Toward a New Transparency: The Indianapolis Museum of Art’s Deaccession Database
Posted by Britney on October 18, 2009
Britney Whiting-Looze: Case Study
Introduction: My case study explores the use of an online deaccession database maintained by the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA). This section of their vast website was created in order to inform the public about art objects leaving the care of the museum. This ties into my research because I am looking into how art museums deal with public value and issues of transparency/accountability in relation to collections management. IMA seems to be using their website and deaccession database to communicate with the public, I wish to explore that communication mechanism.
First, some definitions:
Accession – a new object added to an existing collection.
Deaccession – the sale, exchange, or transfer of an object from a museum’s collections.
Transparency – an implication of openness, communication, and accountability. i.e. an active effort to make information available to the public (or at least not hide anything).
Secondly, my bias:
I think of deaccessioning as a controversial act, especially in the United States. I believe that the expectation for museums to hold all items accessioned into the collection in perpetuity, thereby acting as a community attic/basement/storage locker, is ridiculous. Deaccessioning can be healthy for a museum, it refocuses the institution’s mission, and it provides revenue to strengthen the collection with new purchases. The public tends to think of deaccessioning as an act done in secret by the director or board of a museum, quietly selling or auctioning off an undesired or very valuable piece of art so the museum can fix the roof, put in a food court, or take the staff to the Bahamas. “Raiding the collection” is a common disparaging term applied to the practice. Done properly, transparently, I think of it as growth.
A) History of this portion of the IMA website
On March 16, 2009 the Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA) launched a new addition to their extensive, and very interactive, website – a database of objects deaccessioned from the collection (Press Release). ”‘In light of the recent economic downturn and the resulting financial strain experienced by museums, the topic of deaccessioning has become a front-burner issue, making institutional transparency more vital than ever,’ said Maxwell Anderson, The Melvin & Bren Simon Director and CEO of the IMA. ‘This searchable database will evolve to include information regarding how the IMA uses funds from deaccessioned works to enhance and shape the Museum collection.’” (from linked Press Release, para. 4).
While launched in 2009, IMA had been in the process of evaluating and deaccessioning objects for the past 2 years, IMA, “has embarked on a systematic evaluation of its collection since 2007 to identify candidates for deaccessioning (e.g. sale, transfer, or exchange). All objects proposed for deaccessioning are subject to the criteria and procedures outlined in the IMA’s Deaccession Policy. Since 2007, the furniture, antiquities, textiles, American painting, European painting and contemporary collections have been reviewed and assessed.” (from http://www.imamuseum.org/explore/deaccessions, para. 1) IMA maintains a “gone but not forgotten” attitude about works of art that have left the museum, or are destined to leave, since December of 2007.
Immediate reactions from the blogosphere suggested an attitude of outright elation: CultureGrrl Blog
Others, not so much, decrying the database as the museum’s very public betrayal of trust: The Art Law Blog
B) Main Issues
I take “issues” in this case study to mean two things. One, what issues this use of media presents to the public. Two, the issues – problems – I see with the site.
1) Issues of trust immediately come to mind. I have already given a brief sketch of what deaccessioning means to Americans. IMA is opening itself up to criticism by making this information public. Through the snippets of comments from various blogs I have read, this database seems to be something the public has been demanding for nearly 50 years, but now that they know, they don’t want to know. It is tough information to handle. Database visitors have the opportunity to leave comments on items up for deaccession, but I did not see any. Additionally, if you did leave a comment, what would happen? Would the item be taken out of the auction catalog? The database gives a lot of information about the objects, so much in fact that the one thing they don’t mention is a glaring omission. Namely, why is the museum removing the object from the collection?
2) To give a brief critique of the database – it is difficult to find. I looked at the site map to find it; you can also Google directly to the page. If you do not know what the term “deaccession” means, you can’t find the page. It takes exactly two clicks to get to the page once you know what to look for. The text on the main database page is incredibly small, and objects are viewable in groups of 10. There are 79 pages totaling about 782 objects. Scrolling through the tiny pages is tedious; something larger and more legible would be better. The search function is limited, and the results give you limited information until you click on an object. On the positive side, most entries give a wealth of information: photo, name of object, collection category, artist/nationality/birth-death, culture or people, creation date, materials, dimensions, credit line, accession number, deaccession date/received by/transfer notes/value/auction sale price, provenance, gallery label (see image below). Visitors to the database can also tag objects. The museum’s Deaccession Policy is linked from the main page as a PDF, which gives visitors a rare look into the museum’s collection management policies.
C) Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this online database are varied, but generally who you would expect:
- Donors – if the donor or relatives/friends of the donor are alive and aware of what is happening, there could be an intense reaction to seeing their donation publicly listed as going up for auction. Other donors may interpret the database as an act of trust between the museum and its public.
- Artists – if the artist or relatives/friends of the artist is alive and aware of what is happening, similar issues of trust could arise, more so if objects are a gift to the museum directly from the artist.
- Members/Visitors – there are several perspectives members can take about this issue. One of which is shock/disgust that the museum you support with your money is “getting rid of the art.” Conversely, you might be pleased to see the museum is removing items from the collection that are otherwise taking up valuable space in storage, don’t really belong in the museum, or could better serve some other person or institution. After all, money from auctioned objects is going directly back into buying artwork from the same curatorial area (i.e., sell an American painting dating from 1800-1945, buy an American painting dating from 1800-1945).
- Board/Staff – this online database is, in a word, gutsy. Reputations are at stake; it would be very easy for other media sources (local/national news, etc) to look up info on the donor and estimated value of an object and say some potentially negative things about the museum. While I appreciate the database as a resource, others may see it as low-hanging fruit to cause drama.
- Other museum professionals – this site could be used as a model for other museums, IMA is pioneering the deaccession transparency effort, and others may choose to follow their lead.
- Potential donors/members/visitors – depending on one’s personal interests, this database may encourage or discourage new individuals or organizations to support IMA.
In conclusion, do I think IMA’s database of deaccessioned objects is an amazing example of transparency that should be developed as a model for other museums around the country? Yes! They are pioneers in this particular issue, and I admire them for riding the tsunami of criticism that inevitably comes with such public endeavors.
I have provided links to further reading about interactivity/participation through museum websites. The first article is a critique about the ways in which the IMA website does or does not translate to an in-person visit: Avoiding the Participatory Ghetto: Are Museums Evolving with their Innovative Web Strategies? The second article is a response on IMA’s blog from the Chief Information Officer: In Response to Nina Simon: Bait and Switch.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
I find particular interest in your ‘issues’ area.
1) First of all, I would like you to post some quotes or perhaps even links to the blogs you mention. It would be interesting to find out what the specific criticism is in the dialogue about the web-based database. Is the problem with the content itself? What about the content? What’s being sold? How funds are used? Is the problem with the format of the database? Perhaps challenges about how the ‘comment’ areas are not being used–and even if they are how it is unclear how/if they would be reviewed by the institution? What about the omission you mention about ‘why’ items are being removed? Are there not policies or criteria in place for the selection of items for deaccession?
A question that I have–how is the virtual museum collection/exhibit space dealing with deaccession and collections? For example, as you pointed out, they database provides images and a great deal of information about each item for deaccession. While it may be true that the item in question, at some point, will no longer belong to the museum–doesn’t the museum still have these images and the information about the item in order to provide an e-visitor a virtual experience of the object? In other words, how is the relationship between virtual museum and brick/mortar museum collections evolving with new media technology?
October 20th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Fascinating – I’m glad I’ve gained insight into your research!
How museums make use of the participatory web will be a focus in my research, too — I’m looking at it as an internal process of resource allocation, contingent on a wonderful web of organizational mission, philosophies, and leadership. So naturally, your case study fascinates me because it’s clear that IMA has clearly “prioritized” deaccession policies so highly that it was willing to develop this amazing system…!
Granted, you’ve pointed out some critical points – what actually happens to submitted public comments? Why don’t they let us know why they’d like to deaccession in the first place? And moreover, I’d be interested to know who actually seeks out this site, leaves comments, and what they expect would happen as a result of their participation… can the IMA distinguish between public stakeholders with influence and the everyday Joe?
I like the transparency (and I like seeing how much the works sell for), but I’d be interested to know how IMA envisions or understands the end users of this information management system.
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Britney- As I mentioned in the hall the other day, this is brilliantly-presented case study; you stake out the issues clearly, and illustrate with a diverse range of related readings. I’ve been sucked into the online debate/discussion between Nina Simon and Rob Stein that emerges between the final two links provided in your post. I’m trying to link this debate back to the primary issue at hand—transparency and the the online deaccession database at IMA—and wonder what we might make of this quote from Rob Simon:
“I would argue that the two experiences (online vs onsite) are DISTINCTLY different and should be. There should be no disconnect here… we are simply matching the user experience with the user expectations and makeup of two distinctly different audiences. I see no problem in tailoring experiences different based on where they are encountered.”
I found it buried several comments down after his post on the IMA blog that you directed us to. He’s not talking about deaccession or policy or even transparency (directly, at least), but experience. In pondering the difference between online and onsite visits to the “same” institution, I’m wondering about the complex notion of ‘context’; what would a visit to an art museum’s physical site be like if you first walk in and encounter the deaccession database, maybe as some more visually-friendly version of the scrolling, LED ‘electronic newspapers’ we see at bus stations or other public depots? I agree with your assessment of the database regarding it’s ‘invisiblity’ on the IMA site (esp. in light of the promoted ‘transparency’ it entails!), but wonder if maybe this kind of ‘experience’ is somehow linked to an online visit (though not in any techno-determinst or causal way). What I mean here is maybe the cultural context or ethos of the web allows for the deaccession database in ways that the physical museum site does not. Worth thinking about, I assume, in light of Rob’s quote about—a quote that captures thoughts I had while reading Nina’s initial post.
Great job on this, and excellent comments from others so far as well. Let’s keep the conversation going…
October 26th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Wow… not being a museum person, I hadn’t thought much about this issue, but I can see what you are saying about it becoming a “front-burner” issue. Museums can’t be storage facilities, but at the same time, short term goals can’t supersede long term preservation (imagine if picasso or van gogh works had fell into disfavor years ago an we had no access to them today!).
It seems like this is a good example of where technology can help provide transparency and work towards solving a difficult problem (and allow dialogue where there was none). Maybe this particular database is clumsy/ imperfect, but it certainly provides some resolution where there was none before and seems to be overall greatly beneficial.
This case study opened my eyes to an issue I hadn’t thought much about. It is an interesting quandary for a museum to accept donations of work and then be able to sell/give it away contrary to the original donators intent. Would the JSMA have its Japanese collection if it was someday going to sell it off? Would the donor know? Would they or their heirs object? Probably… Interesting.. and problematic.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I guess my questions: (1) Is it really “transparency” when there no access? I really don’t see posting something on the web as transparent if we are not tuning into the language of the people. (2) How do they assess public value of this website or it’s effectiveness?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Great case study Britney!
What fascinates me most about this topic (aside from the fact that I never thought about the accession or deaccession of artworks) is the vulnerability to public criticism as a result of transparency. While the intent of the museum is to be forthright about the deaccession of artworks, it opens the museum to criticism from a populace that may have little insight on the big picture of museum collections and may have vested interest in the art being deaccessioned. The editorial combat between Simon and Stein are case in point– Simon has a lot of criticism about the use of online technology and new media to supplement the museum’s physical exhibit but criticizes without really understanding the big picture of museum programming.
By omitting the reason for the deaccession of an item, the museum leaves a lot to the interpretation of the public. A brief explanation would also give donors a glimpse into the big picture of museum collections and the mission and organization of the museum itself. I feel that the online listing is one step towards transparency, but also leaves more questions for the public than are answered. Perhaps more transparency into the inner workings of the museum through member newsletters, clarification of reasoning, or the ability for community dialog on the deaccession site would help the process be truly transparent and prevent confusion and bitterness by museum stakeholders.
Great study!
October 29th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Thank you for all the wonderful, insightful, constructive comments. As a museophile, I tend to have quick answers to a lot of the questions that came up here – for instance, Josh’s comment, “This case study opened my eyes to an issue I hadn’t thought much about. It is an interesting quandary for a museum to accept donations of work and then be able to sell/give it away contrary to the original donators intent.” My quick answer is that when artwork is donated, the donor signs an agreement that transfers the ownership of the item over to the museum (or state, whatever the case may be). Many agreements expressly state that the museum may not keep the work, they may sell it in order to purchase different works, or transfer it to another institution. When donors stipulate that the museum can’t EVER remove the work from the collection, or that it must ALWAYS be on view, the museum often won’t accept the donation. Lastly, at IMA, the donor is notified in the case of a deaccessioning.
My wow-I-see-your-question-from-a-different-perspective-now answer is, yeah, I get what you mean. While the donor may understand that their gift to a museum may not be a permanent part of the collection, other people affiliated with the museum may not get the fine points of gift agreements, and distrust the museum for “getting rid of” works.
In regard to the Simon/Stein debate, i.e. why I included it in my case study, it has less to do with deaccessioning than it has to do with the environments some museums create online and how they differ from the visitor experience in the real world. IMA created an online environment of transparency, but like several of you pointed out – what about people without internet access? what about using language that everyone can understand? how about a publicly accessible (and obvious) binder or bulletin in the physical museum?
Finally – Mindy really opened my eyes to some factors I hadn’t considered. For the purposes of this study, I read every page linked to the deaccession database. I read the museum’s deaccession policies (the PDF), I know what the museum does with the funds from deaccessioning, etc. But the average person visiting the site, if they don’t conduct an in-depth investigation, may miss those details. Transparency is great – and also problematic for the institution. Maybe a “deaccession FAQ” on the main page would help with these common questions. Mindy also asked for quotes from other blogs, conversations and articles about the heat museums take from deaccessioning – here’s one from 2005: “Until recently, a triad of standing women, signature works in bronze by the Swiss modern sculptor Alberto Giacometti, graced the permanent collection galleries of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. But now only two remain. The third, a likeness of the artist’s wife, is one of 42 Impressionist and modern works from its ‘permanent’ collection that the museum plans to sell at Sotheby’s today and tomorrow. These sales are the latest sign that we can no longer depend on our cultural institutions to protect and preserve the public patrimony.’…Curators use such sales to bankroll their shopping sprees. Major building projects accelerate this trend. As cultural institutions expand and modernize, they not only seek to outdo one another by commissioning the eye-popping or suavely elegant work of superstar architects, but also hope to redecorate their shiny new edifices with some appropriately breathtaking acquisitions. Since donors are already tapped out by the capital campaign, the collection becomes an irresistible source of financing for flashy new trophies.” (from the NYTimes, “For Sale: Our Permanent Collection.”)
October 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Britney:
I found your case study very interesting, and really enjoyed learning about your research topic. What a fabulous example the IMA is of transparency of practices in museum and of deaccessioning specifically. I am interested in the representation of collections online as well, and enjoyed the perspective that I gained from your examination.
You identified a few critical points, I was really surprised that the site never defines deaccession or the reason behind the museum’s decision to deaccession the object in question. The statement is made:”These efforts will allow the Museum to exchange select objects for others believed by today’s curatorial leadership to be better aligned with its mission.” As a home for society’s cultural objects and histories, museums should have the responsibility to the public it serves to be open about its deaccessioning (and accessioning for that matter) activity. I haven’t ever heard about transparent deaccessioning in a museum before, and I think the IMA is like you said, incredibly brave for taking on the inevitable criticism this will garner. This should serve as an invaluable model for other museums in how this issue should be approached.
“We will soon be linking deaccessioned artworks to artworks newly acquired by means of the relevant funds.” I am really interested to see how this will turn out. I think that showing the process full circle is very important.
I am curious about your research, what option are you doing? If you are doing a project, what will your outcome be? If it is a capstone, what other classes are you planning on taking to inform your study?
October 30th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Kaley – Hopefully I can address all your questions. IMA defines deaccession as “(e.g. sale, transfer, or exchange)” in the first sentence in teeny tiny font on the main deaccession page. In the PDF, reasons for deaccessioning an object are listed, including items that are mismatched with the mission of IMA, redundant items, etc. However, the policy document also fails to clearly define the term. Your comment really serves to point out two more critical issues!! 1 – How likely is it that a visitor will open and closely read the PDF of the Deaccession Policy? 2 – the really necessary definition of deaccessioning isn’t apparent enough. It should be in bigger, bolder text. Even an intro page before the database page would be useful in guiding the visitor.
The linking of deaccessioned artworks to newly acquired works has in fact begun, but you wouldn’t know it unless you sorted by deaccession date (most recent first), and went to the 8th page! A search function by “newly acquired works” would certainly be useful. I don’t know how to create links in the comments here, but copy and paste this address to see an example: http://www.imamuseum.org/explore/deaccessions?page=7&sort=desc&order=Deaccession+Date#deaccessions
I’m doing a capstone. I’m taking this course as well as Art Law and Reading/Research credits to complete my coursework requirement.