Without directly criticizing the Denver Art Museum, a leading national art museum association made clear Thursday that it does not condone a controversial new method the institution used to purchase an 1892 painting by famed artist Thomas Eakins.
To fund the acquisition, the museum struck a deal with billionaire Denver collector Philip Anschutz last year. In return for a financial donation, he received 50 percent ownership in the painting as well as 50 percent ownership in a signature Western work already in the institution’s collection: Charles Deas’ “Long Jakes.”
A museum partnering with a private collector to acquire a work is not new. But a museum giving up partial ownership of a work already in its collection — what has come to be known as “fractional deaccessioning” — was unprecedented and drew national attention.
The deal raised the question of whether partial ownership of other key works in the museum’s collection — what many people consider part of the public patrimony — were for sale to wealthy individuals for the right contribution.
Director Lewis Sharp has maintained the museum could not have acquired the Eakins painting (reportedly priced, along with two accompanying sketches, at $8 million to $10 million) without such a deal, and he has said that he and the board consistently acted in the best interests of the institution.
But after a review conducted by two committees of the Association of Art Museum Directors, the organization’s board released a statement Thursday in which it “strongly encourages member museums not to employ fractional deaccessions as a method of collections development.”
The museum’s response to this directive still seemed to be in flux Thursday. At first, Sharp said he could not envision another situation arising in which fractional deaccessioning would be called for, but he declined to rule it out categorically for some future purchase.
“I have learned a great deal through this process,” Sharp said of the review. “I think I’d probably be a little less entrepreneurial, but with that said, it would depend on what was being offered.”
But less than hour later, Sharp reversed himself, saying the museum would never again employ the practice.
“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “I’m not going to do it. I think I have listened to my colleagues. . . . I don’t think disposing of primary objects in your collection is the way I would ever do that in the future.”
Kyle MacMillan: 303-954-1675 or kmacmillan@denverpost.com
