Stuffed deer heads on walls are bad enough, but it's worse when they are wearing dark glasses and have streamers in their antlers because then you know they were enjoying themselves at a party when they were shot.
— Ellen DeGeneres

I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the truth of imagination. What the imagination seizes as beauty must be truth—whether it existed before or not.
— John Keats

Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together.
— Eugene Ionesco

The future will be better tomorrow.
— Dan Quayle


Deaccession: What Does Google Tell Us?

The first thing that comes up when you google “deaccession” is a definition from TheFreeDictionary: “To remove and sell (a work of art) from a museum's collection, especially in order to purchase other works of art...” deaccession

Then I wondered what would come up if you google “deaccession policy.” What you get is a whole whack of different policies from different organizations, not all museums. Artifacts, fossils, books, other cultural objects—they all have a rationale for what gets deaccessioned and why. In almost every case, the FIRST rationale is that the object(s) fall outside the parameter of the collection as articulated in the organization’s mission statement. So, no matter your thoughts on antiquities and the Albright, it seems pretty clear that the current deaccession is following, quite tightly, the overriding rationale for such efforts, unless I entirely misread the Albright’s Mission Statement Again, that can be found here: AK Mission Statement.

Also, someone brought this interesting rhetorical question to my attention this week: if antiquities are really a valid part of the Albright’s mission and collection, how come former Albright-Knox Director Douglas Schultz didn’t spend his 18 years at the helm bulking up THAT part of the collection? After all that time, the 200 works in question (out of 6500) represent only 3.07% of the overall collection. That’s a token inclusion, at best.

Anyhow, here are a collection of deaccession policy remarks (with links). As you can see, falling outside of the collection parameters is typically the first reason for deaccession. I could not find one single mention of selling the farm...

“The material is outside the scope of, or is irrelevant to the mission...”
deaccession

“Object is not consistent with the Aurora Regional Fire Museum's "Mission" or "Collection Statements".
deaccession

“...lack of historical relevance to the University; lack of relevance to the University's long term strategic plan...”
deaccession

“In fulfilling its mission, the NFSA constantly seeks to refine and improve the focus of its collections. Deaccessioning is primarily a means to ensure that the quality, depth and breadth of the NFSA’s holdings reflect and support its charter, mission and goals.”
deaccession

“...removing works determined to be unfit or inappropriate for the collection...”
deaccession

“Does the material fall within the scope of current collecting policies?”
deaccession

“Collection items of secondary significance, unrelated to the geographic or thematic sites or areas managed by the Commission, of duplicate nature, or otherwise meeting the deaccession criteria noted in the Collections Policy & Procedure Manual, may be deaccessioned by the Commission as per this policy.”
deaccession

“The material or object is outside the scope of the particular department's mission statement or its collection policy.”
deaccession

“Lack of relevance to the particular work or interests of the relevant faculty, school, institute, centre or department of the Cultural Collection and its acquisitions policy...”
deaccession

“ Lack of historical relevance to the College...Lack of relevance to the College's long term strategic plan...”
deaccession

“SOIC reserves the right to deaccession materials it finds no longer apply to the goal of the organization...”
“ To establish order and purpose to the collection...It is outside the scope of collections...”
deaccession

I didn’t troll through EVERY link, particularly when they all pretty much said the same thing. The one notable exception I found was the one below, which FIRST discouraged the notion of any deaccession at all. However, it should be noted that the reason for this is because the objects in question are very specific, having to do with the Starr Piano Company and Gennett Records of Richmond, Indiana:

“1. Given the Foundation’s mission to acquire objects and keep them for posterity, deaccession of any item in the Foundation’s collection should be discouraged. 2. However, the following circumstances may necessitate the removal of objects from the Foundation’s collection: 1. An item has been destroyed. 2. An item is not relevant to the collection.”
deaccession

Trolling for OTHER Albright news...
Last August, Charlie Finch wrote an interesting piece for artnet in which he sat at a Yankees game with Louis Grachos and “reviewed” the Extreme Abstraction exhibition based solely on the exhibition catalogue. Appearing a year before the hard deaccession rain came a-fallin’, there are some interesting remarks by Finch that remind us of how the Albright is perceived out there in the world: “The Museum of Modern Art should bus its curators to Buffalo for an abject lesson in integrating the best current art with the classics. "ExAb at A-K" culls the very best pieces from the living and the departed to create a seamless curatorial marvel.” and: “As with all great curations, "Extreme Abstraction" compels you to re-examine artists you may dislike or ignore.” and: " ‘A few of our trustees wanted us to remove that one [Tom Sachs’ Broadway Boogie Woogie],’ Grachos chuckled. That’s why the Buffalo art hub remains a temple of high modernism.” 

Tom Sachs • Broadway Boogie Woogie • 1996 • Gaffers tape on plywood
Artnet




I have meant what I have done. Or—I have often meant what I have done. Or—I have sometimes meant what I have done. Or—I have tried to mean what I was doing.
— Jasper Johns

I might repeat to myself slowly and soothingly a list of quotations beautiful from minds profound...if I can remember any of the damn things.
— Dorothy Parker

An alcoholic is someone you don't like who drinks as much as you do.
— Dylan Thomas

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
— Galileo

Ben Perrone’s Rebuttal
Last week, as I’ve been doing with other public remarks, I spent 448 words to remark on some comments by Ben Perrone in a recent print issue of Buffalo Rising magazine, regarding the dreaded Albright deaccession issue. I commend Ben on his moxie. My remarks were prompted by the logic that if you write a letter to the editor and toss out some public opinions, those remarks become fair game. Likewise, my own remarks in a reasonably-public email are equally fair game.

At his request, I indicated I would allow Ben to respond, if he could do so concisely. It took him 937 words and here they are:
“I have recently been criticized by John Messier in a Hallwalls on line newsletter, about a letter published in Art Voice (sic) in November that criticized the Albright-Knox's 'deaccessioning' policy (also known as Selling the Farm). John starts his critique by jumping on a statement I made that this sale of the old art may be used to buy "interminably minimalist art". John defends 'minimalist' art calling it "-real, beautiful and sublime. He doesn't understand that it's called minimal for a reason, and that reason is that there's very little there. I don't want to get off the subject but since the art market is booming (AKAG's reason for the sale), I have begun a series of minimal art that is the epitome of minimalism and has both the art market and minimal artists salivating. I want to offer the gallery my very first piece in this series, which is a metric cube of air titled "No!". I will offer it at a reduced price and since I don't have a gallery no commission is involved. I also agree with John that it's sublime, but I waver on the beautiful.

John then turns to my criticism of the 'mission statement' and quotes it from the AKAG's website. Yes John, I agree that they do have a mission and that is to sell off a bunch of 'oldies' to buy some new hot stuff. In my second letter later published in Art Voice I show how in a AKAG book entitled "100", 1868-1968, that there was no mission statement or reason to be a solely contemporary collection. In fact, many if not all of the previous directors have valued and realized the educational and inspirational use of this 'deaccessioned' art. This is the real center of the argument. The gallery claims that it owns this art and has made a difficult but necessary decision because of the booming art market and the difficulty to pay today's high prices. I don't play the market but isn't the common wisdom to buy low, not when the market is high? If all of the galleries refused to buy in a high market won't the prices come back down to earth? The question isn't can the AKAG make this move. The question is, is it a wise decision. All of the previous directors have valued this art and have seen the wisdom of keeping it.

John goes on about my statement that the gallery trots out art like fashion. Well, look at their collection. It's real upbeat, colorful, and certainly avoids a great number of artist with 'dark' messages. Out of all of the great Francis Beacon paintings they choose the least offensive painting to represent him. And the beat goes on from there. The gallery is like an ivory tower of taste and 'intellect'. It's hard to deny it.

John goes on to complain that my statement, "throw the bum's out" misrepresents the fine staff who work at the gallery. I do agree they are professional and probably very competent. The bums I would like to throw out are the ones sitting on the board of directors. Barbara Hollender and I were invited to the gallery by Louis Grachos to meet with him and Karen Spaulding, to discuss the sale. It was a good meeting and we asked for a list of what things are going to be sold. It wasn't available yet because Sotheby's hasn't finished working on the provance's (sic) . Apparently this collection has been a part of the gallery for decades and yet the gallery does not have its history. Our concern that the gallery is part of the community, and that they were not responding to community pressures etc. was ended when Grachos said that the Buffalo Fine Arts Academy owned the works, not the public. So in spite of the gallery sitting on public land and receiving our tax dollars it was their right to sell.

Finally, John quotes Elizabeth Licata who defends the gallery with the company line. Patrick Klinck, another "deassessation" (sic) dissenter, thinks Licata's assertion that the gallery doesn't have the luxury of space to store these works is laughable. "They have room for a twenty-two foot sculpture in the center of the sculpture court but no room for a two foot bronze."

Licata once wrote in Art Voice (sic) after touring the Andy Warhol show in Philadelphia that she never understood any art prior to Warhol. So she never understood what the Renaissance was about. but she does understand that the gallery is doing the right thing? Can an art critic who admits to not understanding art before Warhole (sic) seriously weigh in on the value of this sale? I rest my case.

PS, As was said in my original letter there is a similarity in the way that the gallery did this number on us (the public), and Bush's moves to get us into war, by rewriting history, and misrepresenting the facts. Throw in some arrogance too. I like Louis Grachos and many of the things he's done and brought to the gallery. This isn't about my likes and dislikes, it's about an unwise decision that once done can't be reversed. As Tom Freudenheim who first criticized the gallery in a 'Wall Street Journal' article says: "This really isn't about what one or the other of us likes or dislikes. It's about pretending that recent art has no roots, which is precisely the opposite of what previous directors tried to show. Most regional have limited resources and spotty and/or sporadic collections; but those bits and pieces of the past demonstrate that art has a continuity."

A Few Remarks in Response
“I have recently been criticized by John Messier...” If you cannot do me the courtesy of spelling my name correctly, do not expect to receive any future rebuttal courtesies.

“...the Albright-Knox's 'deaccessioning' policy (also known as Selling the Farm)...” I will repeat what I’ve said before: 200 works from a 6500 work collection is hardly “selling the farm.” It’s like...half an acre of beets. Tops.

“He doesn't understand that it's called minimal for a reason...” It’s called minimal art for a reason? Get outta town! Does that mean I’m also wrong about wearing my underwear outside my pants?

“Well, look at their collection. It's real upbeat, colorful, and certainly avoids a great number of artist with 'dark' messages...” I think every time I’ve been to the gallery, I’ve seen Giorgio de Chirico’s The Anguish of Departure, which is both dark and darkly hilarious. Anyway, I was referring to the recent dubious practice of including actual fashion designers within gallery/museum programming. Upbeat and colorful does not necessarily equal fashion. And I somehow suspect that if the Albright went whole-hog for “dark messages,” there would be an influx of goth kids there on Gusto Fridays, but another part of the community would assail the museum for being too depressing and dispiriting.

“...Licata's assertion that the gallery doesn't have the luxury of space to store these works is laughable. "They have room for a twenty-two foot sculpture in the center of the sculpture court but no room for a two foot bronze...." See Licata’s own rebuttal below, but let me state the patently obvious about this rationale—there is a difference between exhibition and collection space. You do not carve up one to increase the other. I thank whatever art-god is up there that the Albright is smart enough to let the main atrium remain a big beautiful space for, typically, one work, as is the case with the current installation of Rachel Whiteread—which, by the way, has brought me intense rapturous pleasure each time I’ve encountered it. Go Minimalism!

“...Licata once wrote in Art Voice...” Geez Louise, stop calling it that. It’s Artvoice! One word! It’s only on every corner of the city all week long and has been for how many years now. I would dispute the notion that the AKAG denies the value of the past. From what I understand, we’re talking some antiquities that are ill-placed in the overall collection. The AKAG is not merely stuffed with buoyant, upbeat contemporary works, but seems—to me at least—inclusive of a huge proportion of 19th and 20th century masterworks that provide terrific context for many of the contemporary works in the collection. In fact, I see masters mixed in with contemporary works all the time at the Albright. Or am I hallucinating? Finally, please stop equating this undeniably heated and contentious issue with lying about the rationale for sending troops to war. It’s not even remotely the same thing. No matter what your position on deaccession, or “deassessation,” or perceived deceptions, no one’s going die over it. Utilizing such a comparison excessively inflates one issue while radically diminishing the other.

I was speaking with someone this week who suggested something about the perceptual disconnect at the heart of this issue. They said, “You know, if you go to the Albright and you appreciate contemporary work, you’ll look at that, appreciate it, and remember it. If you go to the Albright and all you really care about are the few antiquities you find, you’ll walk by all the contemporary work and head straight to what you love, and that’s what you’ll remember, that’s what will define the place for you.”

Elizabeth Licata’s Rebuttal
Ben Perrone cannot claim he isn’t getting a fair shake. Following his wordy rebuttal, seems only fair to include that of Elizabeth Licata. 221 words:
“Ben, I guess we disagree.

I don't have my Warhol piece (a transcription of a tongue-in-cheek conversation with Tony Billoni) handy but if you are seriously asserting that I said and meant that I did not understand any art before Warhol, then obviously you'll say anything to make your point, no matter how ridiculous it is. Anyone at all familiar with my considerable body of published art writing, which includes commentary about Cole, Burchfield, Modigliani, Rodin, Turner, Hartnett, Manet, and many others, realizes that my knowledge is not quite that restricted.

I also did not say the AKAG did not have room to store the antiquities. I said they did not have the space to show (the exact word I used) them properly in a display space providing historical context. It's my opinion that these types of works, made for such very diverse purposes, need and deserve such context. The Met's Egyptian displays are a good example; they provide complete information about the era and the purposes of the objects.

If you're going to quote me, please do it accurately and without insults (such as asserting my understanding of art starts with Warhol). If you can't be accurate and fair, do me a favor and leave me out of your prolific letter-writing.

By the way, it was the Andy Warhol Museum, not exhibition, and it was in Pittsburgh, not Philadelphia.

Thanks for your email,
Elizabeth”

Stand back everyone, Mary Kunz Goldman weighs in...
“But is it art? You know how people are still mad that the Albright-Knox Art Gallery board wants to sell off our antiquities in order to afford huge - and hugely expensive - modern art? They would have loved seeing the two trucks Buzz saw in front of the gallery earlier this week. One was a big 18-wheeler, labeled "Climate-Controlled," probably delivering massive new acquisitions. Behind it was a garbage truck, labeled "Modern Disposal Services." Couldn't we cut out the middleman? We're just saying.” (Buffalo News, Jan 18, 2007) No picture, unfortunately. But I now I want a t-shirt that says Modern Disposal Services...

Jeff Simon in a column on Studio Arena...
“Fact: Buffalo, for two decades and change ('60's, '70's and early '80's) was one of the most culturally progressive communities its size in the country. That mostly came from the State University at Buffalo, but that by no means explained all of it. Now-major artists Cindy Sherman and Robert Longo, for instance, were ex-Buffalo State students who helped invent the Hallwalls Gallery. Nor were magnificent institutions like the Albright-Knox Art Gallery and BPO incidental to all that.” (Buffalo News 1/16/07)
ACTUAL FACT: we remain culturally-progressive and significant. As noted recently, Hallwalls was included on a very short list of spaces denoted as part of the Alternate Art Universe in a December 2006 issue of Vanity Fair. We are busting at the seams every day with cultural activity. We actually have a level of cultural activity in all areas that is, strictly speaking, disproportionate to our population. Ask yourself how many times you’ve been to an art opening in Buffalo and no one’s been there? Not many, I’ll venture. The audience here really supports culture and is engaged by it. It’s my impression that they can’t get enough of it.
Which still doesn’t explain the chasm of weeks since we (and I mean ANY venue here in B-lo) have had a single art exhibition reviewed in the Buffalo News... Or why the News let homegrown projects like Kamikaze and Kitchen Distribution go by unnoticed and unremarked upon.





My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music.
— Vladimir Nabokov

It is not what we eat but what we digest that makes us strong; not what we gain but what we save that makes us rich; not what we read but what we remember that makes us learned; and not what we profess but what we practice that gives us integrity.
— Francis Bacon

Look, I really don't want to wax philosophic, but I will say that if you're alive, you've got to flap your arms and legs, you've got to jump around a lot, you've got to make a lot of noise, because life is the very opposite of death.
— Mel Brooks

Beauty is life when life unveils her holy face. But you are life and you are the veil. Beauty is eternity gazing at itself in a mirror. But you are eternity and you are the mirror.
— Kahlil Gibran

The Deaccession Train Keeps on A Rollin’

In the recent Dec 2006 issue of Buffalo Rising, Ben Perrone takes a “throw the bums out” position, equating Louis Grachos and the Albright as imperious governors on par with those who occupy the highest seats of political power and whose decisions can (and do) cause actual death. It’s a poetic but somewhat flimsy analogy, but it exemplifies the heat the issue of Albright antiquities deaccession continues to generate. Unfortunately, embedded within Perrone’s deep and sincere affection for traditional and ancient forms of art is a none-too-subtle low-grade hostility toward more contemporary forms: “Isn’t it Grachos who decides what to show and he who fills the halls with interminable minimalist art? Is it this excuse for art that he’s really planning to purchase...”

Minimalism isn’t an “excuse for art,” it’s art. You say “interminable,” I say “beautiful” or “contemplative” or “sublime.” Potato, potawto.
“What about the missions statement? If the gallery wants to show and collect today’s artists does it have to be exclusive of showing other art?" Hmm, fair enough, what about the Mission Statement of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery? Here you go, straight from the horse’s mouth:

“The Albright-Knox Art Gallery, one of the nation’s oldest public arts organizations, has a clear and compelling mission to acquire, exhibit, and preserve both modern and contemporary art. It focuses especially on contemporary art, with an active commitment to taking a global and multidisciplinary approach to the presentation, interpretation, and collection of the artistic expressions of our times. In an enriching, dynamic, and vibrant environment that embraces diverse cultures and traditions, the Gallery seeks to serve a broad and far-reaching audience.”
Mission Statement

I would say the Mission Statement is pretty clear about the contemporary and contemporaneous nature of its activities in exhibitions and collections, though anti-deaccessionists could arguably use the last sentence of the Statement to further their argument.

Perrone continues: “Grachos sees the gallery as fashion ramp. Trot out the new designs, live only in the present and ignore history. He’s being presidential but not very wise.”

Again, the museum director/president analogy is a poor one. The gallery as fashion ramp? Listen, there are galleries that currently operate that way, that bring actual design and fashion into their programming in a fatuous and stupid attempt to appeal to a broader audience. The Albright (unlike the AGO, the Power Plant, and the Art Gallery of York University, all in Toronto) has emphatically not fallen into this trap. Like it or lump it, we are seeing art at the Albright, not fashion.

“The county legislature and the city should threaten the AKAG with loss of funding if it doesn’t consider this community before it makes these rash decisions. Instead of axing our great collections, let’s throw these bums out.” Regrettably, Perrone does not name his Robespierre who can take over from the so-called bums. And they’re not bums. The Albright is filled with sensitive, experienced art professionals, in all departments. They are not making any decisions lightly and are not spinning some Wheel of Misfortune in the backroom, arbitrarily deciding the gallery’s future. Whether you agree with their decisions, three years of study and consideration do not add up to a “rash decision.”

In the Jan/Feb 2007 issue of Buffalo Spree, longtime Buffalo curator, writer, and current Buffalo Spree editor Elizabeth Licata floats a contrary opinion. After thirty years of visiting the Albright-Knox, Licata states: “I have never been to the fictional Albright-Knox described in angry letters to the editor and guest editorials. I have never noticed a focus on anything other than modern and contemporary art and I never went to the museum to look at antiquities. I’m not sure I ever noticed antiquities on display, although I have enjoyed visiting such collections at museums whose mission it is to show the entire history of art, from prehistory to the present. The Albright-Knox has never had the space or the resources to show ancient artifacts in the context they deserve; indeed, such a context is needed, for educational purposes. “When I hear people bemoan the loss of a small number of objects that are rarely shown and not vital to the museum’s mission, I have to wonder which Albright-Knox they’re talking about. It can’t be the museum I know, the museum that has provided Western New Yorkers with one of the most exciting collections of modern and contemporary art in the world.”




I've never been able to understand the seriousness of it all, the seriousness of pride. People talk, act, live as if they're never going to die. And what do they leave behind? Nothing. Nothing but a mask.
— Bob Dylan