Deaccession Backlash: Michael Govan Does It Right

I KNEW someday my prince would come!
Michael Govan, director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, has rescued me from my lonely anti-deaccession ivory tower with the courageous 11th-hour extrication of his museum’s ancient Indian sandstone sculpture of Uma-Maheshvara from the jaws of the art market.
Before hearing this welcome news, I’d been feeling increasingly isolated in what I called my “radically conservative” position that trading up—selling one highly important artwork to buy a work deemed by today’s curators to be even more important—is NOT an appropriate collections management strategy. In my view, the “permanent collection” is called that for a reason: Past acquisitions of museum-quality works should not be exploited as assets to bankroll high-stakes plays by today’s curators who want a piece of the market action.
As reported by veteran art reporter Suzanne Muchnic in Saturday’s LA Times, Govan reclaimed a rare late Gupta-period sculpture from Carlton Rochell Asian Art in New York, where it was about to be offered by the museum for $350,000. He was persuaded to do so by retired LACMA curator Pratapaditya Pal.
Pal told Muchnic:
I felt that I had to save this piece. That’s my duty, and I am quite passionate about it.
Unfortunately, not all curators who are passionate about long-ago acquisitions are still around to defend them from today’s covetous curators—witness the two sales scheduled this week of Chinese, Indian and Southeast Asian art from the Albright-Knox Gallery.
I particularly appreciate these bon mots from Govan:
I’m very conservative on deaccessioning. LACMA’s existing policies are standard. You may see those policies change in the future—you will probably see them get tighter—but that will take serious consultation with curators and members of the board….
At LACMA, we are highly under-endowed in terms of acquisition funds. There has been pressure on curators to use deaccessioning [link to my NY Times Op-Ed on LACMA disposals] as a primary tool to improve the collections. I think the key issue is to inspire more generosity in terms of what’s available for acquisitions.
Michael, why weren’t you on my list of Who Should Succeed Philippe at the Met? I guess because you’ve got too much yet to accomplish in Los Angeles.
Speaking of which, I think Govan’s got enough on his plate with LACMA’s major expansion, and should curb his appetite to completely reinvent the art museum: His well intentioned notion, recently reported in the NY Times, of snapping up and preserving architecturally important houses in LA County (perhaps repurposing some of them as curators’ residences) is one of those outside-the-box ideas that should probably be stuffed back into the box. LACMA has too much construction planned for its own house to think seriously now about buying other people’s fixer-uppers.
The best way to accomplish Govan’s preservationist purpose is probably through an organization that is specifically dedicated to that mission. Last week in Philadelphia, for example, I heard Carl Nold, president and CEO of Historic New England, Boston, explain to a group of museum professionals how his organization acquires, preserves, displays and sometimes resells (with enforceable preservation restrictions) historic houses.
Maybe Govan should work with HNE to establish a West Coast modernist branch!