Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:59:39.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To Have and To Hold … Or Not? Deaccessioning Policies, Practices, and the Question of the Public’s Interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2017

Deandra Rose Mann
Deandra Rose Mann*
Affiliation:
JD 2016, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, United States; Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Shockwaves echoed through the media and the arts community when the Delaware Art Museum chose to deaccession pieces from its collection and when the public learned that the Detroit Institute of Arts might be forced to do the same. Further concern arose when financial troubles compelled the Corcoran Gallery of Art to merge with the National Gallery of Art and George Washington University. An examination of the climate and legal battles surrounding these events shows how these institutions chose to cope with the financial adversity that put their collections at risk and illustrates the precarious position of works in a museum’s collection when that museum experiences financial distress. This article explores the ethical, judicial, and legislative frameworks currently governing deaccessioning and ultimately advocates for new legislative solutions to guide the deaccession process in order to provide the opportunity to maintain these works in the public sphere.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 113 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cirigliana, Jorja Ackers. 2011. “Let Them Sell Art: Why a Broader Deaccession Policy Today Could Save Museums Tomorrow.” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 20, no. 2: 365–94.Google Scholar
Conforti, Michael. 1997. “Deaccessioning in American Museums: II—Some Thoughts for England.” In A Deaccession Reader, edited by Weil, Stephen E., 73–86. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
Fincham, Derek. 2011. “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust.” Art, Antiquity, and Law 16, no. 2: 1–37.Google Scholar
Finkel, Jori. 2010. “Whose Rules Are These, Anyway?” In Cultural Law: International, Comparative, and Indigenous, edited by Nafziger, James A. R., Paterson, Robert K., and Dundes Renteln, Alison, 724. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garfield, Donald. 1997. “Deaccessioning Goes Public.” In A Deaccession Reader, edited by Weil, Stephen E., 11–22. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
International Foundation for Art Research. 2014. “Art For Sale? Bankruptcy and the Detroit Institute of Arts.” International Foundation for Art Research 14/15, nos. 4/1: 36–48.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1997. “Attitudes to Disposal from Museum Collections.” In A Deaccession Reader, edited by Weil, Stephen E., 109–24. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
Malaro, Marie C. 1997. “Deaccessioning – The American Perspective.” In A Deaccession Reader, edited by Weil, Stephen E., 39–50. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry. 2009. Thinking About the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art, and Law. 2nd ed. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry, Elsen, Albert E., and Urice, Stephen K.. 2007. Law, Ethics and the Visual Arts. 5th ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Miller, Steven H. 1997a. “‘Guild-Free’ Deaccessioning.” In A Deaccession Reader, edited by Weil, Stephen E., 93–98. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
Miller, Steven H. 1997b. “Selling Items from Museum Collections.” In A Deaccession Reader, edited by Weil, Stephen E., 51–62. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
Nafziger, James A. R., Paterson, Robert K., and Renteln, Alison Dundes. 2010. Cultural Law: International, Comparative, and Indigenous. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, Robert K. 2006. “Resolving Material Cultural Disputes: Human Rights, Property Rights and Crimes Against Humanity.” Willamette Journal of International Law and Dispute Resolution 14, no. 2: 155–74.Google Scholar
Rewald, John. 1997. “Should Hoving Be De-accessioned?” In A Deaccession Reader, edited by Weil, Stephen E., 23–38. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
Tam, Sara. 2012. “In Museums We Trust: Analyzing the Mission of Museums, Deaccessioning Policies, and the Public Trust.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 39, no. 3: 849–901.Google Scholar
Ulph, Janet. 2013. “The Sale of Items in Museum Collections.” In Modern Studies in Property Law, vol. 7, edited by Hopkins, Nicholas, 217–41. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Urice, Stephen K. 2010. “Deaccessioning: A Few Observations.” American Law Institute – American Bar Association Continuing Legal Education, no. SR005: 207–15.Google Scholar
Weil, Stephen E. 1997. “Introduction.” In A Deaccession Reader, edited by Weil, Stephen E., 1–10. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.Google Scholar
White, Jennifer L. 1996. “When It’s OK to Sell the Monet: A Trustee-Fiduciary-Duty Framework for Analyzing the Deaccessioning of Art to Meet Museum Operating Expenses.” Michigan Law Review 94, no. 4: 1041–66.Google Scholar