New York (AFP)

Hard hit by the pandemic, American museums have recently been able to sell paintings to compensate for their losses.

Some want to seize this opening to renew and diversify their collection, but others fear a drift.

Before the pandemic, sales of works by museums, called "alienation", could only be used to buy back others.

But in April 2020, the North American Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) lifted this taboo by allowing them, for two years, to sell to ease their finances.

In September, the Brooklyn Museum, already financially on the line before the pandemic, began the sale of 12 works, including one Monet and two Dubuffets, in order to create a maintenance fund for its collection.

In February 2021, the director of the Metropolitan Museum, Max Hollein, indicated that the most prestigious of New York museums would use this year the sums drawn from the sale of works to the costs of maintaining its collection, in particular the salaries of dedicated staff.

Max Hollein has downplayed the importance of this decision, which he describes as temporary.

"Many institutions have been alienating for decades," he told AFP, adding that the Met did not plan to sell more works in 2021 than in previous years.

"We believe this benefits the development of our collection."

- "Financial asset" -

In fact, the sale of works of art by museums is a controversial subject.

The world of Anglo-Saxon museums is generally rather open to controlled sales, but most countries of Latin culture, including France, are opposed to it.

President of the Center Pompidou, Serge Lasvignes says "doubts the value of taking this path", whether to compensate for financial difficulties or as "an instrument of + good management + of the collection".

"If the works hanging on the walls are transformed into financial assets, it is extremely worrying", also estimates the lawyer Laurence Eisenstein, who recently led the sling against the officials of the Baltimore Museum of Art.

This museum wanted to sell three major works from its collection, including a Warhol, estimated at $ 65 million in total.

The sale of these paintings was intended to create a preservation fund for the collection of the first museum in this city with a predominantly black population.

And to "rebalance" the collection by acquiring works of women and artists from minorities.

But in the face of criticism, the museum gave up this sale in October, and decided to raise these funds through donations, explains Christopher Bedford, the director.

Most museums refuse to sell, as Baltimore planned to do, important pieces of their collection, believing that their mission is to preserve it as much as possible.

The Metropolitan Museum thus gives away mainly objects of which it has several copies or works of an artist "of which we already have two dozen works of the same period", says Mr. Hollein.

But others, less known, have taken the plunge.

The Everson, museum of Syracuse (State of New York), sold in October for 12 million dollars a Pollock, which had been given to him, triggering the ire of a part of the medium.

He too intends to open his collection to diversity.

"An art museum sells its soul," reacted a Wall Street Journal columnist Terry Teachout, accusing the institution of "betraying the trust of the public".

Laurence Eisenstein also fears that donors and authorities will withdraw their financial support from establishments that sell more than they should: "Why do you need our money? Sell your works instead."

"It would become very difficult for museums to remain the trusted custodians of America's cultural property."

- "Obsolescence" -

Incorporating works by artists from minorities, however, responds to a strong demand, accentuated by the 2020 movement against racial inequalities.

But many in the community believe that it is necessary to proceed by addition and not by substituting these works for others.

While the Met has made such diversification a priority, "we're not using our current collection to achieve it," he says, preferring to look to his donors.

For Brian Frye, professor of law at the University of Kentucky, the statutes of American museums, almost all private but not for profit, constitute, in themselves, a sufficient safeguard against the possible drifts of alienation.

"Do I think that the museums will start to monetize their collections in shambles? No, not at all", estimates the academic.

"A lot of people are panicking over this."

For the director of the Baltimore Museum of Art, Christopher Bedford, the framework set by the AAMD "must be reviewed", and museum directors are increasingly in favor.

In the meantime, "we are falling into disuse," he says, "because we refuse to update our models of thought and our ways of doing things."

© 2021 AFP