The best way to diversify a museum’s collection is by any means necessary. But an easy way is to sell overvalued art and buy undervalued art. Or at least it would be easy, if the art world establishment permitted it.
The art world euphemism for museums selling art is “deaccessioning.” According to the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), a professional organization that claims to regulate ethical standards for institutions that fall within their purview, art museums can only deaccession works in order to buy different works, and can’t sell works in order to raise money. The deaccessioning police insist that museums can’t just sell art willy-nilly, because they hold it in the “public trust.” They are wrong, and their argument is incoherent.
The public trust doctrine holds that the government can’t sell public assets like public waterways and parks, because it holds them in trust for the people. But museums aren’t the government, and art isn’t a public asset. People buy and sell art all the time. We call it the “art market” for a reason.
Moreover, if the public trust doctrine applied to art, then museums couldn’t sell it at all. But the AAMD rules explicitly provide that museums can sell art to buy different art. So, which is it? Apparently, museums hold art in the public trust, unless they don’t like it anymore and want to buy something else.
In any case, the AAMD rule has created many problems, especially when struggling museums tried to sell art in order to stave off bankruptcy, or universities tried to sell art and use the proceeds for educational purposes. Every time, the deaccessioning police went bananas, and the AAMD sanctioned any museum that followed through on the sale (such as the case in 2018 when they sanctioned the Berkshire Museum).
When the pandemic hit and museums had to close indefinitely, the AAMD realized its rule was untenable, and temporarily allowed museums to use deaccessioning proceeds for certain operating expenses. But the deaccessioning police weren’t having it.
Last month, the Baltimore Museum of Art (BMA) announced its decision to deaccession three paintings by Brice Marden, Clyfford Still, and Andy Warhol. The museum would sell the works at Sotheby’s, and expected the sale to generate about $65 million. It planned to use the proceeds to diversify the BMA collection, among other things.
The reaction to the BMA’s plan was swift and furious. The AAMD itself couldn’t credibly object. After all, its rules explicitly permitted the sale. But its proxies howled. Several BMA trustees resigned, a bunch of arts professionals wrote angry letters, and art critics fulminated against the supposed failings of the BMA board. How dare the museum sell important works of art?! Apparently, “There is simply no defensible curatorial rationale” for wanting to cash in on blue-chip art, in order to pursue a different curatorial vision.
Give me a break. The BMA followed the AAMD rules, which aren’t even legally binding. The BMA’s board is legally obligated to make decisions that are good for the BMA. If the board thinks increasing the diversity of the museum’s collection is an important goal, and deaccessioning is an appropriate tool, end of story.
And yet, the BMA has understandably backed down, at least for the time being. It probably wasn’t expecting to be the target of so much vitriol, especially when its motives were so obviously good. You can’t win for trying.
Let’s be honest. The primary reason the AAMD rules exist are to preserve an accounting fiction and ensure that only private collectors can realize capital gains in the art market. When collectors complain about museums selling art and keeping the profits, it’s just because they want to collect the money themselves. It’s a shame the art critics who run interference for them are such toadies.
When the BMA tried to diversify its collection, it learned just how shallow the art world’s commitment to social justice can be. According to its critics, if the BMA wants to diversify its collection, it should raise money from donors to buy more art, rather than trading some art for other art, as the AAMD deaccessioning rules permit and even encourage. In other words, art museums should diversify their collections with all deliberate speed. I think they can and should move a little faster.
From 1968 to 1973, the Nihon Documentarist Union did radical documentary work in Japan. They made two films in Okinawa before, during, and after its reversion.
Every corner and crevice of Columbia University’s MFA Thesis show feels lived in, reflecting not just artists’ experience quarantining with their work, but also that of re-entering society.
Curated by Clare Dolan, this solo exhibition in Frenchtown, NJ contains new and unearthed paintings, sculptures, and prints selected from the organization’s 60-year history.
Sprawling across the Joshua Tree region, nine site-specific works consider the ways in which people have relocated to the desert, destroying what came before them, and cultivating new life.
The rendition could be a platform for essential conversations on sociohistorical and economic land rights issues.
Conversations with Leslie Barlow, Mary Griep, Alexa Horochowski, Joe Sinness, Melvin R. Smith, and Tetsuya Yamada will be accessible online or in person at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design.
The UK has long refused to return the contested sculptures, which were stripped from the Parthenon in the 1800s.
The National Gallery of Art launched a new artwork guessing game inspired by the super-popular Wordle.
Now on view in Pasadena, this exhibition explores how four artists challenged the limitations of gestural abstraction by exploiting the resonance of figural forms.
The union said that grass hedges were erected around the entrance, blocking the gala’s guests from seeing the protest outside.
The small New York art fair celebrated its 26th edition with the works of 11 women artists.
The artist couple shared creativity and mutual devotion reflecting a period of light and joy that came after considerable darkness in their early lives.