Much like my own personal ‘spring cleaning,’ museums must also assess their collections. More often than not this assessment of a museum’s collection is superficial; limited only to the exhibitions on display. Around ninety percent of a museum’s collection is housed in storage and will never be displayed again.
An article on BBC News introduces Jeremy Knight, curator of the Horsham Museum in Sussex, England. Over the years Knight has been pruning his museum’s collection, both on display and in storage, in order to revamp and expand its displays. As a result of Knight’s efforts, six new galleries were created from old store rooms. He says, “I take the view that objects have to work and earn their living by making them relevant to the people and showing the people the past through those objects.” Objects sitting neglected in storage are neither seen nor enjoyed by anyone. By allowing these objects to be sold not only benefits the museum but also adds to the life and worth of the object.
Just as the culling of my wardrobe creates an internal struggle; the reevaluation of a museum’s collection can sometimes cause a public and professional outcry. Fear over the public’s reaction can cause a museum to forgo selling its collection in storage and, thus, hinder the strength of its collection on display. It is essential, then, that a museum has open communication with the public about its decision to reassess its collection and share with them how they will use the profits. 
Jeremy Knight seems very clever. This article touches on a number of sensitive points addressing the process of de-accessioning. First and foremost, I wonder if his museum has developed a collections plan so that everyone can agree on what they should collect, and which objects have no value to the institution. While it is true that a museum can eventually express remorse for having sold a particular work, with a collections plan the rationale is clearly stated. Collections do become orphaned, and why should one museum have the responsibility of caring for a particular collection if it's not in their mission nor do they have intentions of studying and exhibiting it. For a few years, an program existed in the US to promote collections sharing among museums ("we'll share our Korean bronzes that have been in the storage closet with you, if you'll share your WPA prints that you never exhibit.") Unfortunately the program is now defunct. In any case, essential to the process is TRANSPARENCY. All profits from sales of art must go back to the collection. The Indianapolis Museum of Art is a model: http://www.imamuseum.org/art/collections/deaccession
ReplyDelete