ETHICS FOR DEALERS: DEACCESSIONING
August 20, 2014
Judith H. Dobrzynski
If someone helps another person commit a crime, he’s an accessory to the illegal act and probably guilty of an infraction. What about an ethical violation?
The question is becoming increasingly relevant in the art world as the Delaware Art Museum deaccessions works of art to pay off its debt and, as first conceived, built up its endowment. That, of course, is a violation of the ethics standards of the Association of Art Museum Directors, which states: “Funds received from the disposal of a deaccessioned work shall not be used for operations or capital expenses.” AAMD sanctioned the Delaware museum in June, soon after it sold William Holman Hunt’s “Isabella and the Pot of Basil” at Christie’s in London.
Christie’s didn’t seem to suffer from that case, but it was vilified as a vulture by some (including me) when it appraised some art works held by the Detroit Institute of Arts last year, as the city considered their sale as part its way out of bankruptcy.
The threat to the DIA collection has subsided, but the Delaware museum recently confirmed speculation, driven by their removal from its galleries, that Winslow Homer’s “Milking Time” and Alexander Calder's “Black Crescent” mobile will go next. They’ll be auctioned this fall if not sold privately first.
Sotheby’s seems to have those consignments, but it’s hardly inconceivable that a dealer would be asked to help a museum sell art for the wrong reason. Aside from Delaware, a few years back Brandeis University almost sold art from its Rose Art Museum, but backed down under pressure. And the Northampton Museum and Art Gallery recently sold an ancient Egyptian statue at Christie's in London in July for £15.8m to pay for an expansion and promptly lost its accreditation by Arts Council England. Before the sale, the International Council of Museums said the sale “goes against the Council’s ethics.” The temptation seems to be increasing.
Should a dealer take the business if a museum comes calling?
“It’s entirely up to the dealer,” said Robert B. Simon, president of the Private Art Dealers Association in the U.S. “I wouldn’t do it, and every dealer I know would follow the museums’ code of ethics.” But PADA has no code ethics, full stop, so there’s nothing to prevent it. Nor is the issue mentioned in the bye-laws of The British Antique Dealers' Association.
Over at the Art Dealers Association of America, the code of ethics is also mum on the topic. Executive Director Linda Blumberg said that “everyone was appalled” by the Detroit and Rose situations, but that the issue has not been discussed by the ADAA board. “We’ve been caught a bit short because in every dealer’s mind, this is sacrosanct,” she said. “Every dealer wants the works they sell ultimately to go to museums.”
But is that enough? Maybe if dealers spelled out that they will not sell works if that sale violates ethical strictures – actually turning down potential business – museum trustees would think again before they made that call. It would be one more bit of resistance from people they work with on a regular basis, instead of the trouble-making press, which has nothing, really, at stake.