LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Mask and Wig explains art sale

To the Editor:To the Editor: I have become concerned in the last week over the amount of "controversy" that has accompanied Mask and Wig's sale of Maxfield Parrish's mural, "Old King Cole." Everyone seems to believe that the issue at stake is the sale of a piece of art -- and not the future of Mask and Wig. It seems that the University and certain Pennsylvania alumni (not Mask and Wig alumni) feel the legacy of Mask and Wig is a mural painted for our clubhouse over a century ago. I disagree. Mask and Wig's legacy to the University is its show, as it has been for the last 108 years. I wish the University community had shown as much interest in preserving our tradition as they have in bickering over a mural. As a member of Mask and Wig, I would love to see the art remain connected to the University, but my main concern must be the preservation of our theatrical tradition: "Justice to the Stage and Credit to the University." Timothy Gloege College '96 Undergraduate Chairman, Mask and Wig n To the Editor: As president of The Mask and Wig Club, I read with interest the Letter to the Editor printed last Friday regarding the upcoming sale of the club's mural, "Old King Cole" ("Mural sale angers alum," DP, 4/5/96). There are a few facts that must be clarified. I was first contacted by Laurence Cutler in his position as representative of the Maxfield Parrish Family Trust. I likewise received a call from Judy Goffman, Cutler's wife and owner of the American Illustrators Gallery in New York. They were upset they had not been contacted prior to the club's consignment of this mural to Christie's. While Cutler and Goffman are prominent and respected dealers in the field of Parrish art, the club feels most comfortable offering the mural in the major spring public auctions. Auctions are a primary method of offering desirable works to an eager collecting public. Valuation of the Parrish art is important. Cutler is correct in stating that, to date, no Parrish piece has garnered more than $220,000 at auction. However, that was in 1985 for Parrish's "Garden of Allah" (15" by 30"), sold by Christie's. What was not made clear in Cutler's letter is the likelihood that in May 1996 a new record will be set. Until this point, no major piece of Parrish art he ever been auctioned -- let alone two in one month! On the day prior to the Christie's sale, Parrish's most famous piece, "Daybreak," (26" by 45") will be offered at auction in New York with a pre-sale estimate of $1.5-$2.5 million. It was reported that the American Illustrators Gallery and the Parrish Trust failed to sell this painting to museums and individual collectors, during a three-museum tour of Japan, for $5 million. In addition, it has been reported that Parrish's fourth major commission, "Sing a Song of Sixpence," (68" by 165") recently sold in Chicago for in excess of $1 million. Surely Cutler does not disagree that the "Old King Cole" mural is worth much more that the $220,000 auction record. While the upcoming sale is likely to sadden many University alumni, The Mask and Wig Club has moved more carefully in this sale than has been reported. We, as an organization, are not required to use the commercial services of either Goffman or Cutler. I, and the club's board, are determined to preserve a unique Pennsylvania institution -- and as many of its traditions as possible. We welcome all to join the club on May 23 at Christie's Park Avenue. We would be more than pleased to see "Old King Cole" remain at Pennsylvania, but we must look today at the preservation of the club and to the long-term survival of the organization. Craig Klofach College '84 Graduate School of Fine Arts '88 President, The Mask and Wig Club Questionable priorities To the Editor: Recently you reported University President Judith Rodin's pleas ("Rodin hosts second 'town meeting' with students," DP, 4/4/96) that she needs more time to settle in before she can be accessible. Now, we learn that she, supposedly short of time, plans to join the board of EDS, a major corporation, a position that will eat up at least 12 days of her time a year. Interesting time management, don't you think? J. Spencer Martin Finance Graduate Student Jacobowitz's suit proper To the Editor: I am writing in reference to Eden Jacobowitz's recent decision to file suit against the University concerning the infamous 1993 "water buffalo" incident. I am outraged by comments I have heard around campus and read in places such as the DP's "Word on the Walk" (4/9/96). People are focusing completely on the wrong aspect of this situation. It is not Jacobowitz's actions in 1993 that are up for criticism, it is the actions of the University, and in particular, its judicial system -- a system with which most students have had no experience and about which most have little knowledge. I had the unfortunate opportunity to have extensive dealings with this less-than-professional department of the University my freshman year, for reasons that do not need to be explained to make my point. My experiences with the Judicial Inquiry Office and the Student Dispute Resolution Center were plagued with incompetence on the part of its administrators and a complete lack of adherence to university guidelines and procedures. I was lied to multiple times, experienced coercion and my rights to confidentiality and assumption of innocence until proven guilty were thrown by the wayside. Upon the conclusion of my dealings with the judicial office, I too considered filing suit against the University, an avenue my parents were eager to take. Nonetheless, I was ready to refocus my time on my studies and terminate my dealings with the administration. It is for this reason that I have no trouble believing Jacobowitz's claims and support his attempt for monetary compensation. The actions of the University must be considered independently of his remarks. The real issue is whether the University followed its published guidelines in its dealings with Jacobowitz. As an individual who has had experience with the University's judicial office, I have absolutely no trouble believing that it acted in a grossly negligent manner and that Jacobowitz deserves some type of compensation. Paul Nathanson Wharton '98 No financial aid incentives To The Editor: This letter is in response to the article entitled "Ivy League to audit athletes' financial aid" (DP, 4/8/96). I uphold the fact that athletes do not receive "any additional financial benefits as an incentive to enroll in the school," as the article stated. As a member of the gymnastics team, I made my decision to attend Penn because of the wonderful academic reputation and excellent gymnastics team the University has, fully knowing that in choosing to be a student-athlete, there would be no extra money given to me for my decision. Yes, coaches may ask the University's financial aid office to make additional assessments, but this is for the benefit of athletes, so that we may attend this prestigious university. Athletes who are recruited are told off the bat that they will not receive any extra money as incentives to come to Penn. The gymnastics team has lost many a recruit as a result of the financial strain that Penn would put on their purses. Coaches ask for re-assessment solely to see if recruits can receive more money -- not for athletics, but because of need. Coaches push for this action because they want specific athletes for their teams. It should be made known to the student body that student-athletes, at least those on the gymnastics team, do not receive any type of financial incentive to come here. If this happens in other sports, so be it. This definitely does not hold true for all sports. Susie Marin Nursing '99 Correcting a misconception To the Editor: Greg Romanow expressed an incredibly common misconception in a recent Letter to the Editor replying to J. Christopher Robbins' column about free markets ("The dark side of free enterprise," DP, 4/5/96). Romanow wrote that when one person wins, by definition, another person has to lose. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The total amount of wealth available grows every year, and so it is possible for many people to become more prosperous without anyone losing as a result. How many people had to lose so that Oprah Winfrey could become the richest woman in America? She is rewarded because of her unique ability to provide a service to society, and society, in turn, benefits from her provision. This is true of Oprah, a large corporation that pools together resources to build a superior product, or of any other entity. Lawsuits that rob people of their achievements and heavy-handed big government directives threaten the free market process and the higher quality of living it could bring to the U.S. The freer the market, the more prosperous its people. Matthew Egel Wharton '98 Current issues important To the Editor: I was extremely distraught by Sonja Stumacher's apathetic and irreverent column, "A lasting impact?" (DP, 4/8/96). In a belligerent and befuddled attempt to disprove a critic's assertion that neither she nor her fellow columnists (save, of course, Dave Crystal) ever attempt to address "socially relevant" or "political" issues, Stumacher stated that there is no purpose to discussing such topics because time will continue to march on, and our pathetic lives will leave history as unscathed as a puddle in a silent forest. Stumacher would have us believe that any suggestion to better ourselves and our world is not only futile, but also hopeless; anything one might achieve will be wiped away by the unscrupulous hands of time. If one were to heed Stumacher's advice, there would be no need to attempt to alert the masses to children dying in Bosnia or the horrors of apartheid in South Africa or even to discuss bills pending in Congress, let alone spark a discussion about housing segregation here at Penn -- because all of these meaningless events will only become forgotten chapters in a future history book. I cannot stand for such nihilistic banter, especially from a member of the media. While it is true that 100 years from now President Clinton's signing of the telecommunications bill may not be a "hot topic," as long as issues like the bill are relevant to our community, it is the media's duty to inform the general public about them. Moreover, it is the responsibility of columnists like Stumacher to spark debate and discussion about issues, to keep the development of our community and our ideas from growing stagnant or even worse, apathetic. The Daily Pennsylvanian reaches thousands of people every day, and it is the job of the editorial staff to keep readers informed and, most importantly, involved. Stumacher certainly has the talent to paint vivid and descriptive pictures. Hopefully, in the future, she will use that talent to start intelligent and insightful discussions. Douglas Haber Engineering '99