1/15/2013

Difficulty in Deaccessioning


The NY Times has an interesting article on some 200+ pieces of property donated to the Brooklyn Museum in 1932.  It turns out the items are not of the quality or in some cases are fake and the museum would like to deaccession the items.  The article states that potentially 25% of the collection, which includes Dutch and Renaissance paintings, Chinese porcelains, jewelry and furniture are suspect and the museum would like to deaccession due to the cost of storing and maintaining.

The problem is in order to sell the museum must get the approval of the estate and the last executor died in 1962. The will stated if the items did not go to the museum they were to go to certain friends, but that was back in 1932.

An interesting case study.

The NY Times reports

A quarter of the 926 works have turned out to be fakes, misattributions or of poor quality, and the museum potentially faces a hefty bill to store the 229 pieces it no longer wants.

The obvious solution — to deaccession (to sell or give away) the relatively worthless items — has been blocked, however, by clauses in Colonel Friedsam’s will that require the museum to obtain permission from the estate’s executors. The holdup? The last executor died in 1962, said Francesca Lisk, the Brooklyn Museum’s general counsel.

“Most of the works are wonderful, and many are on display,” Ms. Lisk said. “But over the years it has been revealed many are not of museum quality.”

The Brooklyn Museum, aided by the New York State attorney general’s office, has been working to get around this roadblock. But one final hurdle has been set by a Manhattan Surrogate Court judge. Noting that the will specified that the art should go to the colonel’s brother-in-law and two friends if the collection was not kept together, Judge Nora Anderson told the museum in December 2011 that it must search for these three men’s descendants before she would rule. The museum has yet to begin looking as it confers with the attorney general’s office on how to proceed.
Source: The NY Times

No comments: