There are numerous reasons why this system can be of interest to all types of agents in the market; from maintaining the market price of a favorite artist and avoiding unsold or to pure and simple investment (which in the worst case results in the profit of a work). But the museum has proposed a third way.
In the case of Toledo, Levine justifies it very simply. The institution needs two things: acquire new works and liquidity. American museums also suffer, although they have mechanisms that differentiate them from others.
On the one hand, the culture of patronage is much more established in the United States, almost all of them have a board of trustees that provides financing and approves purchases. On the other hand, the mechanism of deaccessioningthrough which works from the collection are sold, is nothing new, but it has the limitation that the money earned can only be used for the acquisition.
These two variables leave institutions with liquidity problems to face less glamorous tasks not directly related to works of art. Donations rarely come without specifications for how to spend them, and that’s exactly what Toledo has gotten: money with no strings attached. What was earned this last year, close to half a million dollars, can be used for any need the museum may have (for example, as its director said, renewing the plumbing).
