Marc Porter, chairman of Christie’s Americas, said in a statement that the market has never seen such a diverse collection “that so beautifully chronicles the h

Marc Porter, chairman of Christie’s Americas, said in a statement that the market has never seen such a diverse collection “that so beautifully chronicles the history of human science and technological ingenuity — much less one assembled by a founding father of modern computing.” These honeyed words ring deeply hypocritical when you consider Christie's sees the collection purely as an asset capable of yielding a significant commission once sold. The closure came as the estate began to deal with a number of properties that no longer had a billionaire benefactor to help keep the doors open, and in line with what the estate says was Allen’s desire to sell his assets after his passing. I wonder about this. If someone has made a vast fortune in technology, retired from that field to take up philanthropy, built a museum to share the benefits of their experience and insight with the next generation, it seems rather unlikely to me that their greatest posthumous aspiration is to have it dismantled and dispersed. I find the auction of assets like fine art (also mentioned in the article) easier to understand as art collections are semi-ephemeral and the trading and circulation of fine art among the wealthy has been going on for many centuries. But it also strikes me that having raised $1.6 billion by selling off the art, the estate is not exactly short of funds to keep the museum functioning.