The Aftermath: Responses To My Deaccessioning Op-Ed

A week has passed since the publication of my deaccessioning op-ed in The New York Times: the screams have occurred, the rebuttal letters have been printed, and it's time again for me to weigh in on the objections. 

First, it seems I must repeat (because this has been ignored or misconstrued): I am not pro-deaccessioning to raise money for operations or endowments. I merely think that, on occasion, it will be considered, like it or not, and the museum world should have a process for that. I proposed arbitration to make it tough, not easy. I expect proving the need for deaccessions to be onerous in itself, and the hurdle to be set high by arbitrators. But it must be done in the open and in an orderly way, and often it isn't now.

Here are the stated objections, with my responses:

1) Donors will not give art if they know it may some day sold. This is a canard: they already know (or should know) that their gifts may be sold to raise money for future acquisitions. Those who fear this put restrictions on their gifts.

2) It is "unreasonably paternalistic" to put museums through arbitration. The answer instead is to let museums sell any art they purchased, but not donated works. To me, this "solution" is worse than current practice, and really does turn museums into galleries, subject to the times, the fashions and the whims of each director.

3) The art that could be sold would never raise enough money to make a difference. Maybe yes, maybe no. Don't forget that my proposal included all institutions with collections: a sum that means nothing to the Getty could well help bail out a historical society. But if it didn't make a difference, the arbitrator -- in my scheme -- would not permit the sale.

    Furthermore, I doubt that deaccessioning would ever be the sole solution to financial woes -- it would be part of a package of measures, including new donations.

4) We should rework "professional practices" to mandate that gifts of art include a cash payment to the museum's operating endowment "equal to a set percentage of the tax-deductible value of the work." Nice idea, in theory, but I believe it is unworkable and will truly discourage donations of art.

5) The decisions to be made by the arbitrator are "too central to the integrity of a museum to be given to others." In other words, don't tread on me. Fair enough -- except that no one would invade the museum's prerogatives if mismanagement by the director and trustees hadn't gotten the museum in trouble in the first place. Maybe the director and the trustees should be replaced by people who can preserve institutional integrity without outside help.

      And by the way, museums/arts institutions currently seek outside approval for other things central to their integrity -- they go to court or to an attorney general's office for permission to invade their endowments, for example. And they try to do it quietly or even secretly.   

6) If deaccessioning is allowed, trustees will regularly leap to it, changing "the board's perception of its fiduciary responsibility to one more focused on asset management than philanthropy." Ah, yes -- the slippery slope. Here I must question whether the right people are on boards, for the right reasons, and -- equally important -- the relationship between the director and trustees.

Numbers 5 and 6 are the true crux of the problem. I'll return to them in a separate post.