Museum Deaccessioning Policies and “Direct Care” of Museum Collections
This May, Cobb’s Barns, South Truro, 1930–33, an oil painting by Edward Hopper in the collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art, will be sold at Sotheby’s Modern Evening sale.[1] The painting, with an estimate of $8,000,000 to $12,000,000, is one of eight works from the museum’s collection that will hit the auction block this season, the largest deaccessioning plan in the museum’s history.[2] Deaccessioning is the practice of institutions, like art museums, selling works from their collections in order to raise capital for collection care.[3] The sale has put the Whitney at the center of the ongoing debate about whether, and under which conditions, it is appropriate for a museum to deaccession artworks that have been donated to their collection.
The longstanding policy for museums has been that the art owned by institutions was held for public benefit, and as such, should be mostly retained.[4] Exceptions to the policy against deaccessioning have been narrow; only when a museum feels that a work in their collection is duplicative, or no longer aligns with the museum’s mission, should they move to sell the work.[5] And when they do, the funds from that sale must be directed solely to the acquisition of replacement artworks for their collection.[6]
However, when the pandemic brought unforeseen challenges to museums due to low visitorship and few donations, the Association of Art Museum Directors (“AAMD”) temporarily loosened the policies around deaccessioned artworks, allowing a two year period for museums to sell work to help pay for the care of their collections, and to cover general operating expenses.[7] Although AAMD policies are not legally enforceable, the association serves as the de facto tribunal for the museum industry, and it has been known to sanction museums for improperly deaccessioning in the past.[8] The new AAMD policy spurred a series of museums announcing deaccessioning plans to combat the challenges posed by the COVID pandemic.
Some institutions, such as Brooklyn Museum, were able to raise money for the care of their collections through sales of pieces that, in their view, would not be missed.[9] But as more museums announced their plans, critics of the practice made their voices heard. The most controversy surrounded the announcement by the Baltimore Museum of Art (“BMA”) to deaccession three blue-chip paintings, including a modern masterpiece by Andy Warhol, in November 2020 auctions.[10] The sale, estimated to raise $65 million, would create an endowment to advance salary increases for its employees, invest in diversity and inclusion programs, and allow more open hours and lower admissions fees.[11] Critics commented that allocating funds towards operating costs and social justice initiatives constituted an improper use of deaccession funds, even under the expanded rules. The AAMD released a memorandum which declared that the expanded guidelines were “not put in place to incentivize deaccessioning, nor to permit museums to achieve other, non-collection specific, goals.”[12] Even though the museum was not directly mentioned, they seemed to be pointing directly to the BMA’s plan. After widespread condemnation, the BMA withdrew the works from sale, leaving their planned endowment severely underfunded.[13]
When the two-year policy expired in April 2022, the AAMD briefly returned to its pre-pandemic policy. But shortly after, in late September 2022, the association announced a new rule, permanently expanding its deaccessioning policy to allow for proceeds of deaccessioned artworks to go towards not only the acquisition of new artworks, but also the “direct care” of the museum’s collection.[14]
The policy defines direct care as “costs associated with the storage or preservation of works of art.[15] Such direct costs include for example those for (i) conservation and restoration treatments (including packing and transportation for such conservation or restoration) and (ii) materials required for storage of all classifications of works of art, such as, acid-free paper, folders, matboard, frames, mounts, and digital media migration.[16] Funds received from the disposal of a deaccessioned work of art shall not be used for operations or capital expenses except as provided above. Direct care does not include (a) salaries of staff or (b) costs incurred for the sole purpose of temporary exhibition display.”[17] Although the list provided is not exhaustive, the association was clear: even under the expanded policy, equity and social justice initiatives like the one the BMA proposed would not be appropriate allocations of profits from deaccessioned artworks.
Some critics of the policy think the expansion opens the door for museums to repurpose the proceeds of sales for operating expenses, since the end museums set their own collection properties and there is little regulation of their internal allocation of profits.[18] On the other hand, some believe the policy is still too restrictive, suggesting that the people who run our museums are not capable of making the tough decisions that allow these institutions to stay afloat.[19]
So far, most museums have remained conservative in their deaccession plans. The Whitney’s curator and director of the collection, Jane Panetta, said their decision to deaccession this spring is part of the museum’s goal to grow its collection of American Art, mostly to fund acquisitions of living artists. The Metropolitan Museum of Art sold a Picasso bronze last May for over $48 million, which they say will go entirely to funding new acquisitions.[20] However, as the practice of deaccessioning becomes more common, we may see museums loosening their policies to align with the new rules.
Alfred H. Barr Jr., the Museum of Modern Art’s first ever director, said that a museum’s collection should be like a torpedo “moving through time, its nose the ever advancing present, its tail the ever receding past of 50 to 100 years ago.”[21] While this may not be true for all museums, it is useful to bear in mind that deaccessioning artwork is a part of almost every museum’s tradition. As the debate rages on, one thing is certain: deaccessioning has become an essential mechanism for institutions to keep their doors open during difficult moments and the AAMD’s expanded rules allow museums to better prepare for challenging times ahead.
Footnotes
