Understanding the changing rules of deacessioning: What is the Met up to and why does it matter?

“Over time, if you release hundreds or thousands of objects that might be worth $1,000 or $5,000 or $10,000, you know what? That adds up to a lot of money,” he said.

There’s widespread disagreement about whether the AAMD change is really temporary. Hollein expects them to revert to the pre-covid guidelines next year, a move he supports. Stefanie Jandl, co-editor of “Collections and Deaccessioning in a Post-Pandemic World,” thinks the new guidelines are here to stay.

“I think they’re going to be solidified in the present form, which allows for a lot of flexibility,” she said.

Lowry supports the AAMD policy as it stands, but says the issue needs to be debated. He frames it as an appropriate historical shift. In the 20th century, he argues, American museums were focused on building up many of the world’s best collections. In the 21st century, they “have to make good on the promise of those collections.”

“It doesn’t mean we stop acquiring. But we have to shift the focus from what we have already acquired to how we’re going to use that — how we’re going to meet the needs of the public through programs,” he said. “And in that context, we should ask ourselves what role can judicious and carefully regulated deaccessioning play in helping us to achieve that.”

It’s still unclear how museums will respond to the temporary rule change, although some answers will come at the auction houses’ spring sales in May, when more art from museum collections is certain to be sold.

The debate over the use of deaccession funds first erupted last April, when the AAMD announced a change to help its members weather the financial fallout from the pandemic. Between then and April 2022, AAMD members who are in financial distress would not be sanctioned if they use proceeds from the sale of art to fund the care of their collections. The field’s other service organization, the larger American Alliance of Museums (AAM), had issued a similar update to its guidelines in 2019. That update required museums to adopt policies defining “direct care”; it did not require financial duress.

The Baltimore plan had many flaws. The AAMD’s change was supposed to apply to financially struggling museums, but BMA’s director, Christopher Bedford, repeatedly said his organization was fiscally sound. The sale was needed, he said, to address long-standing inequities and to improve diversity and access. The three works — Andy Warhol’s “The Last Supper” and paintings by Clyfford Still and Brice Marden — were problematic, too, because they flouted the accepted traditions that museums should never sell masterpieces or works by living artists. Baltimore’s plan proposed both. (Baltimore did not give up on its goal, and last month announced gifts of almost $1.5 million for diversity, equity and inclusion, including funds for evening hours and for pay increases for hourly workers.)

The BMA controversy brought wider attention to the difficult issues facing museums in general, leaders say. Beyond the many losses tied to the pandemic, museums are also facing internal and external calls for racial and social justice. In a survey released last summer, one-third of AAM museum directors said they were at risk of closing or unsure if they could survive.

“People are having conversations and understanding that museums are being pulled in a hundred different directions for growth, when our finances are not growing,” said Brooklyn Museum Director Anne Pasternak. “The cost of direct care has grown exponentially in recent years. Institutions are acquiring, acquiring, acquiring, but without support for its care, you’re undermining your collection.”

The Brooklyn Museum began discussing its deaccessioning plan in 2019, a year before the AAMD’s modification. Last fall, the museum sold just over 40 works, including a group of decorative art objects and pieces by Monet, Miró and Cranach, and placed the $35 million in proceeds in a permanent endowment (with a goal of $40 million). The annual interest from the fund will cover the estimated $2 million required to care for the collection.

“To me, the most responsible thing is not to sell a Monet and use [the proceeds] for general operating support. The most responsible thing is to create a fund to benefit the institution in perpetuity,” Pasternak said. The museum has taken a “conservative approach” to its definition of collection care, which covers storage, conservation, documentation and the safe installation, de-installation and transport of art. Salaries of those performing these duties are included, but Pasternak said the endowment will cover only staff time spent with the art.

“It’s an interesting lifeline,” said Sally Yerkovich, chair of the AAM committee on direct care, who teaches museum ethics at Columbia University. “What it does is it frees up resources. If you can use money for conservation, then you’re freeing other money to use for other aspects of your operations. It could be exactly what some art museums really need.”

Many smaller museums have avoided deaccessioning because they fear getting entangled in controversy, Yerkovich said. As a result, they spend their limited resources on caring for things that no longer contribute to their mission.

“For years there was a chill, and one of the things that we had hoped with the [AAM’s] direct care of collection report was that it would normalize the process,” she said.

Lowry welcomes the increased flexibility provided by AAMD’s temporary change. Acquiring new work may not be the primary concern of many institutions, he said, especially small ones struggling to survive.

“We as a profession should be doing everything we can to give those institutions in particular the tools they need to survive in this time,” Lowry said.