Via Donn Zaretsky of the Art Law Blog, Derek Fincham of Illicit Cultural Property posts his three part proposal for deaccesioning guideline. (Also, you should all be following these two blogs).
“My proposal has three parts. First, the unnecessary restriction on deaccession proceeds should be eliminated. Second, when an important work of art is deaccessioned, other museums should be given an opportunity to purchase a work – to keep it in the public trust or its region – in much the same way the United Kingdom and other nations regulate the export of works of art. Finally, when any museum is considering a deaccession, it must provide reasons for the sale and publicize the decision to allow for public comment.”
Sounds good.
A final point concerning Southampton’s decision to sell artwork to fund a Titanic museum, I don’t think the AAMD rules would allow that. To be honest, I’m very surprised the UK guidelines have allowed it. Pretty sure Southampton City museum workers were going on strike over pay not that long ago and now the council want another museum?
This is a case where I’m against this deaccessioning. Southampton City Art Gallery has a very particular reputation. They decided a very innovative collection policy of securing art that would greatly appreciate in value. This often meant they had a knack of picking future prize winners. They acted like a commercial art collector, but with the reputation of a public institution.
This is why I would like a Forth Part to this proposal: The decision for deaccessioning must never be made by an elected official.
I like to think this would keep deaccesioning along the lines of collection management.
“The decision for deaccessioning must never be made by an elected official.” Too damned right!