I've mentioned a couple of times how the attitudes towards deaccessioning among those within the art world are so different from those outside the art world. Those inside the art world tend to look at deaccessioning as a Crime Against Humanity (though of course, if the proceeds are used to buy more art, deaccessioning "is not a dirty word").
Those on the outside . . . well, here is New York Times business reporter Floyd Norris (via):
"[O]ne museum that sold artwork is to be punished by not being allowed to borrow art from other museums. There was outrage earlier this year when Brandeis University announced plans to close its art museum and sell the paintings. The university’s endowment was devastated by bad investments. What do people opposed to the sale of paintings think suddenly poor institutions should do? Close? Seek government bailouts? Should Brandeis close down a few academic departments, or cut back on scholarships, to keep its art?"
