The deaccessioning dosi-do, cont'd.

See update below. Time's Richard Lacayo and I are having a grand old time discussing deaccesioning at failed institutions. For the purposes of this post, he started it here, I responded, and he's back. The only thing we're missing is Christopher Knight as a referee. (Absent: Team NYT. But none of them, Berlin-based or otherwise, are big on topical, hot-button engagement.)

Read Lacayo's entire post; here's the nut:

...when push comes to shove no institution is going to let itself go down if it has any alternative, I think this is a position that fails to take seriously that there's a public interest in preserving institutions, not just the art they hold.

I don't consider selling off an institution to be an alternative. (Neither does AAMD.) You know it's over when that's an option; just close and move on.

I think Lacyao's second point is more interesting: Is there a public interest in preserving failed institutions, an interest so intense that it would merit selling off the institution's mission-based assets?

Well, no. The art can be the art anywhere. It can be seen anywhere. So long as there is somewhere for the art to go -- and there is -- art is more important than institutions. (Plus, a failed institution would be drastically unlikely to have programming as engaging as the show Lacayo sites.)

Furthermore, somewhere such as the High or Seattle would be delighted to beef up their American paintings collections, and if/when they do so (and if the dispersal was properly managed), they'd likely beef up their curatorial focus on such work.

(And no, it doesn't matter much to me that the work stay in NYC. The art is more important than the geography.)

UPDATE: In case you've been perusing the intellectual dishonesty here, let me reiterate: I believe that a failed institution's collection should be dispersed to other (non-profit) art museums so that the failed institution's art continues to be held in public trust. Healthy art museums should not deaccession to pay for operating expenses. Don't let a couple of lamely put together out-of-context quotes twist you. Zaretsky's argument is analogous to: 'I like soccer and basketball. In soccer they kick the ball. Therefore, the Lakers should kick the basketball.' Second update: In an email, Zaretsky admits that he took what I said "out-of-context" in order to present his case. (As I note above, context is critical here. It's everything. It matters.) However as of this posting, he has not edited his post. Third update: Now he has, with this: "[i]n this debate people say one thing in one context and other, often inconsistent things in another context." That's essentially Zaretsky admitting he doesn't understand the specifics of the issues. If your argument is 'ignore the context' -- and Zaretsky says that's what his argument is -- then you're admitting that you don't really understand the differences between why what certain museums do is probelmatic and why what others do is OK.