Responses to "Deaccession" Op-Ed Smackdown

Readers weigh in on whether museums' art sale proceeds should sometimes be used for purposes other than acquisitions. The question was analyzed in this CultureGrrl post, which took issue with Judith Dobrzynski's NY Times Op-Ed piece. Judy called for a slight relaxation of the strictures against selling art to pay bills or reduce debt.

Dewey Blanton, head of media relations for the American Association of Museums, issued this statement in response to my request for comment:

The current guidance on deaccessioning represents a field-wide consensus. It recognizes the important role deaccessioning plays in managing and improving collections, while strongly upholding the larger principle that collections are not ordinary assets, to be disposed of for operating needs, but rather represent a trust held for the future.

When it comes to deaccessioning, the ethics of the field are not broken---and we therefore would not support efforts to "fix" them.

David Ross, former director of the Whitney Museum and of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, wrote:

Good solid argument. I remain with you on this [the principle that art-sale proceeds should be used to acquire art]..

You can only imagine how certain trustees will twist Judith's reasoning and begin to put pressure on directors to see the collection as a fungible asset.

Martha Richards, executive director of WomenArts, an organization promoting opportunities for female artists, wrote:

I am glad you are covering this issue, and I agree with you that museums should not be selling their art to pay their operating expenses. However, I don't believe [as I argued in CultureGrrl] that "smarter management, intensified fundraising, improved marketing, innovative earned-income strategies, and (truly the last resort) temporary cuts of expenses and staff are the right ways to meet financial crises."

Most of us in the non-profit arts world have been trying to be smarter, intensify our efforts, and cut costs for the past 10 to 20 years. I think many institutions are at the point where they have hit the limits of those strategies---the staff members are worn out and there is nothing left to cut.

If we are talking about legislative efforts, we need increased government support for the arts. It doesn't make sense to me for the government to tell museum directors they can't sell their works if they aren't going to offer any other kind of financial relief.

The Association of Art Museum Directors, whose Deaccessions Task Force is considering possible policy revisions, will take up the subject at its mid-winter meeting next week in  Sarasota. Its officials declined to comment for this post. Perhaps they'll have more to say after the meeting.

I also commend to you the comments appended to Dobrzynski's own blog post on this subject.