Virginia Postrel, who is streets ahead of almost every other columnist in America, and you’ll note that I’ve been trying to cure myself of my tendency to overpraise, explores the decline of the Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA), a museum that has long benefited from the backing of the city of Detroit, yet which is now being forced to part with much of its collection as the shrinking city finds itself under severe fiscal constraints. Her basic point — which strikes me as obviously correct — is that it is no tragedy for art to migrate from a sparsely-attended institution in a shrinking metropolitan area to more popular institutions in more populous cities. And she has suggested that time share arrangements might be an acceptable compromise for Detroiters unwilling to part with various treasured artifacts. But I was most intrigued by an observation she made about “a common philanthropic pathology”:   

During the 20th century, the museum’s support group failed to build a significant endowment to subsidize operations. Rather, in an extreme version of a common philanthropic pathology, contributors gave money almost entirely for adding artworks and buildings — increasing operating costs without providing money to cover them. As a result, the museum spent the century lurching from financial crisis to financial crisis.

This pathology flowed from a sense of optimism that is not uncommon among empire-builders. But one wishes that the stewards of the DIA had been more prudent about the burdens they chose to bear. There is a lesson in the DIA’s experience for virtually all human institutions.