3 ms·
> Something like 5% of museum objects are on public display at any one time, and then, they’re normally only described by a small wall label. I've heard this b
by bko 7y ago
> Something like 5% of museum objects are on public display at any one time, and then, they’re normally only described by a small wall label.
I've heard this before. I've also read that its not that the items are rotated, but they never see the light of day. And its not just less significant works.
Michael O'Hare of UC Berkley argued that museums should sell or at least lease out much of their unseen inventory and use that money to lower or even eliminate admission fees. [0]
Certainly something better could be done. Museum in a Box is at least a step in the right direction
[0] https://www.econtalk.org/michael-ohare-on-art-museums/ https://www.econtalk.org/michael-ohare-on-art-museums/
- patja 7y agoI've bought into the idea that all major museums should have free admission or pay what you will. They are all well-endowed enough to do this, but are restricted from selling pieces of their collections to make ends meet. And what's the point of a museum anyways...is it just preservation or is it to allow the public to view and engage with our shared cultural heritage. Part of the issue is the museum mafia puts onerous restrictions on the extent to which museums are allowed to sell off bits of their collections. That's why so many items are stowed away never to see the light of day. If they sell off items, they will be blacklisted from ever receiving a touring/visiting collection, which is the big money maker for additional admissions fees and bringing folks in who have already seen everything normally on display. The code of ethics of the American Association of Museums explicitly forbids selling items from collections to meet operating expenses, and they will ban museums from receiving loans of artwork if they do so.