Four years ago this month, Museums Association (MA) members voted to relax the UK sector’s policy on disposal, allowing museums for the first time – and only in exceptional circumstances – to dispose of items from outside their core collections for financial reasons.
At the time, the debate elicited strong views, and a recent MA poll showed that the issue still arouses contention, with nearly a third of respondents voting that they’d like to see the code of ethics tightened again. Museums in the UK are, however, ahead of the game when it comes to talking constructively about disposal.
Cultural policy adviser Peter Davies, who has written a book on the issue, says that having spent the past decade interrogating its ethical guidelines, the UK sector is now being held up as a model by countries that are only just beginning to consider disposal as a collections management tool, but remain anxious to safeguard against irresponsible sale.
A meeting held by the Network of European Museum Organisations (Nemo) last month to discuss financially motivated disposal revealed a wide disparity in attitudes between policymakers.
Countries such as Italy, Belgium and Spain take a strong ethical and legal stance against any deaccessioning of publicly held collections. Others, such as Slovenia, have yet to start a conversation on the issue.
At the meeting, some representatives expressed a reluctance to instigate further debate, fearing that there might be no turning back once the floodgates are opened. But disposal ethics are gaining urgency against a backdrop of financial turmoil across the EU.
As Museums Journal reported last month, several recent cases have highlighted the phenomenon of museums trying to sell from collections to offset funding cuts.
In the Netherlands, Rotterdam’s ethnographic Wereldmuseum prompted a public outcry earlier this year by announcing its intention to sell off its entire collection of African and American artefacts in order to focus on Asian art.
The museum said the move would insure its future against economic instability and an impending €200m cut to arts subsidies, and claimed that the country was already well served by other African collections.
Meanwhile, Museumgouda, a city history museum in the western Netherlands, may be expelled from the Netherlands Museum Association (NMV) after it sold The Schoolboys, a painting by South African artist Marlene Dumas, for €1.3m in a private auction last month to stave off potential bankruptcy.
The Netherlands has been historically accepting of deaccessioning, but its ethical guidelines require museums to draw up a collection plan to justify disposals, ensure public institutions have a chance to acquire them ahead of private buyers, and spend any revenue only on the collections – measures that Museumgouda failed to carry out.
The museum argued that the Dumas sale was an emergency measure justified because the work was no longer part of its core collection. A final vote on Museumgouda’s NMV membership is due next month.
As in the UK, being expelled from the association has no direct financial impact but can affect a museum’s credibility and influence future funding decisions.
In Austria, where disposal practice is not a major priority, the Austrian Museums Association is also debating the case of a city museum that sold 10 paintings gifted to it.
And although deaccessioning remains rare in Germany, the German Museums Association recently judged one museum’s financially motivated disposal to be against its rules. Although the country’s museum policy is generally created at a regional level, a national paper on deaccessioning is due out this year.
Some policy-makers think it would make sense to formulate Europe-wide guidelines. The Nemo meeting, according to MA policy and communication head Maurice Davies, concluded that it would be impossible to reach consensus when so many nations have yet to fully explore the issue, and those that have hold diverse opinions.
A fellowship at the MA, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), is to undertake a comparative study of international ethics around the sale of collections, as well as analysing disposal cases that have taken place in the UK since the code of ethics was changed.
The results of the research could shed light on how a more unified approach might be achieved. Given the EU’s economic situation, other nations may not be able to shy away from the debate for much longer.
Click here to view the MA’s code of ethics
US: Deaccessioning is lightly regulated, with trading up of collections not uncommon. The American Association of Museums is regarded as behind the UK in tackling ethical issues.
Canada: A minority of museums have been pioneering disposal practice, but the majority still treat the subject with caution.
Europe: In countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy, disposal is highly restricted and deaccessioning is largely prohibited by law. The UK, the Netherlands and Finland have removed some barriers.
At the time, the debate elicited strong views, and a recent MA poll showed that the issue still arouses contention, with nearly a third of respondents voting that they’d like to see the code of ethics tightened again. Museums in the UK are, however, ahead of the game when it comes to talking constructively about disposal.
Cultural policy adviser Peter Davies, who has written a book on the issue, says that having spent the past decade interrogating its ethical guidelines, the UK sector is now being held up as a model by countries that are only just beginning to consider disposal as a collections management tool, but remain anxious to safeguard against irresponsible sale.
A meeting held by the Network of European Museum Organisations (Nemo) last month to discuss financially motivated disposal revealed a wide disparity in attitudes between policymakers.
Countries such as Italy, Belgium and Spain take a strong ethical and legal stance against any deaccessioning of publicly held collections. Others, such as Slovenia, have yet to start a conversation on the issue.
At the meeting, some representatives expressed a reluctance to instigate further debate, fearing that there might be no turning back once the floodgates are opened. But disposal ethics are gaining urgency against a backdrop of financial turmoil across the EU.
As Museums Journal reported last month, several recent cases have highlighted the phenomenon of museums trying to sell from collections to offset funding cuts.
In the Netherlands, Rotterdam’s ethnographic Wereldmuseum prompted a public outcry earlier this year by announcing its intention to sell off its entire collection of African and American artefacts in order to focus on Asian art.
The museum said the move would insure its future against economic instability and an impending €200m cut to arts subsidies, and claimed that the country was already well served by other African collections.
Meanwhile, Museumgouda, a city history museum in the western Netherlands, may be expelled from the Netherlands Museum Association (NMV) after it sold The Schoolboys, a painting by South African artist Marlene Dumas, for €1.3m in a private auction last month to stave off potential bankruptcy.
The Netherlands has been historically accepting of deaccessioning, but its ethical guidelines require museums to draw up a collection plan to justify disposals, ensure public institutions have a chance to acquire them ahead of private buyers, and spend any revenue only on the collections – measures that Museumgouda failed to carry out.
The museum argued that the Dumas sale was an emergency measure justified because the work was no longer part of its core collection. A final vote on Museumgouda’s NMV membership is due next month.
As in the UK, being expelled from the association has no direct financial impact but can affect a museum’s credibility and influence future funding decisions.
In Austria, where disposal practice is not a major priority, the Austrian Museums Association is also debating the case of a city museum that sold 10 paintings gifted to it.
And although deaccessioning remains rare in Germany, the German Museums Association recently judged one museum’s financially motivated disposal to be against its rules. Although the country’s museum policy is generally created at a regional level, a national paper on deaccessioning is due out this year.
Some policy-makers think it would make sense to formulate Europe-wide guidelines. The Nemo meeting, according to MA policy and communication head Maurice Davies, concluded that it would be impossible to reach consensus when so many nations have yet to fully explore the issue, and those that have hold diverse opinions.
A fellowship at the MA, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), is to undertake a comparative study of international ethics around the sale of collections, as well as analysing disposal cases that have taken place in the UK since the code of ethics was changed.
The results of the research could shed light on how a more unified approach might be achieved. Given the EU’s economic situation, other nations may not be able to shy away from the debate for much longer.
Click here to view the MA’s code of ethics
Worldwide practices
US: Deaccessioning is lightly regulated, with trading up of collections not uncommon. The American Association of Museums is regarded as behind the UK in tackling ethical issues.
Canada: A minority of museums have been pioneering disposal practice, but the majority still treat the subject with caution.
Europe: In countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy, disposal is highly restricted and deaccessioning is largely prohibited by law. The UK, the Netherlands and Finland have removed some barriers.
