Several months back I was posting a lot on the deaccessioning debate here within the States. This included the Rose Art Museum at Brandies, the Fiske University, the Corcoran, the National Academy, Iowa State, the Metropolitan Opera along with a few others. I then grew a bit tired of the debate over what and how museum funds from deaccessioning could be used for, such as only replacing items of art or for overhead and conservation. Although the discussion is worthwhile and guidelines and more flexibility is needed. Whats the point if the institution is forced to close. But there are also other issues such as the donors intent.The London Telegraph is reporting the UK is no going through some similar issues as well. The public Southampton Art Gallery is looking through its collection of 3,500 works of art to determine what might be sold in order to support a museum on the Titanic.
The Telegraph report states There are two clearly demarcated sides to the argument. Opponents insist that museums and public galleries don’t exist solely to display: they are also centres of scholarly research and repositories charged with the preservation and safe-keeping of anything that is of aesthetic or historical value. What to one generation looks like junk can emerge as treasure to another. Extensive selling-off will also discourage donors, who like to feel that they are giving sub specie aeternitatis.
On the other hand, most galleries and museums are over-stocked with artifacts of no discernible value. Storing and conserving such stuff securely at controlled temperatures costs a fortune. Libraries regularly purge themselves of books, why shouldn’t museums and galleries do the same? A car boot sale will not only clear debts, it can also provide funds for new acquisitions.
In the US, the practice of “deaccessioning” is more prevalent and even major institutions buy and sell robustly. But the government is beginning to think that it’s gone far enough.
To read the rest of the article, click HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment