The Denver Post

Facing deficit, the Met considers selling art to help pay the bills

- By Robin Pogrebin

Facing a potential shortfall of $150 million because of the pandemic, the Metropolit­an Museum of Art has begun conversati­ons with auction houses and its curators about selling some artworks to help pay for care of the collection.

“This is the time when we need to keep our options open,” said Max Hollein, the Met’s director, in an interview. “None of us have a full perspectiv­e on how the pandemic will play out. It would be inappropri­ate for us not to consider it when we’re still in this foggy situation.”

Like many institutio­ns, the Met is looking to take advantage of a two-year window in which the Associatio­n of Art Museum Directors — a profession­al organizati­on that guides its members’ best practices — has relaxed the guidelines that govern how proceeds from sales of works in a collection (known as deaccessio­ning) can be directed.

In the past, museums were permitted to use such funds only for future art purchases. But last spring, the associatio­n announced that, through April 10, 2022, it would not penalize museums that “use the proceeds from deaccessio­ned art to pay for expenses associated with the direct care of collection­s.”

The Brooklyn Museum led the way last fall in taking advantage of this shift, raising $31 million at auction sales in the United States and Europe for the care of its artworks.

More controvers­ially, the Baltimore Museum of Art followed suit soon after by announcing that it would deaccessio­n paintings by Brice Marden, Clyfford Still and Andy Warhol. After criticism and talks with the museum directors associatio­n, the museum decided to pull the works by Still and Marden two hours before the sale.

As museums periodical­ly do routinely, the Met’s curators will evaluate the holdings in their department­s with an eye to which pieces are duplicativ­e or have been supplanted by better examples, or have rarely — if ever — been shown.

Works to be sold will then

have to be approved by department heads, the museum’s director and the board before public auction. The board also has to first approve a revision to the Met’s collection­s care policy, a move expected at the trustee meeting in March.

EvenastheM­etisre-evaluating its collection for works to sell to pay for collection­s care, the museum is also trying to bulk up its holdings in neglected areassucha­sworksbywo­men and people of color.

In the wake of George Floyd’s killing and a reckoning around race nationwide, as well as inside the museum, the Met in

July issued a letter committing to a fund of $3 million to $5 million “to support initiative­s, exhibition­s, and acquisitio­ns in the area of diverse art histories.”

The Met also pledged to establish within the next 12 months acquisitio­n endowments of $10 million to increase the amount of works by artists of color “in our 20th- and 21stcentur­y collection­s.”

But Hollein emphasized that building the Met’s holdings in these underrepre­sented areas would not mean diminishin­g historical categories. He cited as an example the Met’s 2020 acquisitio­n of “The Temptation of Saint Mary Magdalen,” circa 1626, and “Virgin and Child Enthroned,” circa 1345-50.

“I want to avoid any misconcept­ion that, because we have some added priorities, that makes us deaccessio­n works to achieve those goals,” he added. “One thing has nothing to do with the other.”

Hollein was perhaps mindful of the criticism of the Baltimore Museum’s director, Christophe­r Bedford, for deaccessio­ning seven blue-chip paintings in 2018 to buy works by women and artists of color. (The 2020 sale was meant to raise money to address pay disparitie­s in response to demands from the museum’s staff.)

Perhaps most starkly, the Indianapol­is Art Museum — confrontin­g steep storage and conservati­on costs — spent years ranking each of the 54,000 items in its collection with letter grades. Twenty percent of the items received a D, making themcandid­atestobeso­ldor given to another institutio­n.

In interviews, curators at the Met seemed to recognize that relaxing the rules was a necessary step. “There is some urgency in this,” said Ian Alteveer, the Met’s curator of modern and contempora­ry art. “We’re facing a huge budget deficit. We’ve tried for years to get more robust funding for conservati­on, one of the prime things related to collection­s care.”

Understand­ing that deaccessio­ning can be a lightning rod — particular­ly if members of the public object to specific sales — Hollein said that engaging in this evaluation process is the more conscienti­ous course of action.

“Every museum in the U.S. is having these conversati­ons,” he said.“‘Dowewantto­usethis window? What would it mean for the institutio­n? What would it mean for the collection?’ For us not to discuss this now would be irresponsi­ble.”

 ?? Christie's Images Ltd., via The New York Times ?? A Camille Corot portrait of a woman was among the art works deaccessio­ned by the Brooklyn Museum. It sold for $125,000 at Christie’s last fall.
Christie's Images Ltd., via The New York Times A Camille Corot portrait of a woman was among the art works deaccessio­ned by the Brooklyn Museum. It sold for $125,000 at Christie’s last fall.
 ?? John Minchillo, Associated Press file ?? Visitors and staff observe COVID-19 prevention protocols in halls of The Met Cloisters, a branch of the Metropolit­an Museum of Art in New York.
John Minchillo, Associated Press file Visitors and staff observe COVID-19 prevention protocols in halls of The Met Cloisters, a branch of the Metropolit­an Museum of Art in New York.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States