More on Deaccessioning

Fellow appraiser and museum professional Marcy Molinaro wrote a very thoughtful and insightful comment on my blog post on the National Academy deaccesssioning. As you know, when I get good comments, I like to post them for all AW Blog readers, and Marcy is very passionate in her comments and analysis. Deaccessioning is very difficult and personal topic to many within the museum industry. The current fiscal situation and poor past management have left museums with the daunting task of finding additional funding to operate. Deaccessioning is typically done in order to acquire new and potentially more relevant art, not for operating expenses. Are times, perceptions and attitudes changing? In any event, it is a great topic for discussion and debate, whether we agree with many of the varied compnents of deaccessioning or not. Send your thoughts and comments.

Marcy Molinaro states:

What doesn’t seem to come out in these instances is the multiple other sides of these stories. Deaccessioning can be good for an institution needing to clean house of those objects that no longer fit the mission or purpose of the institution such as the recent sales of furniture from APVA and Carlyle House in the November at Green Valley Auctions. New interpretation or provenance research may indicate that those pieces were never intended to be in the house, not typical of the period interpreted or family’s patterns of collecting, or in one case, the deaccessioning of the property itself. Deaccessioning is not even a word in the dictionary or the museum’s vocabulary (see my article in Journal of Advanced Appraisal Studies).

This practice is not done lightly but accomplished only after years of careful examination by museum staff, consultation with attorneys, donors, and the community, and finally, the blessing of the board of trustees. This is followed by the careful selection of where the pieces should be marketed and then, what to do with the funds which are typically deposited into collections accounts per a Collection Policy. Lately, some of the revenues of these deaccessioned objects are finding their way into the general operating accounts. Yes, the world is in bad financial times but typically, these bad financial times are more critical for not-for-profits as they come about by poor museum management dating back decades in most cases. More importantly, poor board management of most not-for-profits is the root of bad financial times for museums. It would be easier if we could deaccession boards or poor museum administrative leadership instead of artifacts!

The NAD is a perfect example of decades of poor leadership and management by bad directors as well as trustees. As far back as the 70s, when I became aware of it, I heard many horror stories from within those walls. When public institutions need help, rather than finding alternative ways of solving their issues, it’s too easy for trustees and some directors to look to its storage area for solutions. It seems lately, that the public trust is allowing them to do so.

Unfortunately, we can’t always get the blessings from those who gave the institutions these treasures to deaccession—who speaks for them? Hopefully, well trained, museum professionals do so. Deed of Gifts and various policies and procedures were put in place to protect the artifact from mismanagement, to give the donor the piece of mind that their gift will be cared for in perpetuity. Museums have a right, an obligation to be good stewards of the pieces given to them in public trust. While policies and procedures can and should be reviewed periodically to keep up with AAM’s and AASLH’s ethics for collections care, careful future scrutinizing of potential accessions should become the rule of thumb so that museums do not become known as antique stores or fine art galleries where the public can “shop” rather than a safe haven for the past.