoted an adulterated report and later threatened its author when she attempted to recoup her professional reputation by clarifying her actual assessment differed from the report proffered (Sokol, “F.B.I. Investigates”). These actions violate both the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) codes of ethics, along with the museum’s duty of care and loyalty to the public, eroding public trust in the process.
A brief history of the potential Basquiats in question highlights how the collection has served as an impetus for unethical behavior and F.B.I. investigation. The 25 artworks attributed to Basquiat are said to have emerged in 2012 from the storage locker of the now-deceased screenwriter Thad Mumford in Los Angeles (Sokol, “In Orlando”). Reportedly created in 1982, Basquiat allegedly sold the pieces directly to Mumford for a quick sum of cash, but Mumford subsequently forgot about them until the contents of his storage locker were auctioned off in 2012 (Sokol, “In Orlando”). The collection was purchased in 2012 by art dealer William Force and his financial backer Lee Mangin, both of whom have criminal records for fraud, forgery, and trafficking (Sokol, “F.B.I Investigates”). Six pieces of the collection were later sold to attorney Pierce O’Donnell, and the pieces have supposedly undergone multiple examinations by experts who are said to have corroborated their authenticity as Basquiats (Sokol, “F.B.I. Investigates”).
Yet, as the New York Times notes, “much of the back story establishing the paintings’ origins rests largely on the word of Mangin and Force,” as there is no conclusive evidence supporting that Basquiat did in fact create the paintings (Sokol, “F.B.I. Investigates”). De Groft and the collection’s owners stake their claims of authenticity on a potentially fabricated poem supposedly written by Mumford and signed by Basquiat when the paintings were created in 1982 (Sokol, “In Orlando”). Conversely, Mumford himself stated before his death that he did not own any artworks by Basquiat in a federal affidavit pertaining to the F.B.I.’s investigation (Sokol and Stevens). Fatal evidence against the collection’s authenticity includes the appearance of a font that did not exist until after Basquiat’s death on the FedEx box backing of one piece (Sokol, “Orlando Museum Director”). Although De Groft argued in opposition, this FedEx font disproves the authenticity of at least one piece and casts reasonable doubt on the remainder of the collection (Sokol, “Orlando Museum Director”).
Codes of ethics have been established by professional associations as frameworks for regulating conduct that might be lawful but does not align with the interests of the public constituencies served (Boyd 68). They also serve as guidelines for museum operations, establishing professional standards for exhibitions, collections, and governance that hold institutions accountable for their actions (“AAM Code of Ethics for Museums”). OMA is a member of the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) and the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), both of which posit codes of ethics for their members (“About Orlando Museum of Art”). Additionally, boards of directors, as the governing entity of a museum, are bound by duties of care and loyalty, furthering their ethical responsibilities (Baskies and Freedman). The board is also obligated to create an institutional code of ethics and ensure all employees, including the director and themselves, abide by that code (“AAM Code of Ethics for Museums”). It is yet to be determined whether any of the board has a role in this scandal, but what is apparent is their unsuccessful monitoring that allowed ethical violations to occur.
When the museum first explored exhibiting this collection, ethical misconduct, public scrutiny, and resulting erosion of public trust could have been avoided upfront had the museum been proactive in its research into the collection’s provenance. When museums steward collections, whether they are on loan or belong to the museum, they are responsible for ensuring “collections in its custody are lawfully held” and “accounted for and documented” in accordance with AAM’s Code of Ethics. The F.B.I.’s investigation into this collection centers on its illicit trade, as neither the provenance of the collection nor its trail of ownership is sufficiently documented or definitively evidenced (Sokol and Stevens). It is unclear whether OMA was aware of the federal investigation into the collection prior to its exhibition of the works, and the museum is not necessarily implicated for any involvement in the sale of these paintings (Sokol and Stevens). However, museum leadership was responsible for exercising more caution by ensuring museum staff conducted their own detailed due diligence into the provenance of the paintings, rather than accepting the owners’ flimsy tale of authenticity at face value.
Amidst these challenges and disputes, the museum’s board has not stepped forward to acknowledge its misconduct or share plans for restoring the public’s trust in the integrity of the institution and its leadership. Both the AAM and AAMD codes of ethics emphasize the importance of prioritizing public trust in any museum endeavor. When any museum leadership’s actions are not performed with “honesty, integrity, and transparency,” at minimum those actions erode public confidence, and as such, the museum has a responsibility to promptly and fully address public concerns and restore that confidence (“Code of Ethics”). Rather than repudiate the statements of experts and the F.B.I. in favor of insubstantial evidence supporting claims of authenticity, OMA’s board of directors could have issued a statement acknowledging the disputes, accepting partial blame for perpetuating the false narrative accompanying the collection. Although the board terminated De Groft from his position as the museum’s director and CEO, had he accepted responsibility and blame by voluntarily resigning, such actions would have shown the public that the institution took the federal investigation and claims of false provenance seriously, and that they actively “[put] the public—the constituency—ahead of the institution, ahead of the profession” (Boyd 68). Whether the board will share any information, specifically an action plan for internal investigation and warranted discipline, remains to be seen.
While De Groft appears to be the primary participant and a driving force behind the museum’s decision to exhibit the Basquiat collection, ultimately the responsibility for the legal and ethical integrity of the institution rests with the board of directors (Clendenning). Boards of directors are trusted to manage the CEO or director of a museum, and thus can be held responsible for his behavior and its repercussions (Clendenning). Duties of care and loyalty require non-profit board members to “act with such care as an ordinarily prudent person would employ in the position” and with “good faith and in a manner…in the best interest of the organization” (“The Attorney General’s Guide for Board Members”). In response to this federal scandal and the irresponsible actions of the museum’s director shaking public trust in the institution, one might expect the board to conduct a thorough investigation, potentially followed by resignation of board members who failed to confront De Groft’s unethical behavior. Yet, rather than addressing the museum’s involvement or its own failures to uphold its duties of care and loyalty, the board issued a weak, dismissive statement expressing its concern as it shared the news of De Groft’s firing (Sokol, “Orlando Museum Director”). This response does not inspire confidence in the board’s ability to govern the museum ethically, nor does it support the museum’s “public trust responsibilities” (“AAM Code of Ethics for Museums”).
The board’s public response to this scandal also conflicts with the museum’s mission. Cynthia Brumback, chairwoman of OMA’s board, shared with local news outlets that “attendance is up, diversity is up, shop sales are up,” emphasizing that “people are enjoying themselves” which “supports [their] mission” (Sokol, “F.B.I. Investigates”). But OMA’s mission statement is “to teach, influence, and broaden the worldview and shared experience of [its] community” by “[interpreting] and [presenting] art” (“About Orlando Museum of Art”). Thus, its mission is centered on the education of its constituency, not the financial gain nor notoriety of the institution or any of its individual leaders. Education as purpose within a museum is also strongly emphasized in AAM’s code of ethics, which recommends “revenue-producing activities…[be] compatible with the museum’s mission and support its public trust responsibilities” (emphasis added). A case could be made that OMA’s rise in attendance and sales during this controversial exhibition can largely be attributed to sensationalized interest in a public scandal, rather than the educational merit of the museum’s show, which conflicts with the educational prescriptions in AAM’s code of ethics.
When controversy began circulating, OMA could have crafted a unique response via its curatorial approach to the Basquiat collection. This uncommon situation offered OMA a rare opportunity to educate the public on issues of provenance, the illicit art trade, and perhaps even the various types of art crime. Questions about the collection’s authenticity could have been presented alongside the artworks, including examples of identifiable Basquiat traits and explanations of how and why experts are able to confirm the authenticity of some paintings and not others. An exploration of the evidence in support of the collection’s authenticity could also be weighed against evidence of its inauthenticity. This approach would not need to apply to every painting in the collection, but even examining a subset of the most questionable pieces (the painting created on the FedEx cardboard that did not exist until after Basquiat’s death would be the prime candidate) could have included the public in the investigation while educating them on the risks inherent in museum collections, how museum staff can proactively address those risks, and why it is unethical and irresponsible to engage in the illicit art trade, even accidentally. Such a twist on the exhibition would also align with AAM’s “Excellence and Equity”report, which calls for “a commitment to excellence in public service…supported by…rigorous scholarship,” as it would highlight the curatorial staff’s well-researched understanding of the exhibition’s nuances (“Excellence and Equity”6).
It is worth noting that the actions taken by OMA’s board of directors and former director and CEO De Groft are not representative of the museum’s full staff. During journalistic investigation into this controversy, reporters learned that staff who expressed concerns about the collection’s authenticity were intimidated into forced silence with threats of losing their employment and livelihoods (“Orlando Museum Director Loses Job”). De Groft similarly and unethically threatened to professionally discredit Basquiat expert Jordana Moore Saggese, who, prior to the museum’s acquisition of the collection, was commissioned by the collection’s owners to authenticate the paintings (Escalante-De Mattei). When Saggese requested her name be omitted from OMA’s exhibition as her professional opinion was misrepresented by the editing of her report to state she supported the collection’s authenticity, she was bullied by De Groft via email (Escalante-De Mattei). This culture of forced complicity violates both the AAM and AAMD codes of ethics, which endorse healthy working relationships where mutual respect and professional support are paramount. AAM’s Code of Ethics places responsibility for enforcing that healthy working environment with the museum’s governing board, which would further implicate OMA’s board of directors for not addressing employee concerns regarding the Basquiat exhibition.
OMA’s absence of ethics created and exposed their involvement in the Basquiat scandal and brought a federal investigation onto the institution, which could have been avoided. As individuals carrying the museum’s collective reputation, impact, and influence, the board had the obligation to exercise due diligence and also adhere to its duties of care and loyalty. It damaged its opportunity to strengthen its standing as an ethical, educational, and professional institution dedicated to its public constituency by compromising its integrity and violating the ethical codes of AAM and AAMD. By not ensuring the collection was diligently researched and its provenance confirmed, by not aligning its actions with the museum’s mission statement, by not actively honoring its peers, and by not accepting accountability for its role in this scandal, the museum’s board and former director/CEO sacrificed the museum’s reputation. Whether this reputation can be restored will be revealed in the ongoing federal investigation.
Works Cited
“AAM Code of Ethics for Museums.” American Alliance of Art Museums, https://www.aam-us.org/programs/ethics-standards-and-professional-practices/code-of-ethics-for-museums/. Accessed 1 Aug 2022.
“About Orlando Museum of Art.” Orlando Museum of Art, https://omart.org/about/about_the_museum/. Accessed 29 July 2022.
Baskies, Jeffrey A. and Cara Freedman. “‘To Protect and To Serve’: The Duties and Responsibilities of Directors of Florida Not-For-Profit-Corporations.” The Florida Bar, https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/to-protect-and-to-serve-the-duties-and-responsibilities-of-directors-of-florida-not-for-profit-corporations/#:~:text=Duty%20of%20Obedience%20%E2%80%94%20The%20duty,inconsistent%20with%20the%20organization’s%20goals.. Accessed 1 Aug 2022.
Boyd, Willard L. “Museum Accountability: Laws, Rules, Ethics, and Accreditation.” Reinventing the Museum: The Evolving Conversation on the Paradigm Shift, 2nd ed., edited by Gail Anderson, Altamira Press, 2012, pp. 61-71.
Clendenning, Bonnie. “Week 2: Museum Governance with Bonnie Clendenning.” MUSE-S100: Introduction to Museum Studies. 27 Jun 2022, Harvard Extension School. Class Lecture.
“Code of Ethics.” Association of Art Museum Directors, https://aamd.org/about/code-of-ethics. Accessed 1 Aug 2022.
Escalante-De Mattei, Shanti. “Art History Professor Denies That She Authenticated Disputed Basquiats Seized by FBI.” ARTnews, https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/jean-michel-basquiat-jordana-moore-saggese-orlando-museum-art-fbi-1234633760/. Accessed 2 Aug 2022.
“Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums.” American Alliance of Museums, 1992.
Sokol, Brett. “In Orlando, 25 Mysterious Basquiats Come Under the Magnifying Glass.” New York Times, 16 Feb 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/arts/design/basquiat-painting-orlando-mumford-museum.html. Accessed 30 July 2022.
—. “F.B.I. Investigates Basquiat Paintings Shown at Orlando Museum of Art.” New York Times, 29 May 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/29/arts/design/fbi-basquiat-paintings-orlando-museum.html. Accessed 29 July 2022.
—. “Orlando Museum Director Loses Job After Disputed Basquiat Show.” New York Times, 28 June 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/arts/design/orlando-museum-art-basquiat-director-fired.html. Accessed 29 July 2022.
Sokol, Brett and Matt Stevens. “F.B.I. Raids Orlando Museum and Removes Basquiat Paintings.” New York Times, 24 June 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/arts/design/fbi-orlando-museum-basquiat.html. Accessed 30 July 2022.
“The Attorney General’s Guide for Board Members of Charitable Organizations.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of Attorney General Maura Healey, https://www.mass.gov/doc/ags-guide-for-board-members-of-charitable-organizations/download. Accessed 2 Aug 2022.
Originally written August 2022.
Art with an Opinion 