Abstract
There is no other country that practice deaccessioning at such a large scale than the U.S. The AAMD has been issuing a number of policies supervising deaccessioning. The most important one defines the permitted uses of funds: they must be allocated to new acquisitions. On April 15th 2020, the AAMD loosened that rule for a two-year period due to the Covid-19 crisis, allowing museums to sell their collection to cover salary expenses. This is a major change of policy. How is deaccessioning processed during this crisis, and what to expect next ? Firstly, I map out museums that deaccessioned from April 2020 until now. The Brooklyn Museum is the first major institution to take advantage of the situation. Last Autumn, the museum proceeded to the sale of 12 paintings by major artists at Sotheby’s and Christie’s. Secondly, I will question if the different crisis of the Twentieth century have affected deaccessioning policy. The results might be more nuanced than expected. The MET started selling part of its collection in 1885. In 1928, its president, Robert Week DeForest, organized the first public auction with deaccessioned artifacts. Major change of policy weren’t induced by global crisis. Deaccessioning procedures were standardized under the presidency of Ronald Regan, during which most of the funding for the arts were cut. Moreover, Trump’s government also cut the vast majority of the funds for the arts when in office. Hence, a variation in deaccessioning policy is determined by public policies rather than by reactions to crisis.
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
2021 Special Focus: What Museums Post Pandemic?
KEYWORDS
Deaccession, Deaccessioning, Covid19, Collection, Art, Museums
