When museums libraries sell

A reader asks why I have drawn such a sharp distinction between museums and libraries in discussing deaccession policies (here as well as here). Simple: because libraries and museums are fundamentally different institutions, whose respective professional organizations have endorsed commensurately divergent policies regarding how and when assets should be disposed of.

It is true that most museums now maintain a commitment to public education, and that some libraries own items of considerable historic or artistic value. The apparent convergence, however, is largely illusory. When all is said and done, most libraries see themselves as places for readers, not museums of books. And though some would want libraries with certain special holdings to be both libraries and museums, in practice that is not always workable. Indeed, libraries are not the only entities that can end up unwitting custodians of valuable artifacts: churches, schools, and fraternal groups have also found themselves in such a situation (not to mention families and individuals!). Are all then to be treated as museums, whether in whole or in part, and expected to act as museums do? I think not.

UPDATE: An admittedly ("impossibly" is his own term) crude model of how this all works, by economist and artwatcher Tyler Cowen here. In fact, museums usually have several distinct constituencies, and Cowen is correct in noting that for many American museums (and certainly the vast majority of art museums) the most important constitutency is donors. Public money may subsidize American museums, but virtually all their treasures come from private sources -- whether directly or through monies earmarked for future acquisitions. This holds true for our national museums as well, which are the most subsidy-dependent of all.

I am not sure, however, that donor wrath is indeed the main source of objection to deaccessioning, though it has certainly pushed museums to proceed cautiously and even secretively when selling. For most museum professionals in the United States are defenders of responsible deaccessioning; the most entrenched opposition, it would seem, comes instead from certain academics and arts journalists.

So, does government funding actually make museums less likely to deaccession? I would guess that to the extent it might, it would be as much due to increased exposure to public opinion as to anything else.

Posted by David on April 1, 2004 4:07 PM