The never-ending pressures of acquiring funds and the dilemma's of dealing with overstocked stores, some Dutch museums are finding it strenuously difficult to maintain the high quality and quantity of objects in their collection. Curators and policy makers are now looking for alternative and challenging ways to a good old-fashion spring cleaning. Time perhaps for the Museumkr@nt to take note and address the issue of the permanent removal of museum objects, otherwise known as disposal or deaccessioning.

eaccessioning practices", as explained by Steven Miller, "take place for many reasons ranging from the obvious and logical to the weak and bizarre. Among the easiest to understand are: the museum cease to exit; it can not properly take care of the object; the item is badly damaged and can no longer be restored; or the artifact did not legally belong to them."¹ Other reasons why museums might discard an item from its collection are the museum's mission and curators taste has changed; administrative and government priorities; and lack of space in the collection area. In the past, the deaccessioned collections are either given away to other museums, traded, destroyed or sold.

A page from the United States
To sell an object on the open market is probably the most familiar option in the United States. As Stephen Weil notes in the Museum news: 'More and more American museums are deaccessioning what they consider superfluous or redundant works of art. These can clearly be seen in the catalogues of the major auction houses. Last years autumn's sales in New York, for example, included paintings and sculpture consigned to auction by the Art Institute of Chicago, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Sterling and the Francine Clark Institute and the Hushborn Museum and Culture Garden². The American Ethics and ICOM code does clearly state that all preceeds from the disposal of objects by sale should be used for new acquisitions or collection conservation. As Roth explains: "Several museum directors may fear that some trustees especially business people will come to view deaccessioning as a source of funds for operating expenses to covering deficits or to even upgrade new museums's wings. Such a usage is in deed by most highly unethical".³ Others fear that commercial sale seems to contradict the basic museum function of preservation and research. It diminish public trust as objects are separated from their collection histories and perhaps restrict future scientific research. After all, whom are "we" to decide what is important for tomorrow's scholars?

Will the Dutch be as daring and bold?
At a recent conference organized by Intitute Collectie Nederland (ICN) to discuss the new Dutch guidelines for disposal of objects, it becomes unmistakable clear that deaccessioning matters can not be taken lightly and much needs still needs to be discussed openly before actually policy is implemented. Currently, the ICN- guidelines offers only a stepping stone for museum professionals to discuss internally why certain collections are no longer desirable Like most ethical codes there are no legal obligations or board to control if policy is actually implemented. In the long run this could lead to many questionable cases and media coverage. Writing down museum policy on paper might, however, encourage debate among the profession and create more of a public understanding of the why's. But unlike the American or its English counterpart ICN- guidelines don't take a specific stand on commercial sale of objects (although it does not forbid it either). Openness on what and why we take decisions to disregard objects is a key to maintaining pubic trust yet the ICN-guidelines seem to disregard that specific issue. For how can we maintain our public creditablity if museums aren't honest with themselves and their communtiy. For now, museums and the public are still left in the dark and are still seeking an answer of how to avoid the perils and pitfalls of commercial deaccessioning. Or simply put: do we or don't we?

Michèle Jacobs