Deaccessioning: The Controversy and Its Implications

Updated: October 6, 2026

Deaccessioning—the formal removal of an object from a museum’s collection—is not simply a sale. It is a governance decision about who may dispose of a publicly entrusted work, why it should leave, and where any proceeds may go. The distinction matters: a museum can deaccession an object and transfer it by gift or exchange, while selling it is only one possible route. In the United States, professional ethics, donor restrictions, state law and the terms of a museum’s charter can all constrain the decision.

The debate sharpened during the COVID-19 emergency. In April 2020, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) temporarily allowed member museums to use proceeds from deaccessioned artworks for general operating expenses through April 10, 2022. The AAMD later extended that relief through April 10, 2023, while the American Alliance of Museums (AAM) continued to treat sale proceeds as restricted to collection purposes under its ethics guidance. These temporary measures are not a standing permission to sell art for routine budgets. A frequently cited example, the Baltimore Museum of Art’s proposed 2020 sale of works including paintings by Brice Marden and Clyfford Still, was abandoned after public and professional criticism; it should not be confused with an established $65 million sale plan in 2026.

Body or rule	Core position	Practical consequence
AAMD professional guidelines	Normally restrict proceeds to acquisitions or direct care of collections	Members may face censure or other professional sanctions; COVID-era operating relief was temporary and expired in 2023
AAM Code of Ethics	Collection resources are held in public trust; disposal must follow institutional policy and law	AAM accreditation is a separate process, not an automatic penalty imposed for every disputed sale
U.S. state law and donor terms	Can impose binding restrictions beyond professional ethics	A sale may require court approval, donor consent or compliance with charitable-trust rules

• April 10, 2023 End date of AAMD’s extended, temporary COVID-era permission for eligible museums to use certain sale proceeds for general operating expenses
• 2 years The original duration of that emergency policy, announced in April 2020, before its later extension
• 1 decision, several tests A proposed disposal may face separate review under museum policy, professional ethics, donor restrictions and state law

What is deaccessioning and why do museums engage in it?

Definition and purpose

Accessioning formally brings an object into a collection; deaccessioning removes it from that collection after an authorized review. The museum may then sell, exchange, transfer or, in some circumstances, destroy the object. A sale is therefore not synonymous with deaccessioning. Nor does the term mean that a work is no longer culturally important: it means the institution has concluded, under its own rules and applicable law, that it will no longer hold it as part of its permanent collection.

Common reasons include a duplicate or a work outside the collection’s stated scope, an object that cannot be responsibly cared for, or an item with a serious title or provenance problem. A museum may also transfer an object to a more appropriate institution. Before disposal, responsible practice normally requires research into ownership, restrictions imposed by a donor, the work’s condition and significance, and whether another public collection can care for it. A museum should not assume that a low market price makes a work disposable, or that a high price makes a sale defensible.

What counts as a defensible candidate?

Collection review is stronger when it uses published criteria rather than a shortfall in the annual budget. Curators can explain whether a work duplicates another object, falls outside the museum’s mission, or has become impossible to conserve. Registrars and legal counsel can check title, export history and gift documents; conservators can document condition and treatment costs. There is no universal ethical rule requiring a museum to hold an object for 10 years, and no accepted industry threshold stating that only a set percentage of collection “highlights” may be sold.

• Mission fit: Compare the object with the collecting policy approved by the governing board, not a temporary change in taste.
• Condition: Record the conservation assessment and explain why continued care is impractical, if that is the reason.
• Legal status: Review the deed of gift, bequest, grant conditions, title and any applicable repatriation obligations.
• Alternatives: Consider transfer, exchange or long-term loan before an irreversible private sale.

What ethical guidelines govern deaccessioning in art museums?

Professional standards and the use of proceeds

The AAMD’s policy is influential among North American art museums, but it is a professional association’s standard, not a statute that automatically governs every museum. Its normal rule is that proceeds from selling deaccessioned works be used to acquire works for the collection or provide direct care for it. The AAM’s Code of Ethics also frames collections as held in public trust and expects disposal to follow an institution’s stated policy, mission and legal obligations. These standards do not make every case identical: definitions of direct care and the circumstances of an emergency policy matter.

During the pandemic, AAMD temporarily permitted qualifying member museums to direct proceeds to general operating expenses, initially through April 10, 2022; the deadline was extended to April 10, 2023. That exception expired. It should not be presented as a current, open-ended rule. AAM accreditation is also not the same as AAMD membership, and a contested sale does not, by itself, prove that accreditation has been revoked. Consequences depend on the relevant body’s procedures and the institution’s conduct.

Legal rules are not the same as ethics codes

In the United States, state law may treat museum collections as charitable assets held for public benefit. A donor’s deed may restrict a work to a particular institution or purpose, and a state attorney general can have oversight of charitable organizations. A museum considering a sale should therefore seek legal review before announcing it. Internationally, laws on cultural property, export controls and restitution can add further duties; the 1970 UNESCO Convention, for example, concerns measures to prevent illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property, but it is not a universal museum deaccessioning code.

• AAMD: Professional guidance generally directs sale proceeds to acquisitions or direct collection care.
• AAM: Its ethics code emphasizes public trust, mission and lawful, policy-based stewardship.
• Binding obligations: State statutes, court orders and donor restrictions may be enforceable even when a professional code is not.
• Accountability: Possible outcomes include public criticism, internal governance action, professional sanctions or legal proceedings; none is automatic in every case.

Which recent high-profile deaccessioning controversies highlight the stakes?

Baltimore Museum of Art, 2020

In October 2020, the Baltimore Museum of Art proposed selling works by Brice Marden and Clyfford Still at Sotheby’s, with proceeds intended to support an endowment for the museum’s staff and collection. The proposal became a national test of whether expanding the definition of collection care could justify a sale that also addressed staff compensation and equity. AAMD questioned the plan under its standards, and criticism also focused on the museum’s earlier decision-making and the representation of artists in its collection. The museum withdrew the proposed sales before auction. The episode is a useful reminder that a planned sale, a completed sale and a later institutional policy are different facts.

Brooklyn Museum, 2024

In May 2024, the Brooklyn Museum announced plans to sell up to 12 works through Christie’s to support collection care and address financial pressures. The proposed group included paintings by artists such as Lucas Cranach the Elder, Gustave Courbet and Henri Matisse. The number “up to 12” described the announced plan, not a claim that every object was sold. The case drew attention to how museums define direct care, communicate likely proceeds and explain why particular works were selected. It also showed why a museum’s stated rationale should be checked against the auction outcome and the final use of funds.

Valparaiso University’s Brauer Museum

The Brauer Museum of Art at Valparaiso University became a flashpoint after university plans to sell works—including paintings by Georgia O’Keeffe and Frederic Edwin Church—prompted objections from donors, alumni and museum professionals. The dispute involved questions about whether sale conditions in gift agreements had been met and whether proceeds would support the museum’s collection or broader university needs. It is inaccurate to reduce the episode to a 2026 closure caused by deaccessioning: the relevant controversy developed over several years, and the museum’s status and university decisions must be distinguished from an auction of its holdings.

Together, these cases show why the amount raised is only one measure of impact. The Baltimore proposal was withdrawn; Brooklyn announced a limited sale plan in 2024; Valparaiso raised particular questions about donor intent and institutional control. Each case turns on its own documents, governance and outcome—not on a single universal rule.

What are the main risks and limitations of deaccessioning?

Risks to trust, scholarship and access

A sale can be financially irreversible: a work may enter a private collection, become difficult for researchers to study, or disappear from public view. The loss may also disrupt the context of a collection assembled through decades of gifts and scholarship. Even when the work remains available for public viewing, a sale can weaken confidence among donors who expected their gifts to remain at the institution. The risk is heightened when a museum announces a sale before publishing its criteria, consulting affected communities or checking restrictions.

Financially, an auction estimate is not guaranteed revenue. Seller’s commissions, insurance, conservation, legal work and taxes or other costs can reduce net proceeds; market demand can also change between announcement and sale. Selling a prominent work may generate a one-time payment while leaving a recurring deficit untouched. If proceeds are used for routine expenses, the institution may face the same structural problem again after the asset is gone.

Ethical trade-offs and safeguards

Deaccessioning can still serve a collection when it corrects a documented gap, removes an unsuitable duplicate or enables direct care for works the museum will continue to hold. The defensible case is specific: a named object, a clear rationale, evidence of legal authority, a transparent process and a disclosed destination for proceeds. A vague claim that a sale will “strengthen the collection” is not enough to assess public benefit.

• Do not rely on unsupported formulas such as a universal 20% ceiling for selling collection highlights; no such general threshold governs museum practice.
• Separate a sale’s gross estimate from its net proceeds and publish the final amount when possible.
• Explain how the object was selected and whether a transfer to another public institution was considered.
• Document board approval, donor restrictions, provenance research and the intended use of funds.

How do museums balance financial needs with collection stewardship?

Use a decision process, not a budget shortcut

A sound process begins with a collections policy approved by the board and available to the public. Curators and registrars identify a candidate; conservators assess its condition; legal counsel reviews title and restrictions; and the governing board records its decision. For a proposed sale, the institution should state whether proceeds are intended for an acquisition, direct collection care or another purpose and identify which professional standard permits that use. The expired AAMD pandemic exception should not be cited as current authority for paying routine expenses.

Before selling, museums can compare the amount and timing of a likely net auction return with other options: a fundraising campaign, a restricted grant, a bridge loan, a partnership, or a transfer to a museum better equipped to care for the work. Each has costs and limits, but a comparison makes clear whether the sale addresses a one-off need or an ongoing operating gap. The museum should also explain why a work is being sold rather than simply announce an expected dollar figure.

Transparency after the decision

Public trust depends on follow-through. Museums can publish the board’s rationale, the relevant collection-policy provisions, the object’s provenance and the final disposition, while protecting genuinely confidential donor information. After a sale, an impact report should state the net proceeds and show how they were used. Consultation with artists, descendant or source communities, donors, staff and local audiences can identify concerns that a financial forecast will miss. None of these steps guarantees agreement, but they allow the public to evaluate whether stewardship claims match the record.

• Set the policy before a financial crisis and distinguish acquisitions from direct care.
• Obtain legal review of donor agreements, title and relevant state law before committing to a sale.
• Compare sale proceeds with fundraising, grants and transfers, including transaction costs and long-term consequences.
• Publish a post-sale account identifying the net amount and its permitted use.

Frequently asked questions

What does deaccessioning mean?

It is the formal removal of an object from a museum’s collection. The museum may sell, transfer, exchange or otherwise dispose of it, subject to its policy, donor terms and applicable law.

Can a museum use sale proceeds for salaries or debt?

Under the AAMD’s normal guidance, proceeds are directed to acquisitions or direct collection care, not general operating expenses. Its COVID-era exception ended April 10, 2023. Legal restrictions and the museum’s applicable professional obligations still need to be checked.

Do AAMD or AAM rules have the force of law?

No. They are professional standards. State law, court orders and donor restrictions can create separate binding obligations, and AAMD membership and AAM accreditation are distinct.

Is a deaccessioned work always sold?

No. A museum may transfer or exchange it, or pursue another disposal method permitted by its policy and law. A sale is only one possible outcome.

Was the Baltimore Museum of Art’s proposed 2020 sale completed?

No. The museum withdrew its proposed Sotheby’s sales of works including paintings by Brice Marden and Clyfford Still after controversy in 2020.

Key takeaways

• Deaccessioning is a formal collection decision; it does not automatically mean an auction.
• AAMD guidance normally limits sale proceeds to acquisitions or direct collection care; the temporary COVID-era operating-expense exception expired on April 10, 2023.
• Professional ethics, donor restrictions and state law are separate tests, and none should be treated as interchangeable.
• The Baltimore Museum of Art withdrew its controversial 2020 proposal; the Brooklyn Museum announced a plan of up to 12 works in 2024; Valparaiso’s Brauer dispute raises distinct donor-intent questions.
• Responsible review names the object, documents the rationale, checks alternatives and reports the net proceeds and their use.

Sources

• Association of Art Museum Directors, Professional Practices in Art Museums and COVID-era policy statements on proceeds from deaccessioning.
• American Alliance of Museums, Code of Ethics for Museums and Standards and Excellence Program guidance.
• Baltimore Museum of Art, 2020 statements concerning its proposed deaccession sales and their withdrawal.
• Brooklyn Museum, May 2024 announcement concerning a proposed sale of up to 12 artworks through Christie’s.
• UNESCO Convention of 1970 on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property.