LINKS

• SPAIN/GERMANY. "The Spanish government will lose out collecting VAT from Spanish galleries becausesales will inevitably go to foreign galleries with considerably lowerVAT." Authorities say they will consider proposals to reduce VAT on cultural goods and services, which crucially include sales of works of art, from 21% ("the highest rate on the continent") to 13%.
  
  Meanwhile, German galleries and dealers have managed to thwart, at least for now, the European Commission's attempts to get Germany to increase the rate of VAT on sales of art from 12% to 19%.
 
• LONDON. "To say we can’t afford to have the arts as part of our lives is an admission of defeat as a nation and society" - Sir Nicholas Serota on how further reductions of public funding of arts organisations will put them at risk of closure. See what the anticipated spending cuts finally came in at here.
 
• USA. The Dan Flavin Estate's change of heart regarding posthumous productions of the conceptual artist's light sculptures raises interesting questions regarding the legality of doing so given the uncertainty of Flavin's wishes in this regard as well as the impact the decision may have on the market value of works created by Flavin in his lifetime.
 
• USA. Donn Zaretsky on how the Michigan attorney general is not the first AG  in recent times to confuse the normative and legal aspects of deaccessioning.

UPDATED: Latest on New York's deaccessioning criteria

NEW YORK. When the "emergency" regulations on deaccessioning finally expired without renewal last October, an ad-hoc committee to the New York State Board of Regents was formed to, as the Maine Antique Digest puts it, "review and make recommendations on the deaccessioning process to the cultural education committee and the full board." By "deaccessioning process" what is meant is both the enactment and enforcement of deaccessioning criteria to be applied on a permanent basis to museums and historical societies under the Board of Regents' chartering (notably excluding the Metropolitan, "which has a legislative charter").

The proposed criteria, published on March 2 in the State register (p.14 onwards), include deaccessioning to remove an item established to be inauthentic; repatriate or return an item to its rightful owner (may seem obvious but several European museums have had problems in the past precisely because the law did not state this as a criterion for deaccessioning); return an item to a donor due to the institution's inability to satisfy donor restrictions (often a highly subjective inquiry) and deaccessioning to "accomplish refinement of collections."

What, if anything, does that last criterion accomplish? Arguably nothing since as drafted it is completely open to abuse and will neither ensure possession in the future (donors' big fear) nor guarantee public access to artworks held in "public trust" (i.e., remedying the incomprehensible reality that collections are largely in storage while museums are increasing on the verge of financial collapse and closure). The criterion is quintessentially representative of that deaccessioning "exercise in smoke and mirrors." Just as before, in practise museums would be free to deaccession pretty much as they like and the only real restriction is in the use of the proceeds that can be used "only for the acquisition of collections or the preservation, conservation, or direct care of collections" (not without its own shortcomings and contradictions). Donn Zaretsky is of the view that "museums have succeeded in guiding the process to a place where the rules make them do what they were already doing" except now (and this is important), "that exercise in smoke and mirrors -- will have the force of law."

UPDATE: a few more (varying) views on the new rules (from The Art Law Blog):

• Sergio Sarmiento (VLA Associate Director, artist and blogger): "Among the more perplexing of criteria is the requirement that the art 'item has failed to retain its identity.' What the hell does this mean? It was once a painting but it is now a frisbee?"
• Judith Dobrzynski (arts journalist and blogger): "Not bad."
• Amy Goldrich (attorney): "[A]lthough the new rules appear to require a more carefully justified decision to deaccession, at least one criterion -- accomplishing refinement of collections - could end up being a virtual 'get out of jail free' card."

Storage statistics to shock even the "anti-deaccessioning police"

In the midst of the heated deaccessioning debates on both sides of the Atlantic, I've long held that deaccessioning (i.e. selling or removing a work of art from a museum's collection) should be regulated as opposed to prohibited outright. The fear among the "anti-deaccessioning police" that without a blanket prohibition against deaccessioning museums will sell-off vast amounts of their collections is simply irrational. There is absolutely no reason why oversight, transparency and certain, limited restrictions cannot ensure that deaccessioning is carried out ethically and with the best interests of the collection, the museum and the public in mind. A strong argument in favor of controlled deaccessioning is the fact that a substantial part of a museum's collection is often in storage whereas newer museums struggle to build their collections for want of museum-quality pieces (and funds). Not to mention arguments based on the need to update and refine collections and the potential benefits derived from including deaccessioning as part of the efficient and financially-sound management of a museum.

The BBC has reported on storage statistics for London museums including the British Museum, the Tate (Britain and Modern) and the Natural History Museum likely to shock even the most obstinate anti-deaccessioning vigilante. The statistics express the amount of art in storage as a percentage of a museum's collection as well as the annual cost such art represents. Most museums in the UK capital were found to have over 90% of their collections in storage. Is this really what the public (for whose benefit museums hold art in trust) want? This absurdly polarized debate is all about taking sides and in the midst of the madness, the basic tenet that the mission of all museums should be "more, better engagement of more people with more art" seems to have been lost.

"The world didn't come to an end"

LONDON. The title makes reference to the experience to date of the UK Museum Association's ("MA") "relaxed ethical stance" on deaccessioning since its adoption in 2007. The UK's experience illustrates how "slippery slope" arguments against taking this position on deaccessioning don't necessarily hold true, at least not in all cases. In an article in The Art Newspaper, the MA's head of policy Maurice Davies defended the organization's stance against the strong criticisms and concerns of museum directors worldwide who called for greater safeguards to prevent the dissipation of public collections. The deaccessioning debate has resurfaced recently in the UK with the announcement of the seminar on the subject to take place at the National Gallery on May 10, 2011. To read more about the proposed schemes that will be debated click here.

The current restrictions in the UK are "voluntary and depend largely on moral persuasion" which may make the "deaccessioning police," as Donn Zaretsky calls the contingent, uneasy but in my view, are preferable to blanket prohibitions against deaccessioning (for example, to cover operating expenses) that place little, if any, faith in museum trustees to do their jobs. Yes deaccessioning practices should not be left unchecked but checks should be flexible enough to consider proposed sales on a case-by-case basis. The expert panel idea has been proposed before (I was a fan, as was Judith Dobrznski) but I appreciate the comments made in the article that at least in the UK, there are enough committees as it is and plus, an expert panel would require the enactment of legislation.

Deaccessioning frenzy in New York

Contrary to the outcry in the media this week, the New York State Board of Regents' decision on Tuesday to allow the deaccessioning "emergency" regulations to expire on October 8 is not going to result in the monetization of museum collections. The temporary regulations, in effect since December 2008, enjoined museum sales of collection artworks to cover operating costs and the Board of Regents had been expected to make the rule permanent, partly as a result of the Brodsky Bill (which outlawed such sales) collapsing in the state Legislature.

The news may have come as a surprise but the impact of the decision on deaccessioning practices is likely to be minimal (i.e. no mass exodus of art from "public trust to private hands"). This is because the existing regulations already stated that museums may only use the proceeds derived from deaccessioning "for the acquisition, preservation, protection or care of collections" and explicitly "in no event shall proceeds be used for operating expenses..." To be fair, the emergency regulations did restrict museums' options to sell collection pieces more sharply but as Donn Zaretsky posted, the existing regulations follow the deaccessioning guidelines of the American Association of Museums ("AAM") and the Association of Art Museum Directors ("AAMD") which the vast majority of people consider to be adequate deaccessioning policies.