I had a brief talk recently with Laura Katzman, who was formerly an associate professor of art at Randolph College and the director of its museum studies program. In April, as it became apparent that Randolph was thinking about selling some of its Maier Museum art collection to raise money for its endowment and operating budget, she resigned. She’s now an associate professor of art history at James Madison University and senior lecturer at Smith College. At the next annual conference of the College Art Association, February 20-23 in Dallas, Katzman will co-chair a panel on the proliferating controversies these days involving colleges and museums looking to cash in on their holdings.
LACAYO: Deaccessioning is a temptation for museums of all sizes. But lately it’s smaller places that seem to be in the news.
KATZMAN: Deaccessioning happens at larger places all the time. But I think there’s something particularly poignant about what’s happening at smaller institutions, like Randolph and Fisk, because women’s colleges and historically black colleges are especially vulnerable.
LACAYO: Why is that?
KATZMAN: It has to do partly with the fact that these smaller institutions, which are often in smaller towns, have suffered from declining enrollments. College age students increasingly gravitate towards larger, co-ed, multi-racial institutions in metropolitan areas.
LACAYO: One option that Randolph is looking into is the possibility of sharing its collection with another, larger museum that has deep enough pockets to pay Randolph a substantial amount for the privilege.
KATZMAN: There can be value in sharing, but when institutions share entire collections this raises a whole new avenue of questions. Which institution makes decisions about loans? Who makes decisions about conservation? How damaging is it for works to move back and forth between two museums? And if Randolph does enter into a sharing arrangement, but doesn’t use the proceeds solely to benefit its museum and art collection, doesn’t that still fall under the definition [in guildelines of the American Association of Museums] of unethical deaccessioning?
LACAYO: A lot of people would simply say that, well, Randolph College is in dire straits financially. It’s been put on notice by its accrediting institution, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Where else can it get the kind of money it needs?
KATZMAN: The leaders of Randolph were considering the sale of artworks long before the warning was issued. To me, it comes down to priorities. Randolph’s leaders are planning to spend a lot of money on a new $30 million athletic facility. If the arts are not sacred at a liberal arts institution, then where are they sacred? And if they’re not sacred then the library’s not sacred, the faculty’s not sacred. Where do you draw the line? What do you stand for?