Deaccessioning: Difference between revisions

</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>

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" />

* 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]].

**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.]]

**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.

**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]].]]

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>

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/>