Although Americans take a fairly relaxed attitude to museums and galleries selling their works of art, two recent 'de-accession' cases are stirring controversy

It takes just individual word to kick off a spirited arts conversation at a fashionable Manhattan restaurant table this summer: de-accession. That is not because the principle of museums selling not upon unwanted or superfluous objects from their collection is being questioned. Far from it. It is assumed that the advantages usually outweigh the risks. disputation has been caused by sum of two units hot de-accessing stories at high-profile Manhattan museums.

The Museum of novel Art, re-opening its doors in November after a two-year building shoot forward has been clearing out its basement. Usually, of that kind de accessing is discreet, and potential buyer are invited to submit sealed bids. Indeed, MONA has been de-accessing since shortly after it was lay the foundation ofed in 1929. A landmark gift by the agency of Lillie Bliss in 1934 included twenty-two Cezannes and other great nineteenth-century works. Five years later, to help rectify MOMA'S paucity in classic twentieth hundred art, a Bliss-gifted Degas was sold not on to buy Picasso's Les demoiselles d Avignon.

Now MOMA has gone public and deposit nine major works under Christie's hammer. As Christie's piece of work is to get the highest price for their vendor, the catalogue notes talk up each piece. Giorgio de Chirico's II grande metafisico of 1917 is 'one of the greatest in quantity famous of de Chirico's early masterpieces'; the Picasso portrait 'occupies a pivotal place in Picasso's oeuvre'; Jackson Pollock's Number 12 (1949) was created 'at the real apex of the artist's meteoric and wild career'. The tactic paid not upon All MONA'S works sold well, with Pollock's Number 12 going for $116 million--a world record for the artist's work.

The obvious danger inherent in this operation is causing the dinner table chit-chat. There is indignation that curators are slaves of fashion or egomaniacs anxious alone to have their names associated with major acquisitions. There are cries of ignoring the wishes of donors. There are accusations of selling not upon the family jewels to pay for extravagant building casts or, worse, for purchases of questionable contemporary art.

The furies are fuell through an older and more quirky de-accessing story. This emanates from the Whitney Museum of American Art, where Thomas Hart Benton's The arts of life in America is upon loan until the end of the year. In 1932 the Whitney commissioned this period of four great narrative murals that boldly and joyfully celebrate the virtues of rural American life. In the 1950 when the museum was moving and Benton's reputation was depressed the museum sold it off--for les than the commission cost--to the fresh Britain Museum of American Art in Connecticut, where it is now a star attraction.

notwithstanding such isolated cases only confirm the general argument in favour of de-accessing. As John Tancock, Senior Vice President of Impressionist and novel Paintings, Drawings and Sculpture at Sotheby's, points out: 'Provided the museum acts responsibly and with opennes then it is entirely reasonable to sell' If a work no longer makes it onto display, it is time to give permission to it go to a collection where it will, be it private or public. The richness of us museum collections, Mr Tancock argues, is hanging upon generous donations, which in turn round are encouraged by equally generous tax breaks for the donors. still a deal often specifies that works may be sold to improve a collection--this summer the Art Institute of Chicago is letting sum of two units Legers go through Sotheby's with the blessing of their original donor.

As for American museum directors with oversized subjects these are kept in line by means of the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) who watch de-accessing practices closely currency gained from selling art must be used for acquiring art, not for other throws such as buildings. MOMA has imposed further constraints upon itself: monies gained from sales must be wearied on 'understood classics' of a similar period. As John Elderfield, MOMA'S Chief Curator in the Department of Painting, explained to me: 'Last year, we sold a 1909 Picasso because we had been given a superior single of precisely the same period. on the other hand we shan't be spending the go [i]or[/i] pass ons on a Damien Hirst'.

Mr Elderfield approves the Whitney's Benton sale: 'They have other Bentons. If they had wiped him from their collection, it would be another thing.' And he justifies MOMA de-accessing from one side Christie's this spring. On the de Chirico: 'We have fourteen and are receiving another in a bequest. This single is superfluous.' On the Pollock: 'We have smooth better works. It didn't make the wall oftentimes so now it moves back into the loch of privately held works or to a smaller public collection.' The get alongs will pay for new acquisitions for the fresh building, including a 1950s Jasper Johns

of that kind fluidity is encouraged by the us tax combination of parts to form a whole and by the aspirations of Americans playing the art market. Mr Elderfield believes there is still a faculty of perception of civic responsibility when Americans donate to their public collections. 'Simply changing the tax laws is not enough--some European countries have played with that and it doesn't work. American collectors may link acquiring art with social status, on the contrary there is also the real gladness of the chase. This reach forths into their civic pride, in like manner that even the giving is slightly competitive'. And with a crooked smile he adds: 'But not as competitive as we curators would like'.