Museums are essential. Deaccessioning is essential. Part 2

The Association of Art Museums Directors’ statement about deaccession proceeds doesn’t matter for most museums.

In part one of this miniseries (nowhere near as dramatic as a multi-part TV event) I explained what deaccessioning is, and differentiated the process from disposal. Here, I’m going to explain a bit about why the statement is irrelevant to most museums.

Many news outlets (CBS, Washington Post, Art Newspaper, San Francisco Chronicle, and others) have produced doomsday headlines inferring that, because AAMD issued this statement on April 15th, that museums were surely going to start selling prized objects to pay basic operating expenses now that AAMD had given them the “green light” to do so. There are so many practical problems with this narrative, here they are:

AAMD is an elite membership organization that has no real governance powers over museums of any kind.

The organization admits individual art museum directors, not entire museums, into its membership. Its membership does not include directors of history museums, natural history museums, your county historical society, or your local nonprofit art gallery. New members are elected by the existing membership. If you are an art museum director, it might be a club you want to be in, or maybe not. Right now, the executive leadership is all white and mostly male; the 20 member board is white except for a Latina who directs an art museum in Mexico city,. and an African American woman who directs an art museum in Michigan. While AAMD has participated in a number of studies revealing the lack of diversity in Art Museums, that does not seem to have rapidly resulted in a change of leadership. This organization speaks for large art museums, primarily “traditional” in nature. By traditional I mean that the organizations are large, white, old, male, and wealthy. Is this a simplified statement? Yes. Is it still generally true? Yes.

AAMD only governs the organizations that aspire to have their directors be counted among its membership. Its governance is primarily through a carrot (you get to be a member) and stick (we will kick you out) method. While all museum governing bodies permit deaccession and agree that it is an essential acclivity for collection development, AAMD’s policies regarding use of proceeds from the sale of deaccession are the strictest in the museum field. (If you’re not sure about deaccession, and are wondering why I’m being so specific in my language - refer back to part 1). AAMD has always restricted use of proceeds from sale of deaccession to acquisition of new works only. The other two primary museum umbrella organizations - American Alliance of Museums, and the American Association for State and Local History, have both come to agree that such proceeds can be used for direct care of existing collections, or for new acquisitions. The “new” AAMD statement simply aligns its own policies with that of the rest of the field -albeit on a two-year temporary basis.

Additionally, rumors on the street point to the inevitability of some of its member organizations considering, or having already decided, to begin using proceeds from the sale of deaccession for direct care of existing collections. AAMD was perhaps more interested in loosening its strictures, rather than having to censure some of its more prominent members for violation of its “use of deaccession proceeds" rule.

Remember, there is no body of law that specifically governs museum collections or museum operations. They’re governed by nonprofit regulations in the state in which the museum operates. The field is otherwise entirely self-policing via ethics statements and guidelines. It is up to individual museums to adhere to them, develop their own, and be transparent about their behavior within their communities.

The process of deaccessioning is not quick, and is resource-intensive

Deciding to deaccession and object, then dispose of it (again, see part 1 if these terms seem odd) is a labor intensive process that can take six months to a year or more. Here are some of the steps:

  1. Identify objects for deaccession based on the deaccession criteria in the museum’s collection management policy. Perceived market value is not an ethical criteria for deaccession.

  2. Thoroughly research and document the object (if its provenance is not already complete) to ensure that the museum is legally able to deaccession it (no donor-imposed restrictions, object is legally owned, etc)

  3. Present the proposed deaccession to the decision-making body for collections (usually a board committee) and to the full board, according to the collection management policy.

  4. If the deaccession is approved, arrange for disposal (sale, transfer to another organization, etc)

  5. Complete disposal, create documentation for all parts of the process, file them for permanent retention. Deposit any proceeds received into the appropriate restricted fund, plan to record how the funds were used in accordance with the organization’s direct care policy in the future.

This process is staff-time intensive, and for museums that have already reduced their labor force due to economic constraints brought about by Covid-19, the task is nearly impossible.

This is a terrible time to sell anything

Deaccessioning now in hopes of a financial windfall in the near future is a very silly outcome to expect. The art market is going to be very wary of deaccessions in the marketplace for fear of poor publicity if the object is acquired by another museum or even by a well-known private collector. Additionally, it is likely that the entire market will be depressed for some time in the future given the overall state of the economy. So, museums who hope to deaccession for proceeds that they can use to care for collections, will be releasing objects into a depressed market and won’t see a very good return on their investment of time and resources to deaccession the object.

Many museum collections have little monetary value

Particularly for small regional art museums, history, or natural history museums, collections have very little market value to begin with. Especially for history museums, deaccessions can end up in box lots at a regional auction house fetching dollars or cents per item. If this is shocking to you … stay tuned for Part 3: Why we need to re-think how collections fit into our program of mission-related activities.

Erin Richardson