Museum deaccessioning

claireshaeffer

claireshaeffer

VFG Member
There are several reasons that museums deaccession garments.
Here are a few:
The mission statement for the museum has changed. (one art museum decided to focus on other art types and discontinued its costume collection.)
The mission statement for the costume collection has changed or become more focused. (some costume types such as ethnic or ready-to-wear are discontinued. A history museum decided to focus on the history of costume and the people who wore them in its city.)
There is a limited amount of space. (something most of us can identify with)
It doesn't meet the criteria. (Ready-to-wear or 2nd label instead of couture)
Too much of a good thing (this actually happened to one museum; too many wonderful designs from a short time period and nothing from other periods.)
Condition--moth holes, bad alterations, etc.
A better example has been received. (often I buy a piece just because I don't have anything by that designer; then when I find a better example, I "deaccession" the first piece. I find it hard to deaccession so I'm running out of room. Better could be condition or design.)

There are other reasons, but this is a start.

Many museums give deaccessioned items to other museums or schools. Some are sold to provide revenue to add items and fill gaps. Everyone likes to give garments away because it's a painless tax deduction, but these same people may not give money for purchasing garments.

I have bought several deaccessioned garments. Some are in pristine condition while others have major problems. The value of this latter group is that I can explore the construction of the design and write about it so my readers can learn from the original item.

One of my recent projects was to document the construction details of my Chanel suits on a CD. Some of garments are in very poor condition allowing you to look under the linings. Very museums have the luxury of space to store these examples.

I think Robert Fontenot has little, if any, talent. Anyone can make a pillow, shade, or witch's hat. Instead, he could have written a blog about his treasure trove to describe what made each item special.
Claire Shaeffer
 
I am all for museums deaccessioning their unused materials. I have worked in too many of them and seen too many others that sit on stacks and stacks of stuff but use only 10% of their collection for publications, exhibitions, and research. Museums should have THE BEST, which means upgrading, and that means getting rid of the stuff that has no value to them, or no relevance to their collection mandate. At the Bata Shoe Museum we had boxes of damaged and duplicate shoes in storage as well as clothes that came in lots from auctions.
 
Speaking from the other side of the issue: I attended a Karen Augusta auction last month where the bulk of the lots were things deaccessioned by museums (including a whole slew of garments that used to be in the Brooklyn Museum collection!)

For me, it was like getting to reach my hands behind the glass case and actually touch the garments there! Very exciting (and even more exciting to bring a bit of "official" fashion history home with me!)

And I agree with you, Claire; Richard Fontenot's "art" does not display talent, only poor judgment!
 
I don't think anyone has an issue with deaccessioning--museums cannot keep everything forever.... The issue in this case was what the guy did with the items. I would love to acquire deaccessioned apparel, myself, and would certainly maintain its integrity, unless damaged beyond repair/restoration, or even study. In that case, if it can be recycled, upcycled, re-created, whatever, fine.... But to destroy usable, fine garments to make kitsch is too much to take. I actually liked some of his pieces, but why could he not have used damaged goods?
 
Anne,
My understanding from what I've read about Fontenot is that he is making a statement because he believes deaccessioning is wrong. Unfortunately his statement can affect donations.

Jonathan, thanks for adding more reasons for a museum to deaccession.
Carrie, yes, it is quite wonderful, isn't it to play with all those old things. C
 
Fortenot probably doesn't understand that there is a difference between 'acquiring' and 'collecting'. Acquring suggests you take everything offered but collecting suggests a certain connoiseurship was used in determining which items you accession into the collection.

I was at a small museum once that had a pair of shoes irrelevant to their collection mandate for local history and I suggested to them that the Bata Shoe Museum would want them (where I worked at the time.) A month later I heard from the board was that 'since I wanted them for the Bata then they must be good and they would therefore be keeping them!'
 
My understanding from what I've read about Fontenot is that he is making a statement because he believes deaccessioning is wrong. Unfortunately his statement can affect donations.
Click to expand...

Claire, I have heard this, and it's been discussed quite a bit here, on both forums.... Your post is timely, because there is another recent thread on this forum just within the last few days: http://www.vintagefashionguild.org/forums/viewthread.php?tid=62916

If his intent was to, in fact, criticize daccessioning, I believe he was still wrong to destroy perfectly wonderful vintage apparel to make his statement. Do you have any references to his "true" intent? It seems, as far as I've been able to find out, that nobody really knows whether he thinks he's making art or making a statement about art.... I'd love it if somebody has some definitive information on this.

Is there anything published about his intent behind his work, or is there buzz in the community that's accurate? I know several of us posted comments on his blog that were critical of what he's done, and they didn't get published. Wouldn't he either correct those who don't "get" what he's doing, or, in order to generate more controversy, wouldn't he publish negative views?
 
Originally posted by Jonathan
Fortenot probably doesn't understand that there is a difference between 'acquiring' and 'collecting'. Acquring suggests you take everything offered but collecting suggests a certain connoiseurship was used in determining which items you accession into the collection.
Click to expand...

To me, this is precisely the point.

Museums can no longer afford to be "attics." I've had several museum people tell me in recent years that their museum has had to adopt a policy of accepting donations with no strings attached. In other words, the donors are told straight out that their donations may be sold to raise funds. Many donations are never even accessed into the collection so as to by-pass the deaccession process.

Not everything that is donated fits into the mission of a given museum. It just makes more sense to use the item to acquire items that do fit.

And too much stuff?? I know of one large history museum that has a huge storage area that is crammed full of garments and accessories. Racks and racks of clothes, boxes to the ceiling full of hats, shoes... This particular museum rarely has any of it on display; I can think of only one clothing special exhibit in the past 12 years or so. There are bits and pieces scattered around in the permanent history displays, but other than that, the collection sits and gets larger.

Probably 75% of it is post-1940, and much of it has no provenience. There's rack after rack of day dresses and men's suits. I can just bet that they would love to have a giant sale and raise money for things they really need, and that would add to the knowledge of the area of study.

Would that be wrong? Would we have to protest by buying it up and constructing trash cans and witches' hats? Would THAT be art?
 
WE would have to buy it up to protect it from idiots who want to cut it up into witches hats! lol

Hey, it won't be the first time I have committed pity-purchases -- to save something from destruction or the 'wrong' hands...
 
Oh, yes.... I've had vintage garments in need follow me home. I've simply had to rescue them before being displayed on smooshed racks with the masses plowing through them without care ruined them.
 
Lizzie,
This is an art, not vintage, story. We had friends (now desceased) with a Fabulous art collection. They gave several museums small donations through the years including MOCA (Mus. of Cont. of Art) in LA, but they were very upset several years later that the art had never been exhibited. When I mentioned this to a curator friend, she told me that only about 5% of a collection is exhibited, but it is the entire collection that is important to the museum and what draws "scholars" to do research there.

I'm sure Jonathan can add to this. When I do research, I see many items that will never be exhibited but they are important to my research. Claire
 
It is usually so that museums have huge collections of which only a smaller part is being shown. I know that both from the Kunsthaus, Zurich's art museum, and the Swiss National Museum here. It happened that I saw a painting that the Kunsthaus owns the first time at an exhibition abroad... and I see it when they do themed exhibitions here and suddenly paintings from their collection, that I've never seen in their usual constant exhibition, turn up.

But I guess there's still a difference between collecting and acquiring as Jonathan put it so well.

I mean, even I do this, in a small way, with my doll collection - especially with the vintage Barbie doll outfits. If I find a piece in better condition than I already have it, I will keep the better one, and sell the not-so-good one on to another collector. You just can't collect everything, or keep everything. I can't see why museums shouldn't do that - but it doesn't mean a guy like Fontenot should make witches hats out of those clothes... :angry22:

Karin
 
Claire, I'm not sure I see what you mean. About it being an art story, that is. I know my example was from the perspective of clothing as historic artifacts, but the isssue of deaccession seems to be the same - either the stuff is valuable to a collection, or it is not.

I do see your point about much of any collection never being exhibited, but that the entire collection is important. At least that is the way it *should* be. In that case there would be no need for deaccessions at all!
 
I like the fact that museums don't show everything they have all at once, so they can attract me back again and again to see something different. I think when some folks donate, they get a vision of their name on a plaque for their ancestors to see and that may be what upsets them - its all in boxes. Also, I think when our "best stuff" gets together with the best stuff of other people, we realize that some is not so hot or its not so rare.

Of course some people just want to see stuff not thrown out. I remember in the theater department, the school was constantly getting donations of vintage shoes, fur coats, and wigs. Occassionally the shoes were used for period dramas as the costuming students couldn't make shoes, but how many productions really call for the characters all wearing furs? Not too many.

I think that for anyone donating something to a museum or other institution - its a write off, and people who look at it that way - it will be a bonus if their stuff is displayed. I think some people are not aware that they can sell it to someone and for some people just having it live on would be enough (like to a vintage dealer or even to a consignment shop).

This also brings to mind one of my favorite art museums. They are really struggling because the city is not giving them much money anymore. They are trying to raise money to stay open etc. I think that if they were to sell a couple things, and that money would keep their doors open, it would be a good thing. Keep the best of the best, and the quirky or unique collections they are famous for, but there are plenty of things that they can borrow for exhibits or have travelling ones come in too that would make up the difference for what they don't have anymore. And when things get better, buy more stuff. Surely, selling off a few cotton plain ordinary dresses might not keep a costume exhibit open but you never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top