{"id":189,"date":"2022-02-07T18:20:02","date_gmt":"2022-02-07T23:20:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/deaccession\/?page_id=189"},"modified":"2022-02-07T18:20:02","modified_gmt":"2022-02-07T23:20:02","slug":"deacessioning-portraits","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/deaccession\/deacessioning-portraits\/","title":{"rendered":"Deacessioning Portraits"},"content":{"rendered":"

Princeton\u2019s Campus Iconography Committee (CIC) was formed in 2016 in response to heated debates over whether or not Woodrow Wilson\u2019s racist history should bar his name and image from being displayed on Princeton University\u2019s campus. One of this committee\u2019s functions is to determine which of the university\u2019s portraits should be displayed and what new portraits should be commissioned or added to Princeton\u2019s collection around campus. The committee does not appear to prioritize \u201cdeaccessioning\u201d portraits, in terms of a portrait\u2019s permanent removal from the Princeton collection, but rather focuses on expanding the collection and archiving works they deem contrary to the university\u2019s mission. Can we consider these alternatives, expanding and archiving, to also be modes of deaccessioning? If not, how might deaccessioning change the message the university is trying to send through the iconography they hold, whether displayed or not?\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

Below are eighty-one Princeton portraits in the Museum collection, catalogued<\/a> in the chronological order that they were commissioned, from most recent to earliest. Thanks to Chris Newth of the Princeton University Art Museum for invaluable assistance.<\/p>\n

Monica Joyce and Fedor Karmanov<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n