The 7th Circuit’s decision on Kelley v. Chicago Park District is available here.  A friend who already read it says it’s pretty interesting and may create a circuit split on VARA issues.  I’ll post my take on the decision once I finish up school work and have a chance to read it!

For more information on Philadelphia Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, check out their website or Twitter!

Leslie and I attended graduate school together, and she is currently the Director of Archives & Collections at the Petroleum Museum in Midland, TX.  If you enjoy this post, please visit her blog!

Note: Leslie mentions The New Museum Registration Methods, the “registrar’s Bible” – if you are interested in this fantastic book, here are some links (if you are an AAM member, you can get a discount if you purchase  directly from AAM, but then you probably already know that!):

• The Amazon listing for the edition we used in school
• The Amazon for the new edition (MRM5)

_____________________________________________

At yesterday’s meeting, the Board of Trustees approved to deaccession objects from the Museum’s Permanent Collection and transfer them to the National Ranching Heritage Center (NRHC) at Texas Tech University.

While doing some “Spring Cleaning,” I came across a file that contained a Loan Agreement, completed by my predecessor in April 2006, loaning several pieces of oil field equipment to the NRHC. I contacted both the NRHC and my predecessor who confirmed that the materials were to be deaccessioned and then given to the NRHC; however, the process was never completed.

What is deaccession, you ask? According to the Museum Registration “bible” (The New Museum Registration Methods, edited by Rebecca Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore), deaccession is the formal change in recorded status of the object. Where accessioning is the process by which objects come into the Museum’s collection, deaccessioning is the opposite of that. Once objects are deaccessioned, then they can go through a disposal process.

One should not see deaccessioning as a bad thing or even as controversial. Yes, museums are to preserve and build collections for prosperity. However, museums are living things — missions, policies and people change which changes the institutions themselves. Objects once thought critical to a museum’s mission may no longer be so after time. Or objects may be duplicated multiple times in a museum’s collection and other institutions could use those items for their own collections.

According to the Museum’s Collection Management Policy, items can be deaccessioned for a number of reasons, such as:

The object is no longer within the Museum’s scope or mission.
The object does not support the collecting policy of the Museum.
The object does not have clear, legal title.
The object does not support the research, education or exhibition purposes of the Museum.
The object unnecessarily duplicates other objects in the Museum’s collections.
The object requires storage or conservation resources that cannot be provided by the Museum.
The object was accessioned in error, such as tools, exhibit cases, exhibit material or cleaning supplies.
The object is a danger and hazard to museum staff, volunteers, and patrons.

The items approved for deaccessioning yesterday were all duplicates in the Museum’s Permanent Collection; they are much better utilized at the NRHC.

————————————————————————–

Museums and Restitution

International conference

8-9th July 2010, the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester

http://www.arts.manchester.ac.uk/museology/museumsandrestitution/

Museums and Restitution is a two-day international conference  organised by the Centre for Museology and The Manchester Museum at the University of Manchester. The conference examines the issue of restitution in relation to the changing role and authority of the museum, focussing on new ways in which these institutions are addressing the subject.

The conference will bring together museum professionals and academics from a wide range of fields (including museology, archaeology, anthropology, art history and cultural policy) to share ideas on contemporary approaches to restitution from the viewpoint of museums.

*Places are limited; book early to avoid disappointment!*

————————————————-

Handling Non-traditional Objects: From the Impossible to the Reality

In collaboration with the Packing, Art Handling and Crating Information Network (PACIN), an AAM Professional Interest Committee
Produced and sponsored by LearningTimes
April 21
2-3:30 p.m. (Eastern)

Agenda
In this webinar, practitioners in the field will discuss handling non-traditional objects during exhibition and storage. Each case will examine risk assessment, pre-planning, implementing the move, and lessons learned/next steps.

Alice Newton will discuss the Harper’s Ferry challenges of moving 5.5 million objects (from Moran paintings to human remains) seven miles in three and a half months; Mark Wamaling from Artex will explore, among other things, packing and handling two giraffes through a museum as a good example how the move process can develop solutions; and Michelle Barger from SFMOMA will address safe approaches – for the art work, the art handler, and the public – in handling, installing and displaying art work that contains toxic materials.

Afterparticipating in this program, attendees will be better able to:

• Assess the situation at hand
• Investigate and utilize available resources
• Recognize and respond to possible risks, and
• Combine this information with existing expertise and experience to reach a creative (and sometimes surprisingly simple) solution

Presenters
Michelle Barger, Deputy Head of Conservation/Conservator of Objects, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA)

Alice Newton, Supervisory Museum Specialist, Museum Conservation Services, Harpers Ferry Center, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, WV

Mark Wamaling, Director of Crating & Packing, ARTEX Fine Art Services, Hyattsville, MD

Brent Powell, Chair, PACIN; Head of Preparation, Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, CA

Moderators
Greg Stevens, Assistant Director, Professional Development, AAM
Jonathan Finkelstein, Founder and Executive Producer, LearningTimes

Learn more about our presenters and moderators

Registration
Individual Registration:
AAM member: $35
Non-member: $135

Group Registration: (Includes a single login for your entire group; designed for groups who will gather around and participate in sessions from one (1) computer)
AAM member: $55
Non-member: $155

Partner Site License: please contact Greg Stevens at gstevens@aam-us.org for more information

We’re looking forward to our first semester of programming and events in the fall, and I hope my readers here will keep an eye on the blog or our Facebook group!

Let me be frank: I hated this movie and don’t recommend that anyone see it.  Why?  It’s completely one-sided and creates a conspiracy that doesn’t exist and a local controversy into an attack on a “basic right” (btw, the right to dispose of property through a testamentary document is not a basic right, it’s a right granted to citizens by the state, but that’s beside the point).

Who is interviewed in this ill-conceived gem of propaganda?  Former teachers of the Barnes, former students of the Barnes, and family friends of Dr. Barnes.  Yeah, none of them have a personal stake in what happens.

But don’t take my word for it.  You don’t need a review from me, because there are already plenty out there.  Instead of just repeating what has already been said, here’s other places to look:

• Bostonist.com – A pretty even-handed review that seems a little bit taken in my the conspiracy theory, if not entirely: That their machinations involve dismantling private property rights and manipulations of testacy make the film wildly engaging, even when we can’t completely suspend our disbelief. The connect-the-dots conspiracy is convincing in the way that all conspiracy theories are convincing . . . “
• The Washington Post: “The other day at the Barnes Foundation in Merion, Pa., visitors could see signs on nearby lawns crying “The Barnes Belongs in Merion.” That slogan neatly sums up the premise of “The Art of the Steal,” Don Argott’s passionate, if lopsided, documentary about one of America’s best-hidden and embattled art museums.”
• The Boston Phoenix: A very short review: “With passionate commentary from art experts, Barnes acolytes, and Governor Ed Rendell (one of only two “villains” who agree to interviews), the gripping yet hyperbolic drama examines the ownership of art and the public’s right to it. The presence of a former Barnes student as producer raises concerns . . . ” [Emphasis added.  Well that explains a lot!]
• NY Times: “As its title suggests, “The Art of the Steal” is nothing if not agenda-driven, having been paid for by a former foundation student, Lenny Feinberg, who — to quote the movie’s notes — “initiated, funded and was intimately involved in the making of ‘The Art of the Steal.’ ” That partisanship helps explain the movie’s vibrancy and sense of urgency.”
• Philly.com: “As a movie, Steal is as finely wrought as the decorative ironworks that hang on the walls of the Barnes between Picassos and Seurats. Yet as a narrative of the facts, it is as one-sided as a plaintiff’s brief. Argott simplifies the institution’s convoluted, colorful history into stark black and white, smearing villains and cheering heroes. As he tells it, the Barnes is an orphan in Philadelphia’s most infamous custody battle.”
• CultureGrrl, who makes this great statement: “As a journalist who deplores the move and has covered from the beginning the attempts by Philadelphia’s movers-and-shakers to pry loose the celebrated collection from Merion, PA (where founder Albert Barnes had stipulated it was to remain), I was put off, during my first viewing, by the film’s glaring gaffes and omissions, not to mention its overheated rhetoric.” – because, really, this is the major problem with the movie, IMHO – no matter if you think the Barnes should or should not be making the movie to downtown Philly, you need to base your argument on the reality of the situation at the Barnes and not distort the facts to make your case stronger.  The movie is a series of distortions, omissions, and re-writings of history to make the filmmakers point stronger, but to those who know some of the background, it comes across as a movie of lies.
• And finally, The Art Law Blog (have I mentioned lately my love of the Art Law Blog?  No?  Let me rectify that, I love the Art Law Blog!)

Well, here’s another good one:

The Art Newspaper has an article called “See Why Conservation is Costly” that discusses a project at Foundation Beyeler concerning the conservation of a Matisse work.

From the Art Newspaper:

“Recognising the public’s desire to watch conservation in action, the Fondation Beyeler will open a new, glass-fronted conservation studio later this month as part of its restoration and technical and scholarly investigation of Matisse’s Acanthes—a large format papier découpé or paper cut-out.”

The project is also available online (English version) include sections dealing with the project (including the conservation department and cooperation with Nationale Suisse), the artist and his works, art historical research, and contributions (in German).

Van Gogh "The Bedroom"

Van Gogh Museum.  The blog will follow the restoration of Van Gogh’s The Bedroom.

Currently, there are only two posts up, but this promises to be a great project for any art-lovers and museum-geeks who want an inside look at the restoration of an amazing painting.

From the first post:

“The artist produced this work while he was living in Arles, a turbulent period of his life (1888-1889). It was in this period that his individual style, characterised by an expressive mode of painting and rich colours, came to full maturity.

“The bedroom is a work that provides art historians and conservators with numerous points of departure to tell stories about Van Gogh’s life, oeuvre, and ideas. That makes it one of the most interesting works in the Van Gogh Museum’s collection, and we want to ensure that as many people as possible can enjoy it. The extensive restoration will make that possible.”

The movie has gotten mixed reviews, mostly due to its apparent one-sided presentation of the situation at the Barnes.  Some good reviews can be found at the NY Times, the LA Times, and at the always-a-great-read Art Law Blog (more a discussion than a review).

I’ll be checking out the movie this weekend with my friend from Just Get Floury (she has a fabulous blog, btw, and is much better at updating than me!), along with some of the members of the newly-founded DePaul Art and Cultural Heritage Legal Society.  I’ll be posting my take on the movie next week.