Deaccessioning: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m Deaccession and museum ethics: names of newspapers, replaced: =New York Times → =The New York Times, ’ → ' (3)
Hyredcryx (talk | contribs)
Added link to artist's article
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Short description|Permanent removal of an object from a museum's collection}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2020}}
[[File:Flickr - USCapitol - AOC Registrar Examines Artifacts.jpg|thumb|A [[Registrar (museum)|museum registrar]] examines an artifact.]]
'''Deaccessioning''' is the process by which a work of art or other object is permanently removed from a [[Collection (artwork)|museum's collection]] to sell it or otherwise dispose of it.<ref name=":0">Report from the AAMD Task Force on Deaccessioning. 2010. ''AAMD Policy on Deaccessioning''. The Association of American Museum Directors, June 9, 2010. Retrieved from {{cite web |url=https://aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/AAMD%20Policy%20on%20Deaccessioning%20website.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=May 1, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803191723/https://aamd.org/sites/default/files/document/AAMD%20Policy%20on%20Deaccessioning%20website.pdf |archive-date=August 3, 2014 }} Accessed November 14, 2015.
</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deaccession|title=Definition of DEACCESSION}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/2014/08/11/339532879/as-museums-try-to-make-ends-meet-deaccession-is-the-art-worlds-dirty-word|title=As Museums Try to Make Ends Meet, 'Deaccession' is the Art World's Dirty Word|newspaper=NPR.org}}</ref>
 
==Deaccession policy==
Line 8 ⟶ 9:
 
==Decision process==
Each museum establishes its own method and workflow for the deaccession process according to its organizational structure. However all object deaccessioning involves the two processing steps of deaccession and disposal.<ref name=":1">{{cite book|lastlast1 = Buck|firstfirst1 = Rebecca A.|last2 = Gilmore|first2 = Jean Allman|title = Museum Registration Methods|place = Washington, D.C.|publisher = The AAM Press, American Association of Museums|year = 2010|edition = 5|chapter = 3I: Deaccessioning|pages = 100–107|isbn = 978-0-8389-1122-8}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web|title = National Park Service - Museum Management Program|url = http://www.nps.gov/museum/publications/handbook.html|website = www.nps.gov|access-date = November 26, 2015}}</ref>
 
The process begins with the curator creating a document called a "statement of justification,", which outlines their decision criteria and reasoning for presenting the work as a possible deaccession. To determine if a work should be deaccessioned from a museum's collection, a curator or [[Registrar (museum)|registrar]] completes and documents a series of justification steps and then present their findings to the museum director and governing board for final approval.<ref name=":1" />
 
===Deaccession criteria===
Line 22 ⟶ 23:
* The authenticity or attribution of the work is determined to be false or fraudulent and the object lacks sufficient aesthetic merit or art historical importance to warrant retention.
* The work is a duplicate that has no value as part of a series.
* The work may have been stolen or illegally imported in violation of applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the museum is located or the work may be subject to other legal claims, includingsuch butas not limited to repatriation under Thethe [[Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act]] (NAGPRA)in andthe artUnited foundStates; or the work may be subject to haveother beenlegal plunderedclaims, duringsuch WWIIas by thewith [[Nazi plunder|Nazisworks misappropriated under Nazi rule]].
 
===Deaccession justification steps===
Line 44 ⟶ 45:
 
*Donation of the object to another museum, library, or archive for educational purposes
**This is the ideal disposal choice for museums as it assures that the object will remain accessible to the public. Museums seek out possible institutions where the object might a useful addition to the collection or is better equipped to maintain the object.[[File:Antonio Molinari - Adamo ed Eva.jpg|thumb|[[Antonio Molinari (painter)|Antonio Molinari]] – ''Adam and Eve'', an example of a deaccessioned work: Deaccessioned in 1988 from Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and purchased by Ball State University Museum of Art, Muncie, Indiana, from Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 1989.]]
*Exchange of the object for another object with another museum or non-profit institution
**This is another viable method for assuring that the object remains accessible to the public in some way. Exchanges are made in such a way that there is relatively equal value of the items involved, not just monetarily but historically.
Line 51 ⟶ 52:
**Often works deaccession from the collection can be reallocated into educational programs, to be used for hands-on demonstrations, school outreach programs, or testing for conservation research. In this case it is understood that the work will be subject to physical destruction over time. In this case, the work would be re-accessioned into a study or educational collection that is not as closely monitored as that of the main collection.
*Physical destruction
**Objects that may have deteriorated due to an [[Inherent vice (library and archival science)|inherent vice]], natural disaster, vandalism, accident, or other causes as well as works that made be considered hazardous, such as those containing drugs, chemicals, explosives, or asbestos should be disposed of via physical destruction. If dealing with hazardous materials, the proper authorities should be consulted to determine the best method of destruction. The method of destruction will depend on the type of material and completed in such a ways as to be irreversible. This is also the best method for works that are found to be fakes or [[Forgery|forgeries]]. See ''physical examination'' above.
**Human remains or certain items of religious or cultural sensitivity might need to be handled in a prescribed way to meet legal requirements or cultural standards. See [[Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act|NAGPRA]] from more information.
*Repatriation.
**Repatriation is the process of returning an object to their place of origin or proper owner. This is method of disposal is used for objects found to be illicitly held by the museum, such as [[Nazi plunder|Nazi looted art]] and objects requested for return according to [[Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act|NAGPRA]]. The illicit status of an object would be determined upon claim of repatriation via NAGPRA or claim by proper owner, in the case of Nazi looted or other stolen works. In either case, clear title and provenance would be determined during the step in which the legal status is verificated. See ''verification of legal status'' above.
*Return to donor.
**Similar to the process of repatriation, if the work was donated to the museum and the donor or legal heir can be located at time of deaccession processing, the museum may elect to return the object to the donor. This is not the best option for museums for a few reasons. First, it removes the work from public accessibility and second, it can cause tax complications, as a deduction can be given for a portion of the work's value upon donation and the return of the work to the donor may result in an audit or at least IRS claim on the deduction value previously received.<ref name=":2" />[[File:Crosby Garrett Helmet on auction at Christies.jpg|thumb|An auction at [[Christie's]].]]
*Private sale and public auction.
**Another method of disposal that is not the best option for museums. Museums hold collections in the public trust for public access. Though the best manner in which to generate funds from disposal for future accessions and care of current collection, disposal of works via sale or auction takes the work away from public access and places it into the hands of private citizens.
Line 71 ⟶ 72:
According to the [[American Association for State and Local History|AASLH]] (the American Association for State and Local History): "Collections shall not be deaccessioned or disposed of in order to provide financial support for institutional operations, facilities maintenance, or any reason other than the preservation or acquisition of collections."<ref>A Statement of Professional Ethics, American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, Tennessee, 1992.</ref>
 
According to the [[International Council of Museums]]: Proceeds should be applied solely to the purchase of additions to museum collections.<ref>{{Cite web|url = http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/ICOM_News/2003-1/ENG/p3_2003-1.pdf|title = Deaccessioning and ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums|date = January 2003|website = ICOM News|publisherlast = ICOMLewis|first News= Geoffrey|lastaccess-date = LewisDecember 7, 2015|firstarchive-date = GeoffreyMarch 4, 2016|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052829/http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/ICOM_News/2003-1/ENG/p3_2003-1.pdf|url-status = dead}}</ref>
 
These associations have each determined to their own degree that all proceeds from sale or auction should be restricted to the future acquisition of collection objects and/ or to the ongoing maintenance of current collection holdings. Their decision and perspective on the practice of deaccession reflects a long-term view of museum collections as items held in public trust and preserved for access, appreciation, education, and enjoyment of not only today's public but the future public. See ''[[public trust doctrine]]''.
 
An example of a recent controversy over deaccessioning was [[Northampton Museum and Art Gallery]]'s sale of its ancient Egyptian [[Northampton Sekhemka statue|statue of Sekhemka]] to an unnamed buyer despite protests from local residents and the Egyptian government. In 2014, Arts Council England deleted the museum from its accredited list.<ref name="losesaccreditationbbc">{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-28602849 | title=Sekhemka statue: Northampton Museum loses Art Council accreditation | publisherwork=BBC News | date=August 1, 2014 | access-date=March 14, 2015}}</ref>
 
==Views on deaccessioning==
Deaccessioning is a controversial topic and activity, with diverging opinions from artists, arts professionals and the general public.<ref>{{Cite news|title = Museums Draw Scrutiny When They Sell Artworks|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/arts/design/27sell.html|newspaper = The New York Times|date = January 26, 2011|access-date = December 12, 2015|issn = 0362-4331|first = Robin|last = Pogrebin}}</ref> Some commentators, such as Donn Zaretsky of The Art Law Blog critique the notion of "the public trust" and argue that deaccessioning rules should probably be thrown out altogether.<ref>{{Cite web|title = AAMD Rules Need to be Deaccessioned – News – Art in America|url = http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/aamd-rules-need-to-be-deaccessioned/|website = www.artinamericamagazine.com|date = March 26, 2009|access-date = December 12, 2015}}</ref> Others, such as Susan Taylor, director of the New Orleans Museum of Art and the AAMD's current president, believes that proceeds from the sale or funds from the deaccession can only be used to buy other works of art.<ref>{{Cite webnews|title = As Museums Try To Make Ends Meet, 'Deaccession' Is The Art World's Dirty Word|url = https://www.npr.org/2014/08/11/339532879/as-museums-try-to-make-ends-meet-deaccession-is-the-art-worlds-dirty-word|website = NPR.org|access-date = December 12, 2015}}</ref><nowiki/>
 
== Deaccessioning and lawsuits ==
In 2017, the children of [[Norman Rockwell]] sued the [[Berkshire Museum]] in an attempt to block the deaccessioning of their father's artworks.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Stevens |first=Matt |date=2017-10-21 |title=Rockwell's Children Sue Berkshire Museum to Stop Sale of His Works |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/arts/berkshire-museum-norman-rockwell-lawsuit.html |access-date=2023-12-17 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> In 2023 the heirs of Hedwig Stern filed a lawsuit concerning [[Vincent van Gogh|Vincent Van Gogh]]'s ''Oliver Pickers'' which was deaccessioned and sold to the Basil & Elise Goulandris Foundation in Athens without a complete provenance.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-01-27 |title=Was Van Gogh's olive grove landscape another Nazi-era 'forced sale'? |url=https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/01/27/van-gogh-olive-grove-landscape-nazi-forced-sale |access-date=2023-12-17 |website=The Art Newspaper - International art news and events}}</ref> Also in 2023 a court in Indiana dismissed a lawsuit challenging the proposed sale of three works of art by Valparaiso University.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lawsuit Seeking to Stop Deaccessioning of Paintings at Valparaiso is Dismissed |url=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/lawsuit-seeking-to-stop-deaccessioning-6593502/ |access-date=2023-12-17 |website=JD Supra |language=en}}</ref>
 
==References==
Line 84 ⟶ 88:
 
==External links==
* [http://www.artbabble.org/video/dia/behind-scenes-dia-part-2 ''Behind the scenes at the Detroit Institute of Art: Deaccessioning practices''], a 12-minute video.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160222065504/http://whitney.org/file_columns/0002/6177/collection_management_policy_final_4-13-09_.pdf An Example Collection Management Policy. See Section H. for policies governing the process of deaccession] from the [[Whitney Museum of American Art]].
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150921141028/http://law.depaul.edu/student-resources/student-activities/journals/art-technology-intellectual-property-law/Documents/jatip_all_in_a_days_work.pdf An Article from the ''DePaul Journal of Art, Technology and Intellectual Property Law'']. Vol. XXII: 119: Stephens, Heather Hope. 2011. "All in a Days Work: How Museums may approach Deaccessioning as a necessary Collections Management Tool.
Line 91 ⟶ 94:
{{Art world}}
{{Cultural Conservation-Restoration |state=expanded}}
{{Authority control}}
 
[[Category:Museology]]