Michele Cohen

I have thought long and hard about ways to approach the conservation and maintenance of public art, particularly the thorny question of de-accessioning a piece.

What are the criteria? How do we make an informed decision? What is in the best interest of the public?

Historically, government entities have removed public artworks because they have deteriorated to the point where they pose a public safety hazard or they are so degraded they have become an eyesore, and the cost of repair exceeds 50% of their value (another hard thing to determine). The decision to remove an artwork in those cases is easier to make.

The more complex reasons to de-accession a public artwork stem from negative reactions to the content. What sort of process do we embark on if the public objects to the subject or style of an artwork?  I think many folks, both arts professionals and the general public, are gun-shy about removing artworks because of subject or style after the precedents of Tilted Arc and John Ahearn’s installation, which remained for a brief five days on a plaza in front of a Bronx police station.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will focus on de-accessioning public artworks because of conservation issues.

Central to a discussion of this topic, is an understanding of our expectations for public art. Does permanent really mean forever? After all, many buildings stand for less than thirty years and are demolished to make way for new development. Can you imagine a city where no structure was ever removed?

Is public art different? Should it be different?

I have seen many cases where groups commissioned permanent public art but did not provide adequate funding or technical guidance to ensure longevity. Should good money be thrown after bad to salvage an untenable artwork because it was supposed to be permanent?

Recently, the Public Arts Trust (PAT) of Montgomery County adopted revised procedures and guidelines to address this question as well as other collection management issues.

The PAT realized that although when commissioning a new work the expectation might be for a semi-permanent installation (defined as less in situ between 18 months and 15 years), this standard could not be retroactively applied to existing artworks in the collection, even though they might be prematurely failing; therefore, the PAT needed to generate and apply objective criteria for making a decision to remove an existing artwork that was intended to be permanent.

The new guidelines outline the following reasons and steps for de-accessioning an artwork:

Conditions for De-accessioning

1.    The artwork’s present condition poses a safety hazard to the public;
2.    The artwork has been damaged or has deteriorated to the point that it can no longer be represented to be the original artwork;
3.    The restoration of the artwork’s structural or aesthetic integrity is technically not feasible, or the expense of restoring it exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of the artwork;
4.    The architectural support (building, wall, plaza) is to be destroyed and the artwork cannot be removed intact for relocation;
5.    The use of this particular public space may have changed, and/or the artwork may have lost its contextual meaning and it cannot be re-sited,  or re-siting the artwork would be inappropriate;
6.    The artwork requires excessive and inappropriate conservation and/or maintenance or has faults of design or workmanship which can be termed inherent vice;
7.    An artwork is not, or is rarely, on display because of lack of a suitable site.
8.    The condition or security of the artwork cannot be reasonably guaranteed in its present location;
9.    The County wishes to replace the artwork with a work of more significance by the same artist;
10.    The artwork does not meet the mission of the Collection;
11.    Removal has been requested by the organization displaying the artwork or by the artist;
12.    The artwork is proved to be inauthentic or in violation of existing copyright laws; and/or
13.    The artwork has received documented and unabated adverse reaction from a measurably large number of citizens and/or organizations based within the community where the artwork is located over at least five years and modifications of the artwork as per discussions with the artist are not possible.

Steps for De-accessioning

Once a de-accessioning determination by the Committee or the Sub-committee has been made, the following procedures will be followed:

1.    Trust staff prepares a report which includes:

• Review of any restrictions which may apply to the artwork based on contract review or the condition of the artwork;
• Analysis of the reasons for de-accessioning;
• Options for storage or disposition of the artwork; and
• Appraised value of the artwork, if obtainable.

2.    The Committee or Sub-Committee reviews the report. Either of these committees may seek additional information from artists, galleries, conservators and other artist professionals prior to its recommendation.

3.    A recommendation for action is sent to the Committee, and if approved, is referred to the Department of Recreation.

4.    In the event that a recommendation to de-accession is made by the Trust and approved by the Department of Recreation:

• The artist will be informed in writing of this decision and will be given right of first refusal to  buy back  the de-accessioned artwork, including title,  or the Trust will arrange for appropriate disposal/destruction of the artwork;
• If the artwork was a donated gift, the donor will be informed in writing of the intent to de-accession; and
• Appropriate public notification will be made.

5.    After proper public notification, the Committee will consider the following actions: (in order of priority)

• Sale through auction, art gallery or dealer resale, or direct bidding by individuals, in compliance with County law and policies governing surplus property;
• Trade through artist, gallery, museum, or other institutions for one or more other artwork(s) of comparable value by the same artist;
• Indefinite loan to another governmental entity
• Destruction of artwork deteriorated or damaged beyond repair at a reasonable cost, and deemed to be of no or only a negligible value, in accordance with national standards for conservation and de-accession.
• Re-donation, sale or other arrangement agreed upon with the donor or artist at the time of the County’s acquisition of the artwork.

6.    Any financial costs incurred to implement removal and/or disposal of the artwork will be funded by maintenance funds provided by the County

I hope that our best practices help guide you and please let me know how your consider de-accessioning works in the comments below.