4 ms·
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. Th
by 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 agoWhy 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 agoIt'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.