-
AAM/AAMD endorsement or guidelines
-
Transparent governance structures
-
AAM/AAMD endorsement or guidelines
-
Transparent governance structures
-
Restrictions on how proceeds can be used
-
The ability to retain full control over any artworks involved
-
A pilot program led by a peer institution to demonstrate feasibility
-
Confirmation of tax-compliant non-profit status
While reaccessioning as a term and model was not introduced to participants, it is constructed from the foundational ideas tested in the study—ideas that participants engaged with directly.
While museum leaders remain deeply committed to their public mission, many also acknowledge the limits of the existing financial model.
The responses suggest, with cautious curiosity, that the collection, if handled with care and ethical clarity, could become part of a sustainable funding strategy without compromising public trust.
Methodology
The study consisted of interviewing 32 museum professionals, including directors, curators, and institutional leadership from across North and Central America. Of these, 19 were affiliated with AAMD-member institutions, and 5 were affiliated with Universities.
Concluding Remarks
“Maybe everybody in the community gets to own a piece of it...that’s also a form of engagement. If you can own a piece of a painting, that’s wonderful...you know, the social emotional connection between the museum and its audience"
—Study Participant
© 2025 PARADIGM SHIFT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
INDUSTRY INSIGHTS
ON A NEW MODEL
FOR MUSEUM
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
20
25
Reaccessioning Explained: An Alternative to Deaccessioning
Reaccessioning is proposed as a third approach to collection stewardship, complementing, but distinct from, the formal processes of accessioning and deaccessioning—an alternative to either.
While accessioning represents the formal entry of an object into the permanent collection, and deaccessioning marks its official removal, reaccessioning recognizes a new role for select works that have accrued shared public significance. These are artworks that remain in the collection and on public view, yet can also generate support through public investment—functioning like a micro-endowment shaped by collective civic ownership—where members of the public contribute to building the museum’s endowment through shared participation in works held in the public trust.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the museum professionals who shared their time, insights, and candor throughout this study. Your leadership and thoughtfulness continue to shape what’s possible.
Executive Summary
On March 14, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order deeming the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) "unnecessary," effectively eliminating the federal agency responsible for distributing $160 million annually in grants to libraries and museums across all 50 states. This sudden policy shift intensified a financial crisis that was already looming. Still reeling from the impacts of COVID-19—with over half the cultural sector once at risk of closure —many museums now face the very real threat of insolvency. Traditional funding lifelines, such as public grants and philanthropy, are no longer dependable. A new approach is, and has been, urgently needed.
Over a 20-month period, a small team of graduate students and professors from NYU, independently set out to research whether ‘fractional ownership’— if applied to museum collections—could offer a viable path toward financial sustainability, allowing museums to operate independently—without compromising public access, curatorial mission, or their role as public stewards.
This report is a synthesis of the findings from the study and an introduction to reaccessioning: a civic ownership model developed from this research. While the model itself was not introduced during the interviews, museum leaders responded to its foundational principles with urgency and optimism. In conversations with 32 museum professionals, financial experts, and museum scholars—more than 70% expressed support for the core ideas of curatorial control, public stewardship, and innovative approaches to long-term financial stability.
A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining qualitative interviews with quantitative sentiment analysis. The qualitative component included open-ended questions designed to surface both support and skepticism across five core topics. The quantitative component used a large language model (LLM) to perform sentiment and reasoning analysis on anonymized transcripts. This enabled us to assess tone, conceptual alignment, and thematic frequency with greater depth and precision.
Summarized Findings
01
Should museums explore new sources of funding?
We began the interview process by asking whether museums should explore new sources of funding. This question served as an initial gauge—an attempt to understand if museum leaders themselves acknowledged the urgency of evolving beyond traditional philanthropic and grant-based support.
The response was overwhelmingly clear: 94% of participants emphasized the need to diversify revenue models in order to survive and remain relevant.
“A new model of funding needs to go with a new generation of people and what they care about, what they want.”
—Study Participant
03
Do you agree or disagree that funds generated from sales of fractionalized art may be used to fund museums?
This question was an indirect probe into the feasibility of reaccessioning. We asked whether collections could generate revenue without being sold or removed. Responses revealed growing willingness to consider this possibility, particularly in light of the high cost of maintaining large collections and the pressures of inflation.
While some remained cautious, many participants linked the idea to broader shifts in public responsibility, inclusion, and the evolving role of collections. A number framed the collection not only as a legacy, but as a civic commitment.
02
Do you agree or disagree with AAMD’s September 2022 change to deaccessioning rules?
Prior to this revision, the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) maintained that proceeds from deaccessioned works could only be used to acquire new artworks—never to support operating expenses. This strict interpretation aimed to uphold the integrity of the collection, but many felt it limited institutional flexibility.
The 2022 policy shift allowed proceeds to be used for direct care of collections. While still cautious, the change marked a significant turning point. 84% of participants supported the update, citing the need to adapt to financial realities—especially for smaller institutions.
Directors emphasized that transparency and community engagement would be necessary to avoid reputational risks and preserve public trust.
What Museums Need to
Move Forward
Museum professionals identified the following as necessary components for institutional confidence and sector-wide legitimacy:
04
What rules, practices, or boundaries would need to exist if this model were adopted?
Participants emphasized that any model involving the collection must prioritize public trust. Governance emerged as a core concern: who would make decisions, how oversight would be handled, and whether internal capacity could sustain such a model.
Common recommendations included time-bound or capped frameworks, external oversight bodies, and clear guidelines on use of proceeds. Many also noted that independent governance—at arm’s length from museum leadership—would be essential to protect against conflicts of interest.
Themes: accountability, transparency, operational capacity, and public narrative.
“You should always be open to new models, we may be organized under a different part of the tax code but at the end of the day we're still businesses…as non-profits we still have to be sustainable and given that, I think you always have to be open-minded about how you generate new revenue.”
—Study Participant
Breakdown of responses:
-
50% in agreement
-
28% in disagreement
-
9% neutral
-
13% non-responsive
Themes raised: equity, control, transparency, and mission alignment.
“Why is the business model constantly broken?... We're also supposed to be hubs of innovation and creativity... and yet, that spirit I found was often feeling lost in museums, which had kind of professionalized themselves into rules that prohibit many forms of innovation.”
—Study Participant
Beyond the Present
What began as a question—whether fractional financial models could support museums without compromising their missions, has evolved into a collaborative engineering effort to build a real-world solution.
Out of this work, Paradigm Shift has taken shape: an initiative developing the legal, ethical, and technical framework for reaccessioning. It’s purpose will be to serve as the legal, front-facing infrastructure required to pilot reaccessioning between the public and museums. The project has already begun attracting support from a growing coalition of experts in non-profit management, accounting, finance, civic engagement, cultural, and legal scholars domestically and abroad, all aligned around a shared goal of institutional resilience without compromise.
Museums interested in contributing to the development of field guidelines, participating in pilot programs, or simply continuing the conversation are invited to connect. The next phase will require exactly the kind of thoughtful, mission driven leadership that defined the conversations in this study.
The findings reveal
a sector in transition:
05
Which piece could be a candidate for this model?
While not every participant was asked this question, and not all responded—
those who did, offered insightful examples.
The overarching idea was to identify works that are culturally resonant and institutionally significant. Institutions cited works by known and unknown artists, across a range of genres as candidates, with many emphasizing the importance of public familiarity and symbolic value.
Some suggested bundling works by the same, or similar artists, or selecting unique works that embody the museum’s mission.
“...If it means to sell artwork to keep the lights on... I just think that it's a nuanced conversation... where the museum is and isn't about people or objects… At some point, a museum has to choose if they're going to be about people.”
—Study Participant
“...If it means to sell artwork to keep the lights on... I just think that it's a nuanced conversation... where the museum is and isn't about people or objects… At some point, a museum has to choose if they're going to be about people.”
—Study Participant
The model does not suggest selling ownership or curatorial control. Instead, it proposes the issuance of fractional financial interests via a separate legal structure— keeping the museum as principal steward, while creating a public-facing mechanism for generating long-term capital. This mechanism would take the form of a marketplace or platform—established and managed by a third-party entity—that facilitates the issuance, governance, and exchange of fractional interests. The museum would not be responsible for managing investor activity, ensuring it remains focused on its core mission of care and access. This financial architecture mirrors existing systems such as gold ETFs or REITs, in which the underlying asset is held in trust while value is distributed through share issuance. The public’s participation represents a form of civic investment—not just in the object, but in its continued stewardship and role within the institution that cares for it. Thus, it would offer a way to build long-term support by aligning financial participation with cultural commitment.
Taken together, these findings suggest that the conceptual foundation for reaccessioning already exists within museum thinking. Leaders are not opposed to innovation. They are cautious about risk, insistent on ethics, and deeply aware of the public obligations attached to their role. Any future effort to implement reaccessioning must be developed in close partnership with the sector—with policies, safeguards, and communications designed to reinforce the museum’s role as a civic institution, not a commercial enterprise.
Reaccessioning is not just a mechanism—it is a reframing. It recognizes that certain artworks carry enough symbolic value to be elevated again: not through removal or commodification, but through distributed custodianship. In doing so, it expands the idea of what it means to belong to the public trust.
These elements point toward a clear set of priorities: ethical clarity, legal structure, transparency, and sector alignment. Any model seeking to gain institutional trust must reflect these expectations from the outset.ore. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.