Baltimore Sun

BMA critics missing the point about attempts to be more inclusive

- By Asma Naeem and Katy Siegel Asma Naeem (chiefcurat­or@artbma.org) is the Eddie C. and C. Sylvia Brown Chief Curator at The Baltimore Museum of Art and Katy Siegel (ksiegel@artbma.org) is the Senior Curator for Research and Programmin­g at The Baltimore Mu

As scholars and curators at The Baltimore Museum of Art (BMA), we feel compelled to respond to criticism about the museum’s decision to the deaccessio­n of works by Clyfford Still, Brice Marden and Andy Warhol. “Deaccessio­n” is a word little-known outside of museum circles.

Typically defined as “the official removal of an item from a museum in order to sell it,” the word covers complex curatorial decisions, bureaucrat­ic processes and financial systems.

At the same time, the word evokes a host of reactions, attitudes and presumptio­ns, and that is what we seek to illuminate.

First, we want to acknowledg­e the sense of loss that some community members feel around works of art that have been in the collection for a number of years. These works are indeed meaningful, and we have recognized the difficulti­es of closing a chapter during our rigorous selection process and numerous presentati­ons and discussion­s. Deaccessio­ning, however, is not a judgment about individual art objects, but an assessment of context, the way they function in a collection that continues to change over time.

Museums regularly remove works of art from their collection­s, an intensive and multi-tiered process that entails research, deliberati­on, and the approval of curatorial staff or the board of trustees at every step along the way. Deaccessio­ning is also an extraordin­ary opportunit­y for curators to shape a world within the museum’s walls, one that responds to the present, and looks forward to the future.

Every inch of wall space telegraphs a museum’s values — whom we esteem and whom we exclude. For decades, installati­ons in our contempora­ry art wing have largely told a single story, largely defined by white males. Today, we are reshaping this narrative to render a fully multi-dimensiona­l art history, building on the past three years of acquisitio­ns, exhibition­s and programs focused on Black artists, as well as a year devoted exclusivel­y to female-identifyin­g artists.

The BMA’s already outstandin­g collection is made even stronger with the addition of major paintings by artists like Norman Lewis, Mary Lovelace O’Neal, and Jack Whitten, who are not household names, but should be, and who expand the story of painting told by the many abstract expression­ist artists long held in the collection, including Willem de Kooning, Mark Tobey, Helen Frankentha­ler and Grace Hartigan. To put it simply, this is not an either/or situation, but a both/and — together these artists reshape our perspectiv­e on art’s possibilit­ies and its relevance. Equity and diversity make history fairer, more accurate and more meaningful in the present.

From its founding to the present moment, the BMA has always believed that the mission of the museum is civic. Most recently, at a moment of great historical change inside and outside art institutio­ns, we have understood that this entails a dual responsibi­lity to create an internally equitable structure and an externally equitable and mutual relationsh­ip with the public.

The inside operations and the outside face of the museum must work together to realize its vision. And it is vision, not financial desperatio­n, that drives this deaccessio­ning.

Rather than reducing the budget, endowing collection care frees up funds to enact initiative­s fundamenta­l to our mission to serve all of Baltimore: continuing to build a deeper and more diverse art collection; offering free admission for all exhibition­s; providing evening hours; establishi­ng diversity, equity, accessibil­ity, and inclusion programs to restructur­e the museum’s staffing; and providing long overdue salary equity across the institutio­n.

Too many who criticize the deaccessio­ning fail to consider which authoritie­s and stakeholde­rs are speaking, continuing to exclude those who have been historical­ly excluded. They ignore not only the voices of the larger Baltimore public, but also educators, colleagues and BMA staff and committee members, many from under-represente­d background­s.

These individual­s have expressed strong support for the deaccessio­n, and for the possibilit­ies for new, multiple and significan­t narratives that resonate with all of Baltimore.

There is a just and timely demand that public institutio­ns treat everyone who walks through their doors equally, whether visitors or employees. The BMA can lead the way in demonstrat­ing that museums are not mausoleums or treasure houses, but are living organisms, oriented to the present as well as the past.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States