Some Museums Want to Sell Art to Make Ends Meet

The Temple of Dendur at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (wallyg on Flickr)

A bill to prevent cultural institutions from selling artworks to cover costs has been opposed by the Metropolitan Museum of Art and other organizations—and it has pretty much died in the State Legislature. Museums generally "deaccession" works of art to use the proceeds to buy other works of art, and the Board of Regents already prohibits some museums from selling art to cover other costs. However, the bill would have made the practice, which the Times describes as a "misuse of funds that jeopardizes preserving cultural heritage as a public trust," illegal across the board.

Michael Botwinick, director of the Hudson River Museum, says the issue is so concerning because letting museums sell works to pay expenses will make them believe "the Rembrandts in the collection are no different than the IBM stock." James C. Dawson, former chairman of the Regents’ cultural education committee, agreed that "Museums hold their collections in the public trust. They should not be selling those off for operating funds or to pay debts." Doing such would essentially turn the museums into large, government-funded galleries.

The Board of Regents wants to make their prohibitions permanent, but they would only apply to state-funded museums, not museums like the Met which operate under other legislative charters. Director Thomas P. Campbell assures anyone that's worried that their deaccessioning process is "tightly governed by its trustees, subject to review by the State Attorney General, and requiring that funds from deaccessioning be used only for the purpose of acquiring other works of art," but if money gets tight, there's nothing stopping them. The National Academy Museum already sold two Hudson River School paintings to cover some expenses in 2008. Maybe they should just downsize those apartments.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jaya Saxena in Arts and Events on August 11, 2010 1:17 PM

Comments [rss]

Jen S

It's against AAM regulations to sell art to cover operational costs. So most institutions won't do this anyway.

BDS=(Boycott.Divest.Sanction)

theres a good documentary just out called the art of the steal...

its about the shengagians used to move the Barnes musuesm from its original location, a small intimate musuem outside of Philly, to a larger, more profitable location within the busy city.

Totally killing the experience you could have had visiting the musuem, but eh thats america nowadays,

'if you're not in it for the money, you probably dont belong here.'

Mumintroll

If by "dictate what art the public can see" you refer to exhibitions, you are only partially correct. If you think the only way to see art at museums is through exhibitions you are totally uninformed. Most museums will pull off-view works for researchers - if you ask nicely and give ample advanced notice. For example, both the Met and MoMA have great study centers for doing just that. See:

http://www.metmuseum.org/education/er_lib.asp

and

http://moma.org/learn/resources/study_centers

kazubes

Thanks for proving my point, study rooms often require qualifications and or approval prior to access..thus the museum can dictate who can see what and when

Mumintroll

Well yes, we're charged with preserving these artworks in perpetuity so we have to vet the people asking to see them (if you show up with a blow torch or your email handle is chaos_Artdestroyer@death.ru we're not letting you near the van Gogh, sorry). We pull objects for non-scholars/regular folks all the time, providing they give us advanced notice. We like pulling works - just ask!

pscrabble

Mumintroll, how many visitors does the Met or MoMA have each year? How many request art be pulled? If you are serious about this being an option for visitors, then it seems like the museums are not doing a very good job of communicating this opportunity to "regular folks."

Also, when I go to a museum, I browse. I don't go to view one, two, or even three paintings for twenty minutes each. I go to a museum like the Met because I am not an expert in art and never know what might catch my eye.

I believe you genuinely mean well, but your comments on here are making you seem like the type of elitist to which the first commenter was referring.