Standing no more

Transparency needed on removal

It was reported in the April 16 edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts Foundation decided to remove the sculpture “Standing Red” by Tal Streeter from its collection. And that it is gone.

On a personal note, I was dismayed by the news. Fifty-one years ago, almost to the day, “Standing Red” greeted me as entered the Arts Center, reminding me of how sophisticated were the people of Arkansas to embrace and to prominently display a nonfigurative work of outdoor art.

It reminded me also of the importance of arts leadership, as the sculpture had been dedicated to Jeannette Rockefeller, who had been a significant fundraiser for the Arts Center and had chaired the board of directors; had it not been for Jeannette and her husband Winthrop, the Arts Center would very likely not exist today.

But maybe most importantly, Jeannette discovered, recruited, and persuaded the board to hire a very young man who lived in Memphis but taught an art class at the Arts Center Museum School — Townsend Wolfe — who became the executive director of the Arts Center, leading it in his 34-year tenure to national and international prominence.

I had the good fortune to work as Townsend’s assistant for nine years. In that time Townsend taught me a thing or two about arts management and museum operation. Among the many lessons I learned from Townsend had to do with the ethics of museum collecting including processes for acquisition and deaccessioning.

Deaccession is the process undertaken by a museum to remove a work from the permanent collection. It involves several steps that are laid out in a museum’s collection-management policy. The policy also sets forth the legal restrictions and ethical considerations associated with removal of the object and the types of disposal that are appropriate based on the reason for the deaccession. There are many legitimate reasons why deaccessioning might be considered. They include but are not limited to the following list of criteria:

1. The work is no longer consistent with the mission or collecting goals of the museum.

2. The work is of poor quality and lacks value for exhibition or study purposes.

3. The physical condition of the work is so poor that restoration is not practicable or would compromise the work’s integrity or the artist’s intent. Works damaged beyond reasonable repair that are not of use for study or teaching purposes may be destroyed.

4. The work is being sold as part of the museum’s effort to refine and improve its collections, in keeping with the collecting goals reviewed and approved by the museum’s board of trustees or governing body.

In all of the criteria that I am familiar with, nothing comes close to a legitimate rationale for deaccessioning “Standing Red.” I suspect, but do not know, that the sculpture was inconsistent with the vision of the contracted landscape architects’ vision for the surrounding grounds of the renovated Museum of Fine Arts. If that is the case, the removal of “Standing Red” would be a scandal. And unforgivable.

But let us assume for the moment that there was a legitimate rationale. If that were the case, then the collection-management policy of an accredited museum (the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts is accredited) would also set forth the following steps to justify the deaccession:

• Verification of legal status in order to determine if there are any restrictions that exist in the original gift, bequest, or purchase which may hinder or limit disposal options, including transfer of copyright or trademark.

• The need to establish clear and unrestricted title to ensure the museum can dispose of the work via legal sale without risk of improper title transfer.

• Physical examination: A conservator assesses the work to determine its current condition, future maintenance needs, and viable disposal options, such as possible sale or destruction.

• Object evaluation: Acquiring through one or more appraisers’ reasonable evaluations of the work should the work be disposed via sale, auction, transfer or exchange for value in kind with another institution.

• Director and/or governing board approval: Following an internal review by all relevant staff, all documentation is presented to the governing board and/or the CEO/museum director for final approval.

• Notification of donor and/or external stakeholders: Once the governing board and/or the CEO/museum director approves the deaccession, the last step before beginning disposal is the notification of donor and external stakeholders of the deaccession.

Although the museum (in this case the Museum Foundation) holds clear title of the work and is not obliged by law to contact the donor of intent to deaccession, many museums contact donors or relatives out of courtesy.

To avoid controversy, many museums may also confer with local community advisory groups, such as museum members, local collectors, other local museums, and volunteers about the deaccession to inform and gain community perspective on the work and its value to the collection. This clearly did not happen with respect to “Standing Red.” As a result, there is an unfortunate appearance of sketchy behavior by the Museum of Fine Arts leadership.

It behooves said leadership to be more transparent, to explain itself, and to do better. It is imperative that the museum take steps to regain its credibility and the public trust.