Over the last decade, a number of prominent museums have faced dire financial straits, much like the situation the Delaware Art Museum encountered in 2014. In some cases the decision was made to deaccession works from the collection, with the plan of using the proceeds from the sale to pay off a debt, or face certain closure of the institution. As was made clear in the readings on the DAM, this practice goes against the AAM Code of Ethics, which states that money from the sale must "be used for acquisition or direct care of collections." It also goes against the mission of a museum and its service to the Public Trust.
Informed by the Delaware Art Museum readings and the discussion we had in class, respond to this particular situation. What mistakes were made? What could have the museum done differently? Do you think the AAMD was right in sanctioning the DAM, and do you think there should be exceptions to the rule when the very survival of a museum is in jeopardy? Answer all questions in at least 4 sentences, and respond no later than 5 pm, Monday, September 28. Thanks!
The Delaware Art Museum certainly made a mistake in using the money from the deaccession of their art to pay off their debts from their recent expansion and not for gaining new art- since the money was to be used for personal gain and not for the benefit of the public, it was therefore against the AAM Code of Ethics. I do think that the AAMD was right in sanctioning the DAM, but I also wonder if there was more that the AAMD could have done to help them. Because the DAM was in serious danger of closing altogether, the AAMD should have done absolutely everything they could have to help them survive before sanctioning them, including reaching out to some of their more affluent or successful museum members and seeing if any of them could have bought the art the DAM was trying to deaccession. I think exceptions to the AAMD’s rule for deaccessioning should exist, but be few and far between. If the AAMD had exhausted every possible outlet and the museum in question was still going to close, as well as if the reason for the museum closing could not be proven the fault of the museum itself (bad business practices, expanding before they have the money to do so, etc.), then perhaps an exception should be made. But these exceptions should be very hard for a museum to acquire, and there should be no possible loopholes, so museums cannot just play the system for personal gain
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the first mistake that was made on DAM’s part was hiring this Michael Miller guy as chief executive. He has absolutely no appreciation for art and virtually no knowledge of really any art or the art world. While I understand that museums need people who know how the market and money works, they still definitely should have hired someone who could work within their mission.
ReplyDeleteThe museum most certainly could have consulted curators and development staff to a higher degree. Finding money is, after all, their job. No one is going to want to work at a museum that is accustomed to ditching important pieces. They also could have worked more with the AAMD in attempting to find other options. The way they handled the situation does seem pretty unprofessional.
Whether or not the sanction was called for, however, is a tough question. Perhaps in this particular scenario the AAMD was right. The DAM was really very uncooperative, it seems, and could have been doing a better job in both finding funds and being more transparent with its process. They also probably didn’t need a bigger space in the first place. That being said, I’m not sure a sanctioning is right in all cases. If a museum is going to die, better to lose a finger than the whole body. This is why Miller should have consulted curators, however, since they likely would have chosen less important fingers to lose.
The Delaware Art Museum made several unfortunate mistakes that led to their debt, as well as their sanctions from the AAMD. Their first mistake, I would claim to be overexpansion. By building onto their museum without already having the funds to supply this expansion, the museum placed themselves in a debt letting them befall a fate that many before them had suffered.
ReplyDeleteIf they could have avoided spending so much money on this expansion, they may have not had to deal with the selling of their art in the first place. However, this expansion was done, so the debt had to be dealt with accordingly.
By making the decision to de-accession and sell their art at auction, the museum was making a very bold statement, and made what many would view as a mistake. They chose to sell a piece from their collection, and planned on using the money from this transaction to pay off their debt from the expansion made to their museum. By using this method to pay debts, rather than searching for money through fund-raising, and attracting new members and potential trustees – they decided to stand against the AAMD.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake that was made regards the amount of money that was made from selling the piece. The museum only received half of the value of their low estimate at auction. After this outcome, they still have chosen to schedule to sell two more pieces from their collection at auction. I personally find this to be one of the largest mistakes made. The museum is going to suffer from the losses to their collection, and is going to be left without more pieces that are not vital to their collection, and still have debt left over.
The museum could have attempted to fund raise more, or perhaps they could have tried to sell their piece to another museum, rather than through auction – that way the public would still have access to the piece and they may have met the sale with a higher price tag.
I think that the AAMD was right in sanctioning the DAM, if they have specific rules and bylaws that are set to be followed, anyone who does not follow those rules should be sanctioned. If they do not stand by their rules, and constantly make exceptions for museums, they will not be able to thrive as a group, and will not be able to maintain their high ideals. I think that there should not be exceptions made to the rule, but I do believe that the AAMD should offer significant help when a museums survival is in jeopardy. They are stating that they did so for the DAM, and that the DAM decided not to accept this help, any museum that chooses this course of action should rightly be sanctioned.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Delaware Art Museum put themselves in a tricky situation with the over expansion of their museum, which then led to debt. They might have believed that the only solution was to deaccession art but the AAMD gave plenty of opportunities for the DAM to take a different route. The AAMD offered to help set up fundraising opportunities to raise money but the DAM refused aid and continued with their initial plan. The museum deserved to be sanctioned not only for the improper use of the money from the auction, to pay off debt instead of going towards other works of art, but they continued to plan off the sale of two other pieces even after the sanctioning went through. There should not be exceptions to the rule because associations like the AAMD exist to help prevent museums from falling under through financial aid programs and public relation events. Deaccessioning should be used under ethical guidelines and to not financial benefit a museum.
ReplyDeleteThe Delaware Art Museum got themselves in over their heads and had too much to handle. Their first mistake was over-expanding, especially the expansion was not drastically needed. This expensive, unneeded expansion led them to debt that could have been avoided in the first place. I see no reason to feel bad for the Delaware Art Museum, as they dug their own grave and knowingly went against the rules of the AAMD. As Courtney has already pointed out, there should not be exceptions to the rules, regardless of the situation, as that is the purpose of the AAMD in the first place. Deaccessioning should be used responsibly, ethically, and for the good of the establishment to the public rather than the establishment alone.
ReplyDeleteThe Delaware Art Museum made several poor decisions that led to their massive debt which then caused their sanctions from the AAMD. The first mistake was hiring the wrong person as chief executive. As Nic mentioned earlier, the chief executive had no previous background in art and no interest in it. This job should have been filled by someone who is passionate about their field and sees the importance of the art. The next big mistake was creating the expansion. The museum had bitten off more than they could chew which created the large debt. They should have focused on what the museum already had instead of looking for the next big thing. And lastly, deciding to sell paintings to pay off the debt. The paintings that were sold did not go for nearly as much as their actual pricing. The museum should have approached the AAMD instead of going against their ethics and codes. The AAMD was right in sanctioning The Delaware Art Museum because if there were exceptions to the rules and ethics, then there would be no reason for having them. The Delaware Art Museum should have asked the AAMD for other options to help remove their debt and looked to deaccessioning as their last resort.
ReplyDeleteThe first and most obvious mistake of the DAM is their decision to expand without getting all of their financial ducks in a row, which caused them to be in debt in the first place. Their second mistake was idiotically hiring a man with no interest or background in art as chief executive of their museum. And their third and largest problem was not seeking advice from the AAMD when they were practically begging to help.
ReplyDeleteWhat they should have done differently (disregarding the decisions that put them in debt) was to man up and seek help. The DAM tried to take the fast track instead of sitting down and really trying to figure out alternatives to deaccessioning their artwork. They were too concerned about their reputation, which is ironic considering the position they are in now.
I fully agree in the AAMD's decision to sanction the DAM.
Exceptions to the deaccessioning rule should be made if and only if all other options have been exhausted without significant improvements.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Delaware Art Museum made several of mistakes that lead them to sanctions from the AAMD. In my opinion the first mistake that DAM made was expanding the museum without having the financial means to do so. DAM should have raised enough money to pay for the expansion before beginning to build. But instead they decided to go ahead with the expansion and they found themselves in large debt. This caused for them to panic and begin the deaccession of their art in order to help them pay off the debt caused by the expansion. This is against the AAM Code of Ethics. Which caused the AAMD to sanction the DAM. According to the AAMD, DAM was using the money coming from the deaccession for individual gain instead of the gain of the public. While I do agree that they could have done more to raise money or come up with a better solution to pay off their debt, I don’t think that it was a personal gain. They were trying to save their museum, which in the end is the best for the public. The AAMD should have stepped in and aided them in anyway that they could, rather than coming in and sanctioning the DAM. I do think that there should be an exception to the rule of sanctioning. If the museum is in jeopardy of dying then they should be aloud to do what they can to keep afloat. At the end of the day its better to patch a whole in the boat then watch it sink because they don’t want to break a code of ethics.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the Delaware Art Museum’s first mistake was biting off more than they could chew with their expansion expenses. Their second mistake was allowing their chief executive, Michael Miller to be in charge of covering up their financial mess. In regards to what the museum could’ve done differently, I think that the DAM should’ve decided not to be embarrassed of their mistake. When they realized that the museum was in trouble, the DAM turned to deaccessioning their work in order to hide their money issues from the public. Instead, I think that they could’ve reached out to their donors and asked for money in order to save the museum. I feel that the AAMD was completely correct when dealing with this situation. If they were to let the DAM get away with this situation, then that would just be opening the doors for other museums to do the same in the future when faced with similar situations.
ReplyDeleteThe Delaware Art Museum first went wrong by expanding before they were ready financially. The decision to expand before the funds were lined up reflects poorly on the executive director. The next poor decision was to first go for the art work as a source of funding. It shows how little director cares for the actual artifacts. Obviously the museums structure is very important when it comes to the preservation of pieces; but to be in such debt for what I think was aesthetic improvements is not justifiable. The artifacts and pieces of art are the heart and soul of the museum, with that said in my opinion that should be last resort option for funds. I thought it was a fair decision for the AAMD to sanction the DAM. Especially since they warned the DAM that they were going to be violating ethical code if they auctioned the pieces.
ReplyDeleteThe DAM's situation is not an unusual one, and it is one which could have been avoided. The first mistake of the museum was the financial mismanagement which allowed the museum to begin an expansion without the requisite funds. This stemmed from allowing museum leadership to be organized by an individual with little to no knowledge of art or the art world (I'm talking to you Michael Miller) because of his knowledge of "business" and "markets," things which in an ideal world would have nothing to do with art or museums. Objects in a museum are just this side of sacred, and attempting to use them as a source of revenue is just this side of blasphemy, so I would say that the AAMD was right to sanction the DAM, particularly considering the terrible price they got for the objects. All told, it is dangerous and often unwise to put a price on our cultural heritage.
ReplyDelete