Guggenheim Director Pro-Deaccessioning

Arts and culture blog, Real Clear Acts, has a very interesting interview between Maxwell Anderson and Guggenheim Director Richard Armstrong, which incidentally, and self-interestedly, supports my position (and that of Donn Zaretsky), that limiting deaccessioning and peppering it with punitive measures will only close and bankrupt arts museums and institutions.

Armstrong contends:

People have to be practical. They have to be pragmatic. They have to stop being righteous. They have to stop being proud of the fact that the museum died, but the collection is intact. That's where we're headed, I'm afraid, in a number of provincial places.

Guggenheim Director Pro-Deaccessioning

NY's Committee on Art Law Opines on Brodsky Bill

The New York State Assembly is considering a bill, A6959, which will "create rules for deaccessioning of items in a museum'scollection and ... regulate the use of funds from disposed items."

A summary of the bill:

• Legally defines what have been 'working' terms for museum collectionsand collection management policies.
  
• Requires each museum to adopt and publish a binding collection manage-ment policy and mission statement.
  
• Each museum shall accession all items in its possession that areconsistent with its mission statement and collection management policy.
  
• Items may only be deaccessioned if certain criteria have been met;either that the item is inconsistent with the mission of the museum, theitem has failed to retain its identity, the item is redundant, theitem's preservation and conservations needs are beyond the capacity ofthe museum to provide, or the deaccession of the item refines thecollection per its collection management policy.
  
• Any museum disposing of an item must make a 'good faith effort' tosell or transfer the item to another New York State museum.
  
• Proceeds from the disposal of deaccessioned items may be used for theacquisition of another item for the museum's collection, and/or for thepreservation and protection of an item in the collection, proceeds maynever be used for customary operating expenses.
  
• The Board of Regents will have the authority to enforce the provisionsof this law.
  
• Additionally, the board of regents is authorized to study and reportto the Governor whether or not museums should include buildings in theircollection.
  

A full version of the "Brodsky bill" can be read here. For background information on this bill, read Art Info's "New Bill Seeks to Make Deaccessioning Illegal in New York."

The New York City Bar's Committee on Art Law has written a three-page letter (pdf version) to NY State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky asking for some clarifications to the bill as well as some suggestions as to its applicability. The letter also asks for two practical clarifications: "What would be the time-line for compliance with the proposed legislation? And what would be the penalty for non-compliance?"

NY's Committee on Art Law Opines on Brodsky Bill

In The News

The Star-Ledger's Kelly Heyboer writes on deaccessioning during tough economic times. Her article, When times get tough, should museums sell their art?: Bloggers on 'deaccessioning,' cites us as well as some other notable voices on deaccessioning, including Donn Zaretsky and NY State Senator Jose Serrano.

The Deaccessioning Blog is also quoted in a recent student note by Kristina Gordon of John Marshall Law School, entitled, "Where Is My Monet? Museums and Donors Lose An Important Incentive for Fractional Giving." (Thanks to Donn for the heads-up.)

In The News

Behold, the Man!

A reader e-mailed me last week (when I was in gorgeous Barcelona) and asked why I didn't update this blog more often. He pointed out, rightly, that there was much writing going on relating to deaccessioning. I agree. So why the slothness?

Well, for starters, although there is quite a bit of writing on deaccessioning it certainly isn't good, much less rigorous. Put a chimpanzee in front of a laptop and in due time he, or she (for the politically correct), will type the words "deaccessioning," "wrong," "bad," and if we're lucky, and feed him, or her, enough bananas we may even get "in the public trust." Like much (critical) art writing these days, the writing on deaccessioning is heavy on the cream and light on the caffeine.

So, take it as my philanthropic duty to not pass on meaningless diatribe on why art is so precious and why art is not a business; on why art belongs to a community and why it shouldn't be treated as an asset or commodity. In due time these folk will enter the age of enlightenment, perhaps not due in part to their own rational capacities, but rather due to the economic forces that some of us have come to accept as devastating and unprecedented.

Until then, I will point you to the man who I believe plays with a full deck of cards and isn't missing a single screw. His name is Donn Zaretsky, from the Art Law Blog, and his new, precise, and RATIONAL argument (not against deaccessioning, but rather for an expanded application of it) can now be read in the recent issue of Art in America.

Enjoy, and stop asking for crumbs. I'll post when the pie is ready!

Behold, the Man!

NY State to Regulate Deaccessioning

Yesterday's NY Times reported on a pending New York state bill which would make selling parts of a collection to cover museum operating costs illegal. The bill, drafted by Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky in collaboration with the New York State Board of Regents and the Museum Association of New York, "would prohibit museums from using proceeds from the sale of artworks 'for traditional and customary operating expenses."

Under the bill, proceeds from a sale could be used only for the acquisition of additional artworks for the museum's collection or "the preservation, protection or care" of works in the collection. And, it says, "No item in a museum's collection may be used as collateral or may be capitalized."

The legislation also delineates criteria under which an artwork could be deaccessioned: if it is inconsistent with the museum's mission as set forth in its mission statement, if it has "failed to retain its identity" because of decay or other deterioration, if it is redundant or inauthentic, or if it is being repatriated or returned to its rightful owner or donor.

Donn Zaretsky has his usual extremely interesting counterpoints here, such as this one:

A "sacred cultural and ethical trust" -- unless, of course, a museum wants to acquire some shiny new artworks, in which case: hey, knock yourself out! Sacred shmacred. Sell to your heart's content!

NY State to Regulate Deaccessioning

Met Opera Offers Chagalls as Loan Collateral

Not quite a deaccessioning, but...

The Metropolitan Opera indicated today that it has put up two massive Marc Chagall murals as collateral on a loan.

According to Met spokesman Peter Clark, the murals will serve as collateral for "a longstanding loan," though he declined to specify the loan amount or the estimated value of the works. Some reports have appraised the two murals at about $20 million US in total.

More from the CBC here.

Met Opera Offers Chagalls as Loan Collateral

Las Vegas Art Museum Out of Options

After three months of trying to keep the 59-year-old institution afloat in the dire economy, board members and staff said Friday they have run out of options.

Las Vegas Art Museum Out of Options