The discussion about “deaccessioning” or “disposals” seems never-ending. The more bizarre thing is how little this much discussion does in changing the rules. Something could be said that an industry full of conservators is not going to make massive radical changes. So it’s up to a lawyer to experiment with the issues. Donn Zaretzky at the fascinating The Art Law Blog approaches this topic a lot (possibly because legalities in museums are either deaccessions or illicit trade). The latest argument states the benefits of adding this statement to collection policies.
Ensure that the institution or individual to whom you sell commits in some binding form to equal or higher conservational standards and equal or higher public access.
Apparently, American guidelines are that any funds from selling art must be for used on buying more art and not plugging funding gaps or meeting overheads. In the UK, it’s almost impossible for museums to sell, let alone for more art.
When Richard Lacayo analyses the National Academy Museums plight in the same way, that survival of a museum should be paramount, Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes says that this is accepting institutional failure and the whole collection should be distributed to other public organisations.
I like how the argument can swing from one side to the other. Zaretzky idea, I like to think, could pave way for the founding of more museums. Lacayo recognises that museum survival is paramount and the rules limit a museum’s options. Green’s dispersal idea sounds like the need for a museum version of “calling in administrators”. Since the role of most museum associations is to act as an enforcer, how difficult would it be to turn that role into a regulator?
Isn’t there is a way that all these could work in the same system? The problem seems that they is a lack of a system, with only protectionist standards.
