Michael Govan on LACMA's deaccessioning

These days all deaccessioning conversations start with the National Academy: Museum directors who sell things in the industry-approved manner race to point out that they're selling 'cleanly,' that is, to build funds for art purchases.

That's about how it was when LACMA boss Michael Govan and I spoke about LACMA's attempted/likely deaccessioning of a Joshua Reynolds (right) and its only Lucas Cranach the Elder painting. With the National Academy reference over and done with -- LACMA also effectively answered that question in Sotheby's catalogue by listing the paintings as "SOLD BY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF ART TO BENEFIT FUTURE ACQUISITIONS" -- Govan and I moved on to LACMA-relevant specifics. I asked Govan if LACMA had an acquisition in the pipeline, something specific to which the sale of these paintings would be contributing.

"LACMA doesn't usually trade one thing for another," Govan said. "So no, we're not deaccessioning because we have to pay some bill on another painting. The bottom line is: If you've noticed what we've been buying, we've been buying very aggressively. We've been planning to re-do our European collection galleries and we're slated at the end of this year to do that. For the last two years we've been acquiring quite aggressively and specifically. This is part of the overall eff to clean-up and strengthen the collection as part of a larger initiative... There's not one painting or a specific thing that these are being 'traded' for, that's for sure."

And indeed, in the last several years LACMA has been on a European paintings acquisitions spree. Govan said he's especially proud of the museum's purchase of a Pietro da Cortona, a triptych by Jan Boeckhorst that the museum snapped up at Maastricht, a Jacques-Louis David portrait, and this Cima da Conegliano Madonna and Child.

But selling the museum's only Cranach the Elder? Of course, the Norton Simon has two first-rate Cranachs and the Getty has a nice one, but does that matter when LACMA considers selling its only example of an artist?

"There's a public expectation of a painter given a name," Govan said. "We do have some big names, but what [our curators] have really built is a collection of the finest of the artist they select, and they'd rather have a first-rate painting of someone who's not Rubens than a token Rubens. Especially if there is a better one at the Getty or some place else."

Given that LACMA has two paintings in a Jan. 29 auction, Govan didn't want to bad-mouth either the Cranach or the Reynolds. But it's hard not to notice that the Reynolds hasn't been on view in some time and despite being a gift from William Randolph Hearst, it wasn't included in LACMA's ongoing Hearst show. Furthermore, Sotheby's doesn't provide a condition report for either painting.

With the use of deaccessioned funds being a hot-button topic, I asked Govan how LACMA treats deaccessioning-derived funds, whether the funds from selling an 18thC British painting generally go back into British painting, and so on.

"Where people draw those lines are important," he said. "They usually get drawn at museum around the department structure, and are here, too. When you get to the 1950s and '60s and '70s there's a lot of swapping going on between modern and proto-contemporary, but generally it's around department structure. When funds are around at LACMA there's a lot of collegiality, to where a lot of curators will 'lend' funds to close a gap. And there's a pretty much perfect track record of that, of them getting paid back."

Unrelated: This comic Cranach, offered by Sotheby's right after the LACMA Cranach, is a hoot.