BRATTLEBORO — Thank you for the thoughtful article about what to do with a legacy of collected artworks.
It sounds like the author, Joyce Marcel, got more than enough enjoyment from the pieces as well as the satisfaction of supporting area artists and that the money value appreciation wasn't really the reason why she acquired them in the first place.
A work of art is a bit different from, say, a really large pile of gold coins or Apple shares or something made in a factory by a robot. In my opinion, the dollar value has more or less zero to do with the actual value of a piece.
Even a really unique collection of hand-painted pet rocks might have untold value to someone somewhere. Whether made by Warhol, Lichtenstein, or one of us humble Windham County artists, all art comes from the hand, mind, and heart of a human being, and the essence of that can't be repeated in exactly the same way, ever.
I'm sure it's empirically true, but as a newly arrived area artist, I have to say that reading this article's implied and explicit message, that the value of art made by local artists is synonymous with dollar value - and, in most cases, its lack thereof - made me want to take my ball (of kneaded rubber erasers) and go home.
Here's an idea: if your friends and family don't want to inherit works of art, offer them back to the artist (or family of) for the price that Experienced Goods would sell them for.
If they don't want them back, you're off the hook ethically and can drop them off at the thrift store, sell them on eBay, or give them to a school, hospital, or care home.
If one grateful person gets the work, that will be a museum of one; if an institution gets it, a museum of many.
In any case, it will gain a new life.