Friday, January 16, 2009


In my previous post concerning deaccessioning I stated that Donn Zaretsky's position was "pro deaccessioning." I wrote this under the assumption that a keen reader would have kept up with Donn's position well enough to know his exact position regarding the AAMD's "silly" rule regarding deaccessioning as well as his exceptions and detailing of this rule. In Donn's own words:

I wouldn't describe my position as "pro-deaccessioning" any more than you would describe someone who accepts the practice of deaccessioning-to-acquire-more-art as "pro-deaccessioning." The position I've been taking is that the AAMD's black-and-white rule is silly, and that the reasons traditionally given in support of the rule don't stand up to much scrutiny (in part because they fail to explain the disparate treatment of sales to buy more art -- which are considered fine -- and sales to fund other worthwhile things -- which are not).

I hope this clarifies my previous post.

No comments: