Deaccessioning Rules

As I mentioned in a previous post, the National Academy and deaccessioning is the gift that keeps giving. Although most of the conversation has been toward deaccessioning fine art, the same rules and tenets are in place for the decorative arts as well. These are topics all appraisers should be aware of, especially when working with museums and historical societies as clients.

Jori Finkel has an excellent piece in the NY Times about deaccessioing entitled "Whose Rules Are These Anyways". Finkle reviews some of the recent debates on deaccessioning and mentions some of the past museum attempts at deaccessioning such as Fisk University, Randolph College and the Thomas Jefferson University.

We have covered this topic in some detail here on the AW Blob, but as the economy continues to suffer, and museums and historical societies continue to see declines in visitors, fund raising and patronage, the ability to operate becomes more difficult. I wont say, that all other avenues have been covered before deaccessioning is considered, but it is a natural thought progression when there is a large collection, with many items never on public display. Tempting it is and much thoght and control is necessary.

Finkel states Lending urgency to the discussion are the travails of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, which has one of the world’s best collections of contemporary art but whose endowment is said to have shriveled to $6 million from more than $40 million over the last nine years. Wouldn’t it be preferable, some people asked this month, to sell a Mark Rothko painting or a couple of Robert Rauschenberg’s legendary “combines” — the museum owns 11 — than to risk closing its doors? (Ultimately the museum announced a $30 million bailout by the billionaire Eli Broad on Tuesday that would preclude the sales of any artworks.) Yet defenders of the prohibition warn that such sales can irreparably damage a institution. “Selling an object is a knee-jerk act, and it undermines core principles of a museum,” said Michael Conforti, president of the directors’ association and director of the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, Mass. “There are always other options.” The sale of artwork from a museum’s permanent collection, known as deaccessioning, is not illegal in the United States, provided that any terms accompanying the original donation of artwork are respected. In Europe, by contrast, many museums are state-financed and prevented by national law from deaccessioning. But under the code of ethics of the American Association of Museums, the proceeds should be “used only for the acquisition, preservation, protection or care of collections.” The code of the Association of Art Museum Directors is even stricter, specifying that funds should not be used “for purposes other than acquisitions of works of art for the collection.”

The debate continues, with valid and legitimate points for each side, and I believe that is was makes these decisions so difficult. Some can be a bit cavalier about deaccession with the view of collections being no more than basic chattel and it is much more than that., Yet the overall purpose and intent of the donor does need to be considered as does the viability of the institution.

To read the full NY Times article, click HERE.