Copyright Law

One further thought on the latest deaccessioning discourse

By Intellectual Property Law, Esq.

One talking point the deaccession police seem to have coalesced around recently is that, while they agree with the goals behind the Baltimore sale, the right way to achieve those goals is for the board members to pony up the cash, rather than by selling art. Glenn Adamson summarized that position (on his way to critiquing it) as "diversifying collections, while a worthy goal, should be paid for by trustees, not through high-profile art sales." Hilarie Sheets's recent NYT article quotes a former Baltimore board chairman's criticism of the museum for "taking what seems to be a shortcut approach to monetize the art instead of doing the more difficult work of fund-raising and development." And the National Review's Brian T. Allen (former director of the Addison Gallery) puts it this way: "If the rich honkies want to strike a blow for equity, they should open their own wallets. ... The director, if he wants to buy art by artists based on race or gender or nationality, should go out and raise the money from donors."

My question is how come no one ever makes this argument when museums sell work to buy other art? How come nobody says those acquisitions should be paid for by trustees, not through art sales? Why isn't that seen as taking a shortcut approach of monetizing art instead of doing the more difficult work of fund-raising and development? Why don't we say, if a director wants to buy art (not just by artists based on race or gender or nationality, but any art), she should go out and raise the money from donors?

Full post as published by The Art Law Blog on November 01, 2020 (boomark / email).