5 ms·

If only the directors of museums could sell or take out loans on some vanishingly small percentage of their collections... When you don’t put your most valuabl

by gen220 6y ago

If only the directors of museums could sell or take out loans on some vanishingly small percentage of their collections... When you don’t put your most valuable assets on your balance sheet (but do place the cost of acquiring them as expenses) [0], you can’t reasonably expect to be financially stable. Implicitly, these museums are saying that they’d rather lay off all their staff, than count their art towards their assets [1]. In my opinion, this has always been the real story with financial hardship in the museum world. They have been suffering financially for decades now. Every time membership declines or attendance stalls, they are doomed to teeter closer to the edge. [0]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1262403 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1262403 [1]: see, for example, this financial audit of the museum of Boston. “In accordance with current practice generally followed by museums, collections are generally not recorded as assets in the accompanying financial statements. Purchased additions to the collections are recorded as expenses at the time acquired.” ... “ Museum policy specifies that proceeds from the deaccessioning of an item may only be used for the conservation or acquisition of other collections items.” https://www.mos.org/sites/dev-elvis.mos.org/files/docs/about-us/mos_financial-statement_2016.pdf https://www.mos.org/sites/dev-elvis.mos.org/files/docs/about...

bwestergard 6y ago
If the art could be treated as an asset for accounting purposes, it would give museums and very strong incentive to collect pieces that command a high price. This would tend to weaken the internal standards of the community of artists and curators in favor of commercial standards. If you are skeptical of internal standards - if you think commercial standards should predominate - why have non-profit museums at all? Why donate to museums? Even if you're of the opinion that the existing internal norms of the art world are bogus - as I think many are - it does not follow that market norms should supplant internal norms. Internal norms can change through deliberation.
- adolph 6y ago
  Why would art as asset incentivize collections focused on high prices? Wouldn't there be an advantage to seeking out things that they think would increase in value over time? Non-profit != charity. Many non-profit organizations are highly focused on the bottom line and given the high ticket price traveling exhibits I think that museums are not different in seeking the cultural relevance reflected by people's engagement, engagement that can be measured in how much they might pay for something.
- goodluckchuck 6y ago
  It's not a matter of standards and norms, but objective reality. The art has value. It is an asset. It could be sold. To pretend otherwise is an act of deception. They're cooking the books. The question is why are they making fake books? The usual answer is to skim / profit / launder / etc. In terms of how museums choose to curate their collections, I don't really care. That's their business, not mine. However economics exist whether they want to pay attention to it or not. They have bills. They have labor costs. At some point the lights get cut off.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Most museums are small and their collection is of little value except as a whole. This is especially true when you're talking about niche museums that are basically private collections that have been turned into non-profit museums so they could continue to exist in their totality by the heirs of the deceased collector. Treating their collections like assets would help them a little but not much.
- abathur 6y ago
  Also, many small museums aren't "art" museums with semi-independent objects that have similar value to collectors anywhere. Many of them have some sort of focus on the history of a place, person, community, people, industry, etc., and much of the value of the artifacts they house comes from the process of curating and contextualizing them to tell us a story about the past. Because they're telling a story, they may also have replicas of artifacts they can't obtain which hold narrative/educational/illustrative value but fairly little collector value. Another common genre is something like a house, restored to and preserved in roughly period condition. When these exist because a "significant" person or family built/owned/lived in the house, they'll likely try to obtain genuine objects they can connect to the people there. But they'll of course fill it in with other instances of objects they know the family owned, replicas, and best-guesses. The person or family may only be locally significant, and the artifacts may have little independent commercial value. The main thing of value is likely to be the building itself.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  > ...their collection is of little value except as a whole. I agree that citation adds value to a collection. That’s why we pay curators, after all! But, I would also claim that the benefit of curation to the value of the collection as a whole probably scales with the size of the collection, if we’re talking about art or history museums. For instance, having an entire, working 1960s mainframe that’s used routinely for demonstrations at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View is extremely valuable, beyond the monetary cost it would take to acquire and set up the physical hardware. The same system, non working, and with “do not touch” signs all around, is significantly less valuable. Likewise, a museum with the resources to pull off an exhibit like the Warhol retrospective that was at SFMOMA recently can a full picture of how an artist grows and develops throughout a career in a way that a single work, or handful of works, cannot.
LeifCarrotson 6y ago
Business logic that works in tech doesn't apply to museums. The ancients aren't making more and better history every year. If you sell an irreplaceable object to make a profit at the end of the quarter, you can't just buy a new one when times are better. On the other hand, the ancients aren't making more history, so your collection never goes out of date. If you lay off all your staff, as long as you keep the collection in good storage conditions, you can hire new staff a century later and reopen just fine. Museum policy that prevents dumping of assets is good policy. A museum that sells its collection is no longer a museum.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  Amazing how HN frequently complains about Private Equity buying up tech companies and killing the golden goose for the sake of short term gains, yet the top comment suggests museums do exactly that. (Shrugs)
  - pgwhalen 6y ago
    I’ve always found it useful to not assume users on a website are a homogenous group of people.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      I agree, although I do find it useful more generally to point out when common arguments conflict with one another. Contradictions aren't always obvious, so bringing them to light is helpful.
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      I'm well aware. However, voting is aggregate so I figure the top comment is representative of the zeitgeist.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    As opposed to the museum shutting down completely? I mean, look, I agree, the idea of a museum selling an art piece to make ends meet leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. But I'd rather the museums stay open.
jonlucc 6y ago
In short, they can right now. There's an Association of Art Museum Directors. Usually, the consequence for selling art to pay bills would result in that museum being censured by the art museum directors. They announced a couple months ago that they are allowing a 2 year reprieve from those censures due to COVID.
scrozart 6y ago
This was the topic of a recent episode of Revisionist History. Museums, art museums in the case of this podcast, horde tons of material they simply pack away and none of them ever note the actual value in annual filings. Then, when in financial trouble, they fire people and want a bailout. It reminds me of the Rolling Stone article about Johnny Depp being 'broke', despite having earned half a billion dollars. He refuses to sell a single property of the couple dozen he owns even though he would immediately be solvent afterwards.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by gen220 6y ago

bwestergard 6y ago

If the art could be treated as an asset for accounting purposes, it would give museums and very strong incentive to collect pieces that command a high price. This would tend to weaken the internal standards of the community of artists and curators in favor of commercial standards. If you are skeptical of internal standards - if you think commercial standards should predominate - why have non-profit museums at all? Why donate to museums? Even if you're of the opinion that the existing internal norms of the art world are bogus - as I think many are - it does not follow that market norms should supplant internal norms. Internal norms can change through deliberation.

adolph 6y ago
Why would art as asset incentivize collections focused on high prices? Wouldn't there be an advantage to seeking out things that they think would increase in value over time? Non-profit != charity. Many non-profit organizations are highly focused on the bottom line and given the high ticket price traveling exhibits I think that museums are not different in seeking the cultural relevance reflected by people's engagement, engagement that can be measured in how much they might pay for something.
goodluckchuck 6y ago
It's not a matter of standards and norms, but objective reality. The art has value. It is an asset. It could be sold. To pretend otherwise is an act of deception. They're cooking the books. The question is why are they making fake books? The usual answer is to skim / profit / launder / etc. In terms of how museums choose to curate their collections, I don't really care. That's their business, not mine. However economics exist whether they want to pay attention to it or not. They have bills. They have labor costs. At some point the lights get cut off.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Most museums are small and their collection is of little value except as a whole. This is especially true when you're talking about niche museums that are basically private collections that have been turned into non-profit museums so they could continue to exist in their totality by the heirs of the deceased collector. Treating their collections like assets would help them a little but not much.

abathur 6y ago
Also, many small museums aren't "art" museums with semi-independent objects that have similar value to collectors anywhere. Many of them have some sort of focus on the history of a place, person, community, people, industry, etc., and much of the value of the artifacts they house comes from the process of curating and contextualizing them to tell us a story about the past. Because they're telling a story, they may also have replicas of artifacts they can't obtain which hold narrative/educational/illustrative value but fairly little collector value. Another common genre is something like a house, restored to and preserved in roughly period condition. When these exist because a "significant" person or family built/owned/lived in the house, they'll likely try to obtain genuine objects they can connect to the people there. But they'll of course fill it in with other instances of objects they know the family owned, replicas, and best-guesses. The person or family may only be locally significant, and the artifacts may have little independent commercial value. The main thing of value is likely to be the building itself.
pmiller2 6y ago
> ...their collection is of little value except as a whole. I agree that citation adds value to a collection. That’s why we pay curators, after all! But, I would also claim that the benefit of curation to the value of the collection as a whole probably scales with the size of the collection, if we’re talking about art or history museums. For instance, having an entire, working 1960s mainframe that’s used routinely for demonstrations at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View is extremely valuable, beyond the monetary cost it would take to acquire and set up the physical hardware. The same system, non working, and with “do not touch” signs all around, is significantly less valuable. Likewise, a museum with the resources to pull off an exhibit like the Warhol retrospective that was at SFMOMA recently can a full picture of how an artist grows and develops throughout a career in a way that a single work, or handful of works, cannot.

LeifCarrotson 6y ago

Business logic that works in tech doesn't apply to museums. The ancients aren't making more and better history every year. If you sell an irreplaceable object to make a profit at the end of the quarter, you can't just buy a new one when times are better. On the other hand, the ancients aren't making more history, so your collection never goes out of date. If you lay off all your staff, as long as you keep the collection in good storage conditions, you can hire new staff a century later and reopen just fine. Museum policy that prevents dumping of assets is good policy. A museum that sells its collection is no longer a museum.

sangnoir 6y ago
Amazing how HN frequently complains about Private Equity buying up tech companies and killing the golden goose for the sake of short term gains, yet the top comment suggests museums do exactly that. (Shrugs)
- pgwhalen 6y ago
  I’ve always found it useful to not assume users on a website are a homogenous group of people.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    I agree, although I do find it useful more generally to point out when common arguments conflict with one another. Contradictions aren't always obvious, so bringing them to light is helpful.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    I'm well aware. However, voting is aggregate so I figure the top comment is representative of the zeitgeist.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  As opposed to the museum shutting down completely? I mean, look, I agree, the idea of a museum selling an art piece to make ends meet leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. But I'd rather the museums stay open.

jonlucc 6y ago

In short, they can right now. There's an Association of Art Museum Directors. Usually, the consequence for selling art to pay bills would result in that museum being censured by the art museum directors. They announced a couple months ago that they are allowing a 2 year reprieve from those censures due to COVID.

scrozart 6y ago

This was the topic of a recent episode of Revisionist History. Museums, art museums in the case of this podcast, horde tons of material they simply pack away and none of them ever note the actual value in annual filings. Then, when in financial trouble, they fire people and want a bailout. It reminds me of the Rolling Stone article about Johnny Depp being 'broke', despite having earned half a billion dollars. He refuses to sell a single property of the couple dozen he owns even though he would immediately be solvent afterwards.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]