People in museums often talk about the crisis in acquisitions and how it is impossible to compete at auction to fill the gaps in art collections. But what if you were able to delve into the store, weed out the weaker paintings, and then sell them off to buy bigger and better works?
In the US, it is common for art museums to do precisely this. From the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York to the Kimbell Art Museum in Texas, curators routinely trawl through their reserve collections with the explicit purpose of inviting in the auction house.
In this country there have been murmurings that the directors of some of the larger art collections would dearly love to emulate their US counterparts. In 2004 the trustees of the Tate discussed 'trading up' at a board meeting. And in the Museums Association's (MA) recent consultation on disposal, a number of responses have been in favour of this option being explored.
But museums in the US operate in a different ethical and financial framework. The American Association of Museums' (AAM) code of ethics says museums must make sure that the 'disposal of collections through sale, trade, or research activities is solely for the advancement of the museum's mission'.
It adds that proceeds from the sale of collections must be used in a way that is consistent with the established standards of the museum's discipline, 'but in no event shall they be used for anything other than acquisition or direct care of collections'. So it's OK to sell, but any cash raised must be put back into the collections.
Jason Hall, the director of government and media relations at the AAM, says that trading up is not unusual in the US. 'Art museums are expected to follow the rules as described by the Association of Art Museum Directors, which represents directors of art museums in the US, Canada and Mexico. They say that funds can be used for no other purpose than acquisitions - they have the strictest rules of any branch of museums.'
Art museums in the US have been trading up in this way for years, but until the 1990s it was mainly on a one-to-one basis with private dealers. Earlier this year, a former curator at MoMA discussed how this worked in an interview with the Art Newspaper.
William Rubin, the former director of the department of painting and sculpture at MoMA, described how he would ask private dealers into the museum to view works from the collection. Six to ten dealers would come in at short staggered intervals on the same day. Rubin explained how, after they had viewed the works, they would be asked to make a sealed bid and then escorted out of the back door while another dealer was led in for a viewing.
This secretive practice changed during the 1990s when the art market exploded and museums were obliged to take pieces to auction if they wanted to realise the best price. Since then the list of transactions is seemingly endless. In October last year, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art consigned 42 items for sale at Sotheby's including works by Modigliani, Picasso and Degas.
The museum justified the sale by saying it regularly deaccessions works each year. And just last month the Toledo Museum of Art in Ohio sold paintings from its collection at Sotheby's, including works by Sisley and Renoir.
One of the misgivings about trading up is related to how items are selected for sale: are the interests of the collection put first, or is it down to picking the highest value items that happen to be out of fashion at the moment?
Carolyn Putney, the curator of Asian art and the director of collections at the Toledo Museum of Art, says deaccessioning is not something it does very often or lightly. She reveals that every department in the museum has been reviewing its collections over the past ten years.
'It's a slow process that we started in the 1990s. We are extremely careful and research every single object,' Putney says. 'Every member of the curatorial department looks at everything and if anyone objects, it goes back to the curator responsible.'
After that it goes to the art committee, on which trustees are represented, and only once that process is completed, the auction houses are invited in. Putney says the museum also now takes a more strategic approach towards acquisition. 'We only take work on the stipulation that no strings are attached.'
But not all cases are so straightforward, and US museums have been known to transgress the line of what is deemed acceptable there.
Take the case of the Barnes Foundation. In 1991, the trustees of the museum in Pennsylvania announced their intention to sell works from the collection to make building repairs, improve security, and conserve damaged works of art. This was despite the fact that the founder's will explicitly stated that the collection was to be neither sold or loaned.
The move provoked controversy and was condemned by the AAM and the Association of Art Museum Directors. The latter said in a statement at the time that it was a drastic measure that violated public trust.
A Pennsylvanian court ruling eventually thwarted the sale and the general consensus is still that any cash raised from sale must go back into the collection. Hall from the AAM, agrees. He says his organisation has intervened when there have been 'clear ethical breeches such as selling objects from the collection to fix the roof'.
On the whole though, trading up to 'improve' collections is accepted in the US. But could it ever happen here? At the moment, the MA's code of ethics contains a strong presumption against transfer out of the public domain and states that museums should 'refuse to undertake disposal principally for financial reasons'. And the responses to the MA's current consultation on disposal indicate that opinion is divided on the subject.
When the trustees of the Tate discussed it in 2004 it was, according to a spokeswoman for the organisation, only in relation to the 'very occasional trading up in living artists' works by sale or exchange in order to improve Tate's holdings of those artists' works.'
According to the spokesman, when acquiring work it is not always possible to know whether it will be representative of the artist's career. 'It may be that in some circumstances the ability to revise and refine the selection of work that represents an artist could be useful and this is an area of deaccessioning which may help the Tate to better manage and enhance the collection for the future.'
Tristram Besterman, a consultant and former chairman of the MA's ethics committee, is cautious on the subject. He sees trading up as part of the commodification of collections. 'I have a problem with it because it implies the collections can be cashed-in,' he says.
John Leighton, the director general of the National Galleries of Scotland, is also wary. He says there is a big difference between the US and Europe in terms of funding models, attitudes to donations and donors, and the function of museums.
'Many of the collections we look after have an archival function, which some politicians don't understand. They see that we have loads of stuff in storage and think, "Why not get rid of some of it?". But if you're looking at the national collection of Scottish art, for example, you have a duty to represent a number of trends and historical sequences that may not be on display, but are needed for research purposes.'
Charles Saumarez Smith, the director of the National Gallery in London, agrees. He says most museums in the US operate as private foundations whereas museums in this country have evolved over hundreds of years.
'If I were the head of an American museum, I wouldn't have any compunction in following the American model,' says Saumarez Smith. 'But I'm the head of a museum that has existed since 1824.'
But he says the mood could be changing and that trading up could be legitimate - subject to safeguards and consultation. And despite his own reservations, Besterman says it would be healthy for the profession to have a debate that looked at the issue in a rational way and could lead to a 'clear, precise and transparent set of criteria'.
Caitlin Griffiths, the adviser on professional issues at the MA, says a clearer definition of what trading up means is needed. 'It's not just about going into the store and looking for what can be sold. There can be more nuanced approaches.' For her, the key is a good understanding of collections and the role of the institution. 'Is it to have one painting from every era of an artist's career, or is it to have the best of the best?'
This month the MA's ethics committee meets to discuss the findings of its consultation, and a new disposal toolkit will be available early next year. Griffiths says that some museums will want to explore the sale option. 'We'll give more guidance on that,' she says. But she warns, 'the preference will always be to dispose by free gift or transfer.'
www.museumsassociation.org/policy
The Dutch experience
The Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage (ICN) published new guidelines on disposal last month. Although the guidelines emphasise free transfer between museums, Arjen Kok, a consultant for ICN, says that they have had to take into account that some museums believe it is in the best interest of the collection to sell.
'They say they can't afford to give away the objects and that if it's not possible to trade, then they can't deaccession.' So although the new guidelines put a preference on giving objects to other museums, selling is not ruled out.
Last month, ICN launched a pilot project to test a new procedure for selling between collections. Two national collections, three provincial museums, three municipal museums and one independent museum will offer items to other museums via the relocation database on the ICN website.
Some of the objects will be for sale and will be offered at the lower end of their price estimates. Museums will then have just over a month to express an interest. After that any remaining objects will be sold at auction in March or April next year.
Kok says it is a win-win situation for both museums involved: one gets an object for a low price; the other gets cash, and both collections are strengthened. The new rules make it clear that any money raised must be used either for acquisitions or object restoration. Kok says that if the pilot project is a success, it will be rolled out next year.
www.icn.nl
www.herplaatsingsdatabase.nl
Under the hammer
There are several self-appointed watchdogs that monitor the art market in the US, including sales from museums. Artnet magazine has a dedicated section called Art Market Watch, which lists what has come up at auction and the CultureGrrl blog regularly comments on the ins and outs of trading up by US museums. Tyler Green is another blogger whose site flags up museum sales.
Over the past few years there have been numerous examples of US museums trading up including:
2003: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, sold a Claude Monet, Poste de douaniers a Dieppe for $1,799,500 at Christie's (pictured top left)
2004: Yale University Art Gallery sold Robert Motherwell's Elegy to the Spanish Republic no. 71 for $2,919,500 at Christie's (pictured bottom left)
2005: The Museum of Modern Art, New York, sold the Grape Harvest by Henri-Edmond Cross, for $5.4m at Sotheby's
2005: The Los Angeles County Museum of Art consigned 42 artworks for sale at Sotheby's including work by Max Beckman, Amedeo Modigliani and Paul Klee
2006: The Metropolitan Museum of Art sold 58 lots of Japanese art at Christie's for $309,300 (the top lot was a suit of armour, which went for $18,000, pictured right)
In the US, it is common for art museums to do precisely this. From the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York to the Kimbell Art Museum in Texas, curators routinely trawl through their reserve collections with the explicit purpose of inviting in the auction house.
In this country there have been murmurings that the directors of some of the larger art collections would dearly love to emulate their US counterparts. In 2004 the trustees of the Tate discussed 'trading up' at a board meeting. And in the Museums Association's (MA) recent consultation on disposal, a number of responses have been in favour of this option being explored.
But museums in the US operate in a different ethical and financial framework. The American Association of Museums' (AAM) code of ethics says museums must make sure that the 'disposal of collections through sale, trade, or research activities is solely for the advancement of the museum's mission'.
It adds that proceeds from the sale of collections must be used in a way that is consistent with the established standards of the museum's discipline, 'but in no event shall they be used for anything other than acquisition or direct care of collections'. So it's OK to sell, but any cash raised must be put back into the collections.
Jason Hall, the director of government and media relations at the AAM, says that trading up is not unusual in the US. 'Art museums are expected to follow the rules as described by the Association of Art Museum Directors, which represents directors of art museums in the US, Canada and Mexico. They say that funds can be used for no other purpose than acquisitions - they have the strictest rules of any branch of museums.'
Art museums in the US have been trading up in this way for years, but until the 1990s it was mainly on a one-to-one basis with private dealers. Earlier this year, a former curator at MoMA discussed how this worked in an interview with the Art Newspaper.
William Rubin, the former director of the department of painting and sculpture at MoMA, described how he would ask private dealers into the museum to view works from the collection. Six to ten dealers would come in at short staggered intervals on the same day. Rubin explained how, after they had viewed the works, they would be asked to make a sealed bid and then escorted out of the back door while another dealer was led in for a viewing.
This secretive practice changed during the 1990s when the art market exploded and museums were obliged to take pieces to auction if they wanted to realise the best price. Since then the list of transactions is seemingly endless. In October last year, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art consigned 42 items for sale at Sotheby's including works by Modigliani, Picasso and Degas.
The museum justified the sale by saying it regularly deaccessions works each year. And just last month the Toledo Museum of Art in Ohio sold paintings from its collection at Sotheby's, including works by Sisley and Renoir.
One of the misgivings about trading up is related to how items are selected for sale: are the interests of the collection put first, or is it down to picking the highest value items that happen to be out of fashion at the moment?
Carolyn Putney, the curator of Asian art and the director of collections at the Toledo Museum of Art, says deaccessioning is not something it does very often or lightly. She reveals that every department in the museum has been reviewing its collections over the past ten years.
'It's a slow process that we started in the 1990s. We are extremely careful and research every single object,' Putney says. 'Every member of the curatorial department looks at everything and if anyone objects, it goes back to the curator responsible.'
After that it goes to the art committee, on which trustees are represented, and only once that process is completed, the auction houses are invited in. Putney says the museum also now takes a more strategic approach towards acquisition. 'We only take work on the stipulation that no strings are attached.'
But not all cases are so straightforward, and US museums have been known to transgress the line of what is deemed acceptable there.
Take the case of the Barnes Foundation. In 1991, the trustees of the museum in Pennsylvania announced their intention to sell works from the collection to make building repairs, improve security, and conserve damaged works of art. This was despite the fact that the founder's will explicitly stated that the collection was to be neither sold or loaned.
The move provoked controversy and was condemned by the AAM and the Association of Art Museum Directors. The latter said in a statement at the time that it was a drastic measure that violated public trust.
A Pennsylvanian court ruling eventually thwarted the sale and the general consensus is still that any cash raised from sale must go back into the collection. Hall from the AAM, agrees. He says his organisation has intervened when there have been 'clear ethical breeches such as selling objects from the collection to fix the roof'.
On the whole though, trading up to 'improve' collections is accepted in the US. But could it ever happen here? At the moment, the MA's code of ethics contains a strong presumption against transfer out of the public domain and states that museums should 'refuse to undertake disposal principally for financial reasons'. And the responses to the MA's current consultation on disposal indicate that opinion is divided on the subject.
When the trustees of the Tate discussed it in 2004 it was, according to a spokeswoman for the organisation, only in relation to the 'very occasional trading up in living artists' works by sale or exchange in order to improve Tate's holdings of those artists' works.'
According to the spokesman, when acquiring work it is not always possible to know whether it will be representative of the artist's career. 'It may be that in some circumstances the ability to revise and refine the selection of work that represents an artist could be useful and this is an area of deaccessioning which may help the Tate to better manage and enhance the collection for the future.'
Tristram Besterman, a consultant and former chairman of the MA's ethics committee, is cautious on the subject. He sees trading up as part of the commodification of collections. 'I have a problem with it because it implies the collections can be cashed-in,' he says.
John Leighton, the director general of the National Galleries of Scotland, is also wary. He says there is a big difference between the US and Europe in terms of funding models, attitudes to donations and donors, and the function of museums.
'Many of the collections we look after have an archival function, which some politicians don't understand. They see that we have loads of stuff in storage and think, "Why not get rid of some of it?". But if you're looking at the national collection of Scottish art, for example, you have a duty to represent a number of trends and historical sequences that may not be on display, but are needed for research purposes.'
Charles Saumarez Smith, the director of the National Gallery in London, agrees. He says most museums in the US operate as private foundations whereas museums in this country have evolved over hundreds of years.
'If I were the head of an American museum, I wouldn't have any compunction in following the American model,' says Saumarez Smith. 'But I'm the head of a museum that has existed since 1824.'
But he says the mood could be changing and that trading up could be legitimate - subject to safeguards and consultation. And despite his own reservations, Besterman says it would be healthy for the profession to have a debate that looked at the issue in a rational way and could lead to a 'clear, precise and transparent set of criteria'.
Caitlin Griffiths, the adviser on professional issues at the MA, says a clearer definition of what trading up means is needed. 'It's not just about going into the store and looking for what can be sold. There can be more nuanced approaches.' For her, the key is a good understanding of collections and the role of the institution. 'Is it to have one painting from every era of an artist's career, or is it to have the best of the best?'
This month the MA's ethics committee meets to discuss the findings of its consultation, and a new disposal toolkit will be available early next year. Griffiths says that some museums will want to explore the sale option. 'We'll give more guidance on that,' she says. But she warns, 'the preference will always be to dispose by free gift or transfer.'
www.museumsassociation.org/policy
The Dutch experience
The Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage (ICN) published new guidelines on disposal last month. Although the guidelines emphasise free transfer between museums, Arjen Kok, a consultant for ICN, says that they have had to take into account that some museums believe it is in the best interest of the collection to sell.
'They say they can't afford to give away the objects and that if it's not possible to trade, then they can't deaccession.' So although the new guidelines put a preference on giving objects to other museums, selling is not ruled out.
Last month, ICN launched a pilot project to test a new procedure for selling between collections. Two national collections, three provincial museums, three municipal museums and one independent museum will offer items to other museums via the relocation database on the ICN website.
Some of the objects will be for sale and will be offered at the lower end of their price estimates. Museums will then have just over a month to express an interest. After that any remaining objects will be sold at auction in March or April next year.
Kok says it is a win-win situation for both museums involved: one gets an object for a low price; the other gets cash, and both collections are strengthened. The new rules make it clear that any money raised must be used either for acquisitions or object restoration. Kok says that if the pilot project is a success, it will be rolled out next year.
www.icn.nl
www.herplaatsingsdatabase.nl
Under the hammer
There are several self-appointed watchdogs that monitor the art market in the US, including sales from museums. Artnet magazine has a dedicated section called Art Market Watch, which lists what has come up at auction and the CultureGrrl blog regularly comments on the ins and outs of trading up by US museums. Tyler Green is another blogger whose site flags up museum sales.
Over the past few years there have been numerous examples of US museums trading up including:
2003: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, sold a Claude Monet, Poste de douaniers a Dieppe for $1,799,500 at Christie's (pictured top left)
2004: Yale University Art Gallery sold Robert Motherwell's Elegy to the Spanish Republic no. 71 for $2,919,500 at Christie's (pictured bottom left)
2005: The Museum of Modern Art, New York, sold the Grape Harvest by Henri-Edmond Cross, for $5.4m at Sotheby's
2005: The Los Angeles County Museum of Art consigned 42 artworks for sale at Sotheby's including work by Max Beckman, Amedeo Modigliani and Paul Klee
2006: The Metropolitan Museum of Art sold 58 lots of Japanese art at Christie's for $309,300 (the top lot was a suit of armour, which went for $18,000, pictured right)