Deaccessioning: The Pandora’s Box of Leadership

By Handongi – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,

After months of COVID furloughs, firings and cutbacks, last week deaccessioning took center stage in the museum world. If your mind was on other things, here’s a capsule narrative: In early October the Baltimore Museum of Art (BMA) announced it would sell three paintings by Brice Marden, Clyfford Still and Andy Warhol. It plans to use the money for collection development and to address pay equity issues. BMA’s deaccession follows the Brooklyn Museum’s sale of 12 paintings. Both museums are deaccessioning after AAMD’s April announcement announcing that it wouldn’t sanction museums using deaccessioning funds for general operating support for the next two years.

There are stark differences between the two cases. Like many organizations, the Brooklyn Museum received a $4.5 million PPP loan, and laid off 28 full-time staff this summer. The Baltimore Museum of Art has retained its staff and is reportedly solven. It will use the money to add to an endowment for the acquisition of work by BIPOC artists, while the remainder will create an endowment for staff salaries.

The two sales, and the AAMD’s summer ruling, are haunted by the 2018 deaccessioning by the Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield, MA. There, the trustees and then-director Van Shields chose to sell 40 works from the collection for $42 million in a lengthy case that brought censure from AAMD, AAM, and many of its peers. Until AAMD relaxed its rules, the Berkshire Museum case seemed precedent setting, the kind of legal and ethical puzzle that would be examined by museum studies students for decades to come. Unlike the current group of sales, the Berkshire Museum wasn’t trying to diversify its collection, make its salaries more equitable or survive a recession caused by a world-wide pandemic. When all the explanations were parsed, it seemed to be undergoing an identity crisis, and wanted to shed its century old role as a small city general museum with a jewel of an art collection and be something else. The elephant in the room is that a $42-million endowment, even in the face of a pandemic, is likely to lower a board’s anxiety level, whether the organization is open or not.

One of the many voices who joined the Baltimore Museum of Art discussion is Arnold Lehman, Director Emeritus of the Brooklyn Museum, and a former director of the BMA. Lehman’s knowledge of the BMA’s collection is deep, yet it’s clear the Museum’s decision is about more than its collection. Nowhere in his letter does Lehman hint that there are larger systemic issues at work inside the museum walls. And yet, here is BMA Director Christopher Bedford quoted in The Times: “This is done specifically in recognition of the protest being led by museum staff to be paid an equitable living wage to perform core work for an institution with a social justice mission — that symmetry between who we say we are and what we actually are behind our doors.”

I would like to think that over the last nine months museum leaders have realized that being temples to white men, whether to white male artists, builders, politicians or rich guys, has lost its appeal, particularly in a city like Baltimore with a majority Black population of 63-percent. Part of that behavior extends to the way staff is treated. And a museum staff is everyone, from the cleaners and the guards to the curators, and their treatment includes salaries.

Could Baltimore have handled its deaccession decision differently? Maybe. It could have left the inequity of its salaries unaddressed, and perhaps gone on to face the type of protest and press its New York City sister museums have experienced. It could have deaccessioned from the bottom up, selling many smaller works in an attempt to reach the necessary dollar level. It also could have selected paintings likely to sell to another art museum, thus keeping work on public view. It could, as Franklin Sirmans of Miami’s Perez Museum suggests, have made a commitment to collecting Black and Latinex artists years ago. (True, but few boards did, which seems to be the heart of the problem.) Or it could have selected a different trio of big-ticket paintings that likely would have enraged a different portion of the public. The fact of the matter is we don’t know. Boards and their directors are like families. You may theorize what’s going on inside based on what you see, but without an inside seat, you don’t actually know.

In May guest blogger Steven Miller wrote about museum boards, “….the effect of an unprecedented coronavirus pandemic makes their work incredibly difficult.  The challenges are mind-boggling.  Ultimately, practical solutions for museums are almost entirely of a fiscal nature.  What will it cost to survive, how will survival be defined, and, where will the money come from, not to mention when?” Museums are expensive places to run, and unlike the proverbial widget factory, what museums sell doesn’t net a profit so their value and their income streams don’t intertwine.

Deaccessioning is an important and necessary tool for all museums, but when boards and directors use collections as a cash cow, it erodes public trust. In its 2016 report on Direct Care of Collections AAM wrote, “If a museum experiences financial difficulties, its governing body must make decisions that are consistent with its mission and its obligations to the public with regard to collections stewardship. It should ensure that funds realized from the sale of deaccessioned objects are never used as a substitute for fiscal responsibility.” That last sentence presages the Berkshire Museum’s choices, but doesn’t necessarily apply to the Brooklyn and BMA.

Context in these cases is important. What if the community both inside and outside the museum changes? What if the community no longer sees cultural gatekeeping for a culture in which it has no part as essential? Can you know that from the outside? Then, is the museum just a warehouse full of supposedly important stuff? To a purist, does that matter? And a decade from now, will we look back and realize this was a hinge moment for museums, and we will mark time regarding collections before and after COVID?

There are so many times in a museum’s life where good leadership is key, not just from the curatorial staff, the director, but the board as well. Deaccessioning is no exception. These questions, particularly in this moment of cultural and financial upheaval, seem peculiarly individual. Boards and directors may be asked to make the least bad decision, yet one that benefits their own organization, their own staff and their own community. And the solution for Baltimore may not be the solution for Rochester or LA or Brooklyn. Just another important reason why museum leadership truly matters in this age of discord.

Stay safe,

Joan Baldwin

6 Comments on “Deaccessioning: The Pandora’s Box of Leadership”

  1. Janice Klein says:

    There is much to be said about leadership and deaccessioning, but it is important to be accurate regarding the museum community’s position on use of proceeds from deaccessioning. AAMD has not and probably never will accept use of funds from deaccessioning for general operating support. In May 2020 the AAMD Board agreed not to sanction for the next 24 months any AAMD member museum or director if they use proceeds from deaccessioning for direct care of collections instead of their standard “replenishment of collections” (i.e., buying other objects). Each member museum is required to develop a policy that states what they mean by direct care and that policy must be approved by the museum’s Board and made public.

  2. Sharon says:

    Becoming a focused organization involves a radical change in the way organizations select and manage projects. But that’s not all. Read more to know what sets one’s company apart from its competitors

  3. Meg Gallucci says:

    It would be interesting to know if other museums have solved financial problems creatively without deaccessioning. Deaccessioning works that will be gone forever is like cutting off your nose to spite your face, as my grandmother used to say. Putting the Brooklyn Museum aside, the Baltimore Museum will not solve the systemic problem it faces by deaccessioning, and this poorly conceived plan is only the beginning.

  4. Ann Woolsey says:

    Seconding Janice Klein’s comment. Please see AAMD’s statement published last night in the Art Newspaper clarifying that the relaxation of sanctioning applies if proceeds from deaccessioning are used for direct care of collections only. This is very important for campus art museum leaders, who may have to face off with university boards looking to shore up institutional finances in these difficult times for higher education. No good museum leader doubts the urgent necessity of funding equity, inclusion, and diversity in every aspect of museum work. To make this situation into an either/or is a false choice.

  5. […] Deaccessioning: The Pandora’s Box of Leadership → […]

  6. savetheart says:

    Thank you for differentiating between the deacession in 2018 by the Berkshire Museum from current sales taking place during these challenging times. With AAMD’s lessening of restrictions through April 2022 these sales are each very different from one another based on how they were decided on, the impact on their institutions, the use of these new resources on salaries both related to and unrelated to direct care and ultimately the diversification of collections. You are also correct in stating “Unlike the current group of sales, the Berkshire Museum wasn’t trying to diversify its collection, make its salaries more equitable or survive a recession caused by a world-wide pandemic.” The museum is now closed, the majority of valuable art transferred to private hands, board and leadership have moved on and the “new vision” a distant memory. However, we can’t help but think that those involved in the Berkshire Museum sale – the board, its leadership and the professionals who have gained from these sales – did so at the expense of our community and the public trust. We continue to view these sales and the resulting changes taking place from the perspective – “a museum serves to support its collection; the collection does not serve to support the museum.” Thank you for keeping an eye on how the combination of leadership – both paid staff and those who volunteer, make decisions that have long term impact on living artists and their surrounding communities both now and well into the future. – October 2020

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s