In April 2020, simply weeks into the worldwide Covid-19 lockdowns, the Affiliation of Artwork Museum Administrators (AAMD) introduced it was loosening guidelines on how museums use proceeds from artwork gross sales, or deaccessioning, for 2 years. It said that museums might direct the funds in direction of the “direct care of collections”, moderately than proscribing them to additional artwork acquisitions. Meant to mitigate the dire monetary penalties of the pandemic, these resolutions expired on 12 April. Did this temporary shift have any lasting influence on US museum actions? The reply is difficult.
Regardless of the relaxed AAMD insurance policies, a number of museums nonetheless confronted public scrutiny over their deaccession gross sales. The Baltimore Museum of Artwork (BMA) met with notably ferocious condemnation in October 2020, when it introduced plans to promote three works from its assortment. The gross sales had been meant to fund a $65m endowment supporting initiatives comparable to workers pay rises, variety programmes and free admission to particular exhibitions. Whereas the plan was mentioned to align with the AAMD tips, the BMA confronted an outcry, together with board resignations and a terse letter from a gaggle of US museum leaders. The gross sales had been cancelled on the eleventh hour, leaving the deliberate endowment with vastly lowered funds.
Look past the pandemic
Christopher Bedford, the outgoing director of the BMA, mentioned in an announcement to The Artwork Newspaper that variety and inclusion “needs to be a central a part of the continuing dialog about deaccessioning”, including that he hopes there’ll proceed to be “strong dialogue” concerning the observe “nicely past the wants and contexts of the pandemic”.
Writing for ARTnews, the artwork lawyer Donn Zaretsky additionally argued that looser restrictions ought to apply completely, giving museums extra freedom to weigh the prices and advantages of artwork gross sales themselves. To its advocates, deaccessioning represents one other instrument in a museum’s arsenal to beat monetary setbacks. To critics, valuing a museum’s assortment in financial phrases is an untenable prospect.
“The definition of ‘direct care’ is notoriously imprecise, and lots of museums could possibly be tempted to monetise collections to deal with finances shortfalls sooner or later if that choice was deemed acceptable by the career,” warns Martin Gammon, the creator of Deaccessioning and Its Discontents: a Important Historical past. He factors out that few of the current deaccessioning gross sales had been motivated by monetary desperation.
For some museums, promoting works from the gathering to extend workers pay is tantamount to “direct care”. For others, making certain
that an early Impressionist masterwork stays within the public belief is a precedence. The extra versatile insurance policies of the previous two years have executed little to make clear these differing interpretations.
Nonetheless, a conservative strategy to deaccessioning nonetheless appears to prevail. For instance, the Metropolitan Museum of Artwork says the $48.4m (with charges) fetched by its bronze Picasso at Christie’s on 12 Might might be ring-fenced for acquisitions. The identical goes for the Museum of Nice Arts (MFA) Boston’s sale of two Georgia O’Keeffe work, although considered one of them (A Sunflower from Maggie, 1937, est $6m-$8m) was purchased in on the similar 12 Might sale. “We don’t come to selections about deaccessioning flippantly,” says the museum’s director, Matthew Teitelbaum. “Our dedication has been and beneath present circumstances, will proceed to be to make use of funds [from] deaccessioning for the purchases of artworks.”
From this vantage level, it seems that the deaccessioning debate is all however settled. The AAMD has returned to its pre-pandemic laws, and museums have adopted go well with. The notion of promoting works to underwrite museum operations has receded to a pipe dream for some, a nightmare for others.
