Deaccessioning, despite a surplus of definitions in academia, is commonly understood as the administrative removal of an item from the museum’s collection leading to its disposal guided by the assumption that objects, while being public property, have intrinsic value.[1] The deaccessioning process has been under criticism and scrutiny since the early 1970s, when Metropolitan Museum of Art’s controversial Velazquez acquisition was financed through deaccessioning works bequeathed by Adelaide de Groot, causing significant public outrage.[2] While deaccessioning has considered a ‘dirty word’ ever since the de Groot scandal and is generally avoided on interest of the museum’s reputation, it is a necessary evil for keeping the museum financially solvent, the collection manageable and having the ability to answer to moral claims.[3] Moreover, despite significant and serious challenges inherent to deaccessioning, the collection manager can be guided by policies that appropriately respond to modern realities and ethics codes that provide professional guidance for diligent conduct.[4] The deaccessioning policies from the Walters Art Museum (Baltimore, USA) and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (Hobart, Australia) exemplify criteria, procedures and restrictions for deaccessioning practises which are practical, ethical and protect the public and the collection. Moreover, despite every positive of deaccessioning proposing several associated risks, there are procedures that can assist in thoroughly monitoring and managing deaccessioning processes.
Deaccessioning can provide financial resources essential to strengthening the financially-strained museum’s mission and visitor welfare. Economic problems in recent decades has caused museums to lay off staff, drop exhibitions, raise admission fees and struggle to fund the continuous costs of acquisitions, conservation and storage.[5] Despite the hesitation to view collections as financial assets, collection managers can be financially pragmatic through realising the commodity value of their collections instead of being confronted by undesirable alternatives.[6] However, although some museums do not require additions to their collections to strengthen their mission, most ethic codes and deaccessioning policies prohibit any use of funds outside of acquisitions.[7] Unfortunately, acquisition endowments may not sustain or improve visitor welfare when the financial resources could be pragmatically applied to suffering or neglected areas of museum management.[8] For example, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, if released from the Association of Art Museum Director’s (AAMD) impeachment of proceeds, could overcome its 60 billion dollar deficit through selling 0.3% of the collection and provide infinite free admission through selling 2%- triggering an increase in visitor welfare that could not be achieved through new acquisitions.[9]
The liberal use of deaccessioning funds is a controversial practise. Moreover, the act of selling collections for financial solvency is considered a short-term panic measure.[10] According to former AAMD president Susan Taylor, collections should never be considered liquid assets as they are records of human creativity held in the public trust.[11] Moreover, deaccessioning deliberately for financial gain has been criticised for using art as a tradeable commodity to fund museum developments, running costs or salaries and should be avoided at all costs, even if the institution is facing bankruptcy.[12] Additionally, the non-acquisition spending of funds sourced from art sales can disturb the public through the commercialisation of a space that they use for social, spiritual and intangible purposes.[13] Moreover, to highlight these risks, the International Council of Museums (ICOM) states that collections are not a realisable asset but are held in public trust to which any monetary compensation of deaccessioning should be for the benefit of the collection.[14]
Given the risks associated with liberal spending, the collection manager can avoid controversy and amplify the good aspects of deaccessioning guided by policies and ethics codes.[15] Regulation through deaccessioning policies, which provide thorough criteria, procedures and restrictions, can enhance the collection manager’s due diligence.[16] Policies include beneficial stipulations such as a hierarchy of decisions-makers enabling intense speculation; such as the Walters Art Museum’s policy dictating that deaccessions must have approval from the trustees and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.[17] Policies also can be referred to for proceeds guidance. For instance, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery’s policy recognises that deaccessions generate income but restricts funds to acquisitions with a priority for the same area of the collection, a clause echoed as a primary principle of the Walters Art Museum’s deaccessioning policy.[18] To further minimise controversial practise, the collection manager can be guided by ethics codes provided by organisations such as ICOM, American Alliance of Museums and Museums Australia while also regularly reviewing their deaccessioning policy and analysing precedent deaccessions and their respective outcomes.[19] Despite the temptation of using the deaccessioning proceeds to reduce the museum’s financial strife, liberal deaccessioning comes with significant risks and the collection manager should be motivated by professional integrity and accountability to ensure a diligent process.
Nevertheless, deaccessioning can be a sustainable practise in refining and strengthening the museum’s collections. For many institutions, collections were initiated through the over acceptance of gifts before the introduction of thorough collection policies in the 1960s.[20] Furthermore, as museums focussed their missions and the pressures of conservation and storage increased, the initial lack of concern for size and cohesiveness resulted in collections outside of the museum’s scope.[21] With hindsight, deaccessioning can aid museums in focussing on quality collections rather than ever-expansive ones through not accumulating objects that do not further goals.[22] Henceforth, deaccessioning allows a periodic evaluation that improves the collection’s focus and function through increasing acquisition quality and allowing items, which may have been sitting in storage, have a full lives elsewhere.[23] Moreover, deaccessioning allows fluid adaption to changing policies and circumstances.[24] Museums exist for the public and, thus, the procedural reshaping of collections through rational deaccessions allows the relationship between collection and community to be strengthened.[25]
However, deaccessioning for collection refinement risks damaging the museum’s reputation which depends on the relationship between the museum and its community and donors. As the museum’s largest stakeholder, the public must be kept at the forefront of the collection manager’s mission.[26] Moreover, museum professionals must comprehend that that they are trustees of collections which belong to the public and that deaccessioning is ultimately the alienation of public property.[27] Museums survive on the goodwill of their donors and public and, thus, when art is taken out of the public domain, despite the practical, ethical or financial necessity, there can be detrimental withdrawals of support.[28] For example, despite the Toledo Museum of Art selling dozens of antiquities with scrupulous compliance to ethical and policy frameworks, the Egyptian government sought sanctions against the museum, including their removal from ICOM and barring school visits.[29] However, such repercussions over art leaving the public domain occur due to reactionary media and the ambiguity of professionals not highlighting the benefits of deaccessioning.[30] While the publicity of a deaccession is at the museum’s discretion, failing to disclose practises reinforces feelings of deception and creates doubt on the transparency of the museum’s management.[31]
However, the collection manager can ensure deaccessioning for collection refinement prioritises public interest. Comprehending that public distrust is fuelled by secretive attitudes, the collection manager can aim for a high level of disclosure in deaccessioning practises to reassure the public.[32] For instance, the Walters Art Museum’s policy integrates advantageous provisions to sustain donor trust. Deaccessions cannot violate provisions of gift, will and donor’s intent, and if deaccessioned, the funds used for a new acquisition must credit the original donor.[33] Moreover, the collection manager can be guided by the American Association of Museum’s suggestion to promote public trust through full disclosure and transparency in the deaccessioning policy.[34] This method promoting honesty and integrity is evident in the Walters Art Museum’s policy’s condition that all deaccessions must be published on their website (see: https://thewalters.org/about/deaccessions/).[35] The Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery’s policy similarly supports this sentiment, requiring a public notice of a potential deaccession, giving the public sufficient opportunity to voice concerns.[36] Moreover, to effectively refine the collection and avoid public controversy and protect community and donor trust, the collection manager should promote full transparency.
Deaccessioning for collection refinement also risks disposing public art on the basis of subjective aesthetic judgements. While the collection manager aims to keep collections relevant to public interest, deaccessioning to meet contemporary tastes is highly contentious.[37] Despite assisting in refining collections, such as removing irrelevant works to fund an acquisition to fill a gap, it is argued that it is a-historical and anti-intellectual to consider disposing a work because it is experiencing a low tide of popularity.[38] Deaccessioning on the basis of fashion insults the unique characteristic and artistic expression of the work, damages the art market through endangering the reputation of living artists and ignores that the collection may be more significant if kept a whole.[39] Moreover, deaccessioning should not occur on the basis of taste and, arguably, collection managers should live with the decisions of their predecessors and work on strengthening the relationship between the existing collection and public.[40]
Moreover, it is possible for the collection manager to protect temporarily outmoded art through the process of collection refinement. They can be guided, for instance, by ICOM’s suggestion that any deaccessions can only be undertaken with a full understanding of the significance of the item, which is influenced by factors outside of aesthetic value.[41] Though both deaccessioning policies of the Walters Art Museum and Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery consider poor aesthetic quality to be a suitable criteria for deaccessioning, they provide guidance against disposals based on fashion.[42] The Walters Art Museum’s policy suggests that the collection is a valuable cultural asset in itself, as a legacy to the founder, and should be kept as a whole even when individual objects are considered inessential.[43] Additionally, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery prevents the fleetingness of fashion through restricting the deaccessioning of works of living artists or when acquired within the last ten years.[44] Such specific stipulations protect the collection from the inherent dangers of assessing works according to aesthetics.[45] Moreover, the collection manager should consider factors outside of aesthetic value when negotiating an object for deaccession to protect its purpose and function within the collection.
The deaccessioning process must be approached with sensitivity through administrative provisions when responding to moral claims. Deaccessions can be a consequence of questionable decisions, such as acquisitions of human remains, sacred items, looted works or cultural objects which are being requested to be removed from the collection.[46] The collection manager should consider the full humanitarian claim from the descendants and cultural or religious groups to reflect the democratic and civilised society the museum exists within over any interests the museum has in regards to the item.[47] For instance, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery being subject to the Tasmanian Museum Act and a deaccessioning policy exclusive to Indigenous art and cultural material has given trustees broad power to dispose of the collection when it best serves the public.[48] Through this, they had the ability to return the ancestral remains of one Maori person acquired between 1848 and 1879 to New Zealand in 2007.[49] However, despite dedication to continuous reparation, moral claims can be complex. For instance, when trusts are administered for the public at large, a common structure in the USA, they can only act for the benefit of the trust and do not have the freedom to deaccession the collection when it is not in direct breach of the trust, making moral claims considerably difficult to process.[50] Additionally, on moral claims, an institution might not deaccession an item, based on the strength and clarity of the claim and the complexity of balancing moral actions, legal restraints and working in the best interest of the collection and public.[51]
However, the collection manager should position themselves to deaccession an item for reparation where possible. The Walters Art Museum’s policy stipulates that reparation can occur when the possession of the object is inconsistent with applicable law or there is a competing ownership claim with merit and all other measures to resolve the claim have been exhausted.[52] The Tasmania Museum and Art Gallery’s policy, referencing the Art and Decorative Arts collection, outlines that works can be considered for deaccessioning if they have not been lawfully obtained and have been legitimately claimed by their rightful owners.[53] Moreover, acting under general policies, the collection manager can interpret the necessity of a deaccession through deciphering the strength of the claim, the museum’s obligation and the best outcome for the collection and public. However, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery provides a separate deaccessioning policy for the deaccession and disposal of Indigenous cultural material. The policy stipulates that objects may be deaccessioned if they are needed for research, the item has been stolen or lost, it is no longer ethical to keep and any objects which come under the terms of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 and the Museums (Aboriginal Remains) Act 1984.[54] This policy provides the collection manager means to analyse the specific needs of Indigenous cultural material in a highly didactic and sensitive mannerism outside the broader criteria of general deaccessioning policies. Moreover, collection managers can act appropriately when responding to moral claims through the provisions of their institutions’ policies and local laws.
In conclusion, deaccessioning can be a beneficial tool used by museums to fund new acquisitions, refine and develop the collection and process moral claims. Despite the risks of liberal spending of proceeds, lack of respect of public property, disposals driven by relevance and contemporary taste and the complexity of moral claims, deaccessions can achieve positive outcomes if properly governed. As exemplified by the Walters Art Museum and the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, policies can adequately guide collection managers through deaccessions to desirable outcomes through detailed restrictions, criteria and procedures and ethical codes can also be drawn upon to maintain a diligent deaccessioning process. Moreover, through understanding the necessary, although unromantic, process of deaccessioning, museums can serve their publics through legitimised processes that ensure vigilance and credibility in collection management.
Bibliography
“Acquisition and Disposal of Collections.” Smithsonian Institution. Accessed May 5 2017. https://www.si.edu/content/opanda/docs/Rpts2005/05.04.ConcernAtTheCore.Disposal.pdf.
American Alliance of Museums. Alliance Activity Guide: Accessioning Activity. Arlington, VA: American Alliance of Museums, 2012.
Australian Government represented by the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport. “Deaccessioning of Material from the Collection.” Collections Law. June 30, 2009. Accessed May 30, 2017. http://www.collectionslaw.com.au/deaccessioning.
Benedict, Karen. “Invitation to a Bonfire: Reappraisal and Deaccessioning of Records as Collection Management Tools in an Archies- A Reply to Leonard Rapport.” The American Archivist 47 (1984): 43-49.
Besterman, Tristram. “Disposals from Museum Collections: Ethics and Practicalities.” Museums Management and Curatorship 11 (1992): 29-44.
Blair, Elizabeth. “As Museums Try To Make Ends Meet, ‘Deaccession’ Is The Art World’s Dirty Word.” Transcript. National Public Radio. August 11, 2014.
Caban, Jessica. “Charity, Morality and the Relinquishment of Objects from Museum Collections.” Art Antiquity and Law 8 (2008): 313-322.
Chen, Sue. “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty.” Art Antiquity and Law 19 (2009): 103-142.
Drum, Kevin. “Art Museums Should Be Allowed to Participate in Both Sides of the Free Market.” Mother Jones, April 22, 2016. Accessed May 1, 2017. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/art-museums-should-be-allowed-participate-both-sides-free-market.
Fincham, Derek. “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust.” Art, Antiquity & Law 16, no.2 (2011): 93-129.
Gedert, Roberta. “Egypt wants sanctions against museum for selling antiquities.” The Toledo Blade, October 29, 2016. Accessed May 1, 2017. http://www.toledoblade.com/Art/2016/10/29/Egypt-wants-sanctions-against-museum-for-selling-antiquities.html.
Goldstein, Jason R. “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word.” Cardozo Arts and Ent. L.J. 15 (1997): 213-247.
Hiller, Steven H. “Selling Items from Museum Collections.” International Journal of Museum Management & Curatorship 4, no.3 (1985): 289-294.
Hope Stephens, Heather. “All in a Day’s Work: How Museums May Approach Deaccessioning as a Necessary Collections Management Tool.” Journal of Art Technology and Intelligence 119 (2011-12): 119-181.
International Council of Museums. ICOM: Code of Ethics for Museums. Paris, France: International Council of Museums (ICOM), 2013. Accessed May 11, 2017. http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Codes/code_ethics2013_eng.pdf.
Malaro, Marie C. “Deaccessioning: the American Perspective.” Museum Management and Curatorship 10 (1991): 273-279.
O’Toole, Fintan. “The ‘deaccessioning’ of art – an ugly word for an ugly deed.” Irish Times, June 13, 2015. Accessed May 5, 2017. http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-the-deaccessioning-of-art-an-ugly-word-for-an-ugly-deed-1.2247806.
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. “Deaccession and Disposal Policy (2008) – Art and Decorative Arts Collection.” Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. 2008. Accessed May 30, 2017. http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/policies/deaccession_and_disposal_policy_2008_art_and_decorative_arts_collection.
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. “Deaccession and Disposal Policy Indigenous Cultures.” Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. 2008. Accessed May 30, 2017. http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/policies/deaccession_and_disposal_policy_indigenous_cultures.
The Walters Art Museum. “Collection Management Policy.” Approved 11 November 2014. Accessed 14 May 2017. https://thewalters.org/assets/pdf/policy/collections-management-policy.pdf.
Treble, Patricia. “Why art galleries are quietly clearing out their vaults: Inside the quiet world of deaccessioning, where art in vaults is being sold to pay for pricey renos or more desirable pieces.” Macleans, February 28, 2016. Accessed May 15, 2017. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/arts/art-galleries-are-quietly-clearing-out-their-vaults-to-private-bidders/.
Vecco, Marilena and Michele Piazzai. “Deaccessioning of museum collections: What do we know and where do we stand in Europe?” Journal of Cultural Heritage 16, no.2 (2015): 221-27.
Footnotes
[1] Marilena Vecco and Michele Piazzai, “Deaccessioning of museum collections: What do we know and where do we stand in Europe?” Journal of Cultural Heritage 16, no.2 (2015): 222.
Australian Government represented by the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, “Deaccessioning of Material from the Collection,” Collections Law, June 30, 2009, accessed May 30, 2017, http://www.collectionslaw.com.au/deaccessioning.
Steven H. Hiller, “Selling Items from Museum Collections,” International Journal of Museum Management & Curatorship 4, no.3 (1985): 289.
[2] Sue Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” Art Antiquity and Law 19 (2009): 103-4.
[3] “Acquisition and Disposal of Collections,” Smithsonian Institution, accessed May 5 2017, https://www.si.edu/content/opanda/docs/Rpts2005/05.04.ConcernAtTheCore.Disposal.pdf, 189,
Jason R. Goldstein, “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word,” Cardozo Arts and Ent. L.J. 15 (1997): 216.
[4] “Acquisition and Disposal of Collections,” 193.
Heather Hope Stephens, “All in a Day’s Work: How Museums May Approach Deaccessioning as a Necessary Collections Management Tool,” Journal of Art Technology and Intelligence 119 (2011-12): 136.
[5] Derek Fincham, “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust,” Art, Antiquity & Law 16, no.2 (2011): 109.Fincham, “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust,” 96.
[6] Vecco and Piazzai, “Deaccessioning of museum collections,” 224.
[7] Elizabeth Blair, “As Museums Try to Make Ends Meet, ‘Deaccession’ Is the Art World’s Dirty Word,” transcript, National Public Radio., August 11, 2014.
[8] Goldstein, “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word,” 216.
Fincham, “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust,” 115.
[9] Kevin Drum, “Art Museums Should Be Allowed to Participate in Both Sides of the Free Market,” Mother Jones, April 22, 2016, accessed May 1, 2017, http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/art-museums-should-be-allowed-participate-both-sides-free-market.
[10] Fintan O’Toole, “The ‘deacessioning’ of art- an ugly word for an ugly deed,” Irish Times, June 13, 2015, accessed May 5, 2017, http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-the-deaccessioning-of-art-an-ugly-word-for-an-ugly-deed-1.2247806.
[11] O’Toole, “The ‘deacessioning’ of art- an ugly word for an ugly deed.”
[12] Tristram Besterman, “Disposals from Museum Collections: Ethics and Practicalities,” Museums Management and Curatorship 11 (1992): 35.
“Acquisition and Disposal of Collections,” 170.
[13] Hiller, “Selling Items from Museum Collections,” 292.
[14] International Council of Museums, ICOM: Code of Ethics for Museums (Paris, France: International Council of Museums (ICOM), 2013), accessed May 11, 2017, http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Codes/code_ethics2013_eng.pdf, 2.16.
[15] Vecco and Piazzai, “Deaccessioning of museum collections,” 225.
Goldstein, “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word,” 230.
[16] Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” 115.
[17] Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” 121.The Walters Art Museum, “Collection Management Policy,” approved 11 November 2014, accessed 14 May 2017, https://thewalters.org/assets/pdf/policy/collections-management-policy.pdf, 10.
[18] Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, “Deaccession and Disposal Policy (2008) – Art and Decorative Arts Collection,” Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, 2008, accessed May 30, 2017, http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/policies/deaccession_and_disposal_policy_2008_art_and_decorative_arts_collection.
The Walters Art Museum, “Collection Management Policy,” 10.
[19] Marie C. Malaro, “Deaccessioning: the American Perspective,” Museum Management and Curatorship 10 (1991): 274.
American Alliance of Museums, Alliance Activity Guide: Accessioning Activity (Arlington, VA: American Alliance of Museums, 2012): 2.
Goldstein, “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word,” 230.
[20] Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” 107.
“Acquisition and Disposal of Collections,” 142.
[21] “Acquisition and Disposal of Collections,” 143.Malaro, “Deaccessioning: the American Perspective,” 276.
[22] Besterman, “Disposals from Museum Collections,” 34.
Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” 111.
Hope Stephens, “All in a Day’s Work,” 133.
[23] Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” 109.Australian Government, “Deaccessioning of Material from the Collection.”
Vecco and Piazzai, “Deaccessioning of museum collections,” 223.
[24] Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” 113.
Fincham, “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust,” 96.
[25] Chen, “Art Deaccessions and the Limits of Fiduciary Duty,” 108.
[26] Fincham, “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust,” 110.
Hope Stephens, “All in a Day’s Work,”122-123.
[27]Besterman, “Disposals from Museum Collections,” 41.
Goldstein, “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word,” 214.
[28] Hiller, “Selling Items from Museum Collections,” 294.
[29] Roberta Gedert, “Egypt wants sanctions against museum for selling antiquities,” The Toledo Blade, October 29, 2016, accessed May 1, 2017, http://www.toledoblade.com/Art/2016/10/29/Egypt-wants-sanctions-against-museum-for-selling-antiquities.html.
[30] Vecco and Piazzai, “Deaccessioning of museum collections,”222.
[31] Fincham, “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust,” 99.
Goldstein, “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word,” 226.
Malaro, “Deaccessioning: the American Perspective,” 278.
[32] Goldstein, “Deaccession: Not Such a Dirty Word,” 224.
Patricia Treble, “Why art galleries are quietly clearing out their vaults: Inside the quiet world of deaccessioning, where art in vaults is being sold to pay for pricey renos or more desirable pieces,” Macleans, February 28, 2016, accessed May 15, 2017, http://www.macleans.ca/culture/arts/art-galleries-are-quietly-clearing-out-their-vaults-to-private-bidders/.
[33] The Walters Art Museum, “Collection Management Policy,” 11.
[34] Malaro, “Deaccessioning: the American Perspective,” 275.
[35] The Walters Art Museum, “Collection Management Policy,” 13.
[36] Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, “Deaccession and Disposal Policy (2008).”
[37] Fincham, “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust,” 123.
[38] Fincham, “Deaccession of Art from the Public Trust,” 123.
Karen Benedict, “Invitation to a Bonfire: Reappraisal and Deaccessioning of Records as Collection Management Tools in an Archives- A Reply to Leonard Rapport,” The American Archivist 47 (1984): 48.
[39] Australian Government, “Deaccessioning of Material from the Collection.”
[40] “Acquisition and Disposal of Collections,” 170.
Besterman, “Disposals from Museum Collections,” 41.
[41] International Council of Museums, ICOM: Code of Ethics for Museums, 2.13.
[42] Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, “Deaccession and Disposal Policy (2008).”
The Walters Art Museum, “Collection Management Policy,” 11.
[43] The Walters Art Museum, “Collection Management Policy,” 10.
[44] Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, “Deaccession and Disposal Policy (2008).”
[45] Australian Government, “Deaccessioning of Material from the Collection.”
[46] Jessica Caban, “Charity, Morality and the Relinquishment of Objects from Museum Collections,” Art Antiquity and Law 8 (2008): 313.
[47] Besterman, “Disposals from Museum Collections,” 34.
[48] Caban, “Charity, Morality and the Relinquishment of Objects from Museum Collections,” 315.
[49] Caban, “Charity, Morality and the Relinquishment of Objects from Museum Collections,” 317.
[50] Caban, “Charity, Morality and the Relinquishment of Objects from Museum Collections,” 315.
[51] Caban, “Charity, Morality and the Relinquishment of Objects from Museum Collections,” 322.
[52] The Walters Art Museum, “Collection Management Policy,” 11.
[53] Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, “Deaccession and Disposal Policy (2008).”
[54] Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, “Deaccession and Disposal Policy Indigenous Cultures,” Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, 2008, accessed May 30, 2017, http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/policies/deaccession_and_disposal_policy_indigenous_cultures.