Remember the old line about the Soviet Union’s two main newspapers — Pravda (which means “the truth”) and Izvestia (which means “the news”)? Pre-glasnost, Russian wags used to say “there’s no truth in Pravda and there’s no news in Izvestia.” (More cynical Russians rendered a harsher verdict: “There’s no news in the Truth, and there’s no truth in the News.”)
Not to be a wag, but I couldn’t help but think of the second half of the milder version when a press release from the Association of Art Museum Directors landed in my email box on Friday afternoon: there’s no news in this.
For the record, the release led with the “news” that 123 directors, of 197, attended the meeting in Sarasota, FL, then restated AAMD’s mission of maximizing the appreciation of art, and said members talked about their strategic plan. It also reaffirmed AAMD’s deaccessioning policy, stating that proceeds from art sales may not be used for operating funds or capital budgets. All true, of course.
But surely more interesting things that that were going on…I think so. Maybe it was in the committee meetings.
For one thing, deaccessioning discussions were not cut-and-dried unanimous, I’ve been told. Some members — I do not know how many — believe, as I do, there should be a review process for museums in extremis that ask to sell art to raise money to remain in business (see here and here). They’d open the process just a crack to very selective deaccessioning. Perhaps, as I’ve laid out, there would be onerous requirements and high hurdles to do it. I envision any sales as part of a package of remedial measures, not the entire package — though, in my proposal, arbitrators would have oversight of that. AAMD could set rules requiring that, however.
For another, AAMD continued with its efforts to reach diversity by enlarging its membership. And while the goal is noble, the means are causing some grousing among the larger museums. AAMD is three people short of its current ceiling of 200 members; that ceiling was 150 in 1990, according to press reports of the time. In 1999, membership was 170.
Last year at this time, when the meeting was held in San Diego, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that qualifying institutions must have “a budget of $2.5 million for two years running.” Now, according to AAMD’s website, members must run institutions with an “annual operating budget equivalent to or exceeding $2 million for two consecutive years.” (It’s true that many budgets have declined in this recesssion: that may be a reason for this drop, though as I understand membership, once you’re in, you stay in as long as you keep your job and remain in good standing.)
Trouble is, as the group grows, the major museums find AAMD less relevant. The big guys skip meetings — understandably. At the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, for example, Malcolm Rogers oversees a budget close to $100 million. He is one of several who rarely attend, I’m told — no criticism on my part intended.
AAMD is a trade association, and doesn’t have to publish anything after its meetings. The emailed release is something. Unfortunately for me, it raised my expectations. Maybe next time it will fulfill them — the group’s strategic plan and deaccessioning policy review are supposed to be finished later this year.