Are Deaccessioning Norms Ethical?

SFMOMA recently launched a wildly popular new feature called "Send Me SFMOMA." As SFMOMA explains, "Text 572-51 with the words 'send me' followed by a keyword, a color, or even an emoji and you’ll receive a related artwork image and caption via text message." For example, I texted "send me cats," and received the above image in reply, Andrea Modica's photograph "Treadwell, New York" (1987).

But I found the reason SFMOMA created the feature every bit as interesting as the feature itself. According to Jay Mollica, SFMOMA’s "creative technologist," the idea was to provide public access to the 95% of the SFMOMA collection that isn't on public display - and in some cases may never be.

SFMOMA is hardly alone. Most museums can show only 2-4% of their collection at any one time. Why do museums maintain such large collections - at significant expense! - of works they can't display? There are many reasons, but one is "deaccessioning rules." The professional organizations governing art - in particular, the Association of Art Museum Directors - have adopted professional norms governing when and how art museums can "deaccession," or sell or otherwise dispose of artworks in their collections. These "deaccessioning norms" typically provide that museums may sell artworks only in order to raise funds to purchase new artworks, and may not sell artwork to raise funds to cover other expenses, including operations and capital expenses.

Defenders of deaccessioning norms typically argue that they reflect an "ethical" obligation imposed on museums that hold artworks in the "public trust." But as Donn Zaretsky of The Art Law Blog has observed over and over and over and over, this argument is just incoherent. Deaccessioning norms permit museums to sell artworks, and only restrict how museums can use the proceeds from those sales. Museums can sell artworks in order to buy new artworks, but can't sell artworks to, say, prevent themselves from going bankrupt or enable themselves to eliminate admission fees. In other words, artworks are held in the "public trust" only when the "deaccessioning police" want them to be.

What can account for this peculiar set of rules, which seem to prevent museums - typically charitable organizations - to take actions that are not only consistent with, but would often seem otherwise mandated by their charitable purposes? Michael Rushton has offered some potential explanations, based on aligning the incentives of the management and board.

Perhaps I am excessively cynical, but I am inclined to follow the money. What is the effect of deaccessioning norms? To maintain the scarcity of works on the secondary art market. Once an artwork goes to a museum collection, it is effectively off the market forever. Or at least, if it ever does go on the market, it will only be to remove other (typically higher value) works from the market. In other words, deaccessioning norms effectively prevent museums (charitable organizations) from claiming any capital gains in the value of their assets, and reserve those gains for private collectors. Viewed in this light, deaccessioning norms are a way for private collectors to steal from the charitable sector and dress up their theft as "ethics."

I have written about this issue previously in a blog post and in an article on the DIA in the Detroit bankruptcy. Look for a future article, tentatively titled, "Deaccessioning Norms are Unethical." 

Comments

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

The Presidential Commission on High Art said no. They want our Leader to have plenty to look at when he stops by Hardees at Love's trucking plazas. He just adores the shape of artsy chrome lady mud flaps.

[Brian Frye]

Excellent idea. I'm not aware of anyone doing a mudflap show, at least to date.

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

Thanks for being a good sport and appreciating my humor. It's my only outlet to my incipient depressed state since 1-20-17 12:01 pm EDT.

To answer your post seriously, I have to look to my interests and experiences: Automobile museums. The collection of vehicle, themes and exhibits need to be rotated. Once you have seen the same car beyond twice, I am not inclined to return and pay admission. I am not sure it's really about ethics as much as it is about economic viability....keeping the lights and heat on and attracting new and repeat patrons. Practically speaking, it's also about the gift shop....selling new and different chochkies...based on new exhibits.