The Whitney’s Plan to Deaccession an Edward Hopper Sparks Conversations on Museum Ethics

In a quote to ARTnews, Jane Pancetta, curator and director of the collection at the Whitney said, “We want to grow the collection” and “this is part of hitting that goal.” Further, she framed the deaccession as within Whitney’s founding principles, to show work by living American artists. 

The act of deaccessioning is tricky for public and private museums to navigate because there are no official laws in the US that guide them. Most museum officials adhere to guidelines set in place by the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD). 

Museums can only sell art so that they may use the funds to buy more art that follows their mission. If they use the funds for other purposes, this is where things start to get hairy. In Cinnamon Catlin-Legutko’s article “Museum Administration 2.0,” she writes, “If proceeds are used in a different matter, the collection appears as a cash reserve to be used anytime it is needed.” Though many museums might struggle with financial stability, the AAMD put rules in place to avoid museum’s selling their collection to cover their financial burdens, which would both ruin the public’s trust in the institution, and open up the opportunity for museums to become auction houses, where anything could be sold for liquid funds.

But in recent years, issues such as reappropriation, fair wages, and diversity within a collection have been front of mind and have loosened these guidelines. In 2018, institutions started selling works of art and used the funds to improve the diversity of artists in their collections. This type of deaccessioning shows that museums are here to serve their communities in the present, and not just to uphold old standards of what art deserves to be shown. 

In addition, the pandemic played a major role in updating the guidelines. In early 2020, the AAMD loosened its restrictions on selling art so that museums would still be able to keep their doors open. The Baltimore Museum of Art is perhaps the most well-known in this matter. In 2021, the Museum  sold it’s only Clyfford Still and Brice Marden paintings, and offered an Andy Warhol privately. The sale was estimated to net $65 million. Of the revenue from the sale, $55 million were to go into an endowment fund, where $2.5 million would be spent yearly to cover collection care, the same amount would go toward salary increases for staff, and the remaining $10 million would go toward a more diverse collection. But Christopher Bedford, the director of the Baltimore Museum was slammed for this in the news, with opponents including former BMA board members and staffers, calling the actions a betrayal to the museum field. Christopher Knight, the Los Angeles Times art critic wrote that the BMA was “the leading poster child for art collection carelessness,” and that he was using Covid as a cover-up for his plans. Bedford’s plan was ultimately abandoned because of this pushback.

But it is an interesting idea to think about the Whitney’s recent plan for deaccessioning, as keeping with their mission to show work by living American artists. After all, the Whitney’s plan is within the AAMD’s guidelines. But isn’t Edward Hopper, who just had a landmark exhibition at the Museum, one of the founders of the great American art movement that the Whitney is lauded for collecting? The painting up for auction was loaned once to the White House during President Obama’s tenure. Doesn’t that type of prestige and history make this piece worth keeping?