Art attack

When press baron Kenneth Thomson died in June, Canada lost a legendary businessman and one of its greatest art collectors. In truth, the art-business link has been lessening for years. In one exhibit catalogue in the early ‘90s, art was said to “represent — symbolically to the company’s employees and customers — the goals, values and potential of the company.” Recently, many large firms have sold all or part of their art holdings. Today, art is largely viewed as a way to boost community relations, or simply, as another asset.

“It’s too grey in here.”
CHARLES BELL’S reported comment upon seeing General Mills’ new head offices in 1958. The president and chairman went on to assemble a legendary art collection for the work space

“Most companies can make more money investing in what they do.”
PAT JAMES, former TD Bank curator, in 1990 says financial return doesn’t drive an art purchase

“In taking [these] works beyond our office walls, we have the opportunity to unlock the value of the collection for the entire community and create new interest in these pieces.”
PETRO CANADA gets rid of 800 of its 1,000 pieces in 2000. All are donated to public galleries or sold to benefit charities

“The way that we approach our art is that it’s an asset. Like all of our assets, from time to time we look at them . . . and [ask] what would get the best value for our shareholders.”
GORDON WONG, spokesman for Imperial Oil Ltd., comments in 2003

“There was a time in the ’80s when collections were a little more noisy. Recently, they keep it all quiet. They might cite security; I think it’s more about the bottom line for shareholders.”
DOUG MACLEAN, a Calgary art dealer, says in 2005 companies are focusing on core businesses

Steve Brearton