6 ms·

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

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 On the other hand, the ancients aren't making more history, so your collection never goes out of date.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.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    I agree. In this particular case, there are short term gains, and there’s short term survival. Since long term survival requires short term survival, I, as a museum director, would do what needed to be done, even if such things would be looked down upon in better times.
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    > As opposed to the museum shutting down completely? Yes. Shutting down temporary for the short or even medium term is better for humanity,if that is the cost to maintain long-term public access The primary purpose of museums is not profit or employment, but housing cultural artefacts. IMO it is better (for humanity) if all employees are furloughed or even fired, and the buildings shuttered until a time they are viable again - even if it's a whole new organisation that rises from the ashes or if collections have to be transferred to a different surviving museum.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      ...I think I may have been misunderstanding something here. If a museum goes bankrupt, what happens to their collection? Is there some legal avenue where they can keep everything in storage until they (hopefully) get more funding down the road?
- gen220 6y ago
  I did not suggest killing the golden goose, I suggested selling the golden eggs, so that you can afford produce to continue keeping that goose alive and serviceable to the public.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Common misconception that museums exist to put things on public display, and the collection exists to serve that. For any serious museum, it's the opposite: public exhibits are a nice thing they do, but not the most important. Maintaining the collection, and the research it enables, is mission #1.
    - gen220 6y ago
      And yet many serious museums have never offered their artifacts up to researchers for study, either because the researchers don’t exist, or because they have 1000 examples of a piece, 900 are in long-term storage, and are never planned to be used. At some point in the past, all of these pieces were acquired from private collections. Why must the flow be one-directional?
      - snowwrestler 6y ago
        The question you need to consider is: why didn't those private collections sell the objects themselves? No one forced them to donate to a museum. Selling donated items is a direct violation of the concept of the donation. The whole point of donating to a museum is that it is one-directional. Anyone who wants to sell their stuff can do so themselves. > And yet many serious museums have never offered their artifacts up to researchers for study, either because the researchers don’t exist, or because they have 1000 examples of a piece, 900 are in long-term storage, and are never planned to be used. The offer is there, even if it has not yet been taken up. You can't plan for what you don't know yet. Museums are exercises in long-term thinking. For example a fruitful path for finding new species today is to go back through museum collections that have been carefully kept in storage for future researchers.
gen220 6y ago
I agree with you that business rules do not apply to museums. I am not suggesting that a museum sell critical pieces of their collections to make a profit this quarter. I’m suggesting they sell or take out loans against the pieces of their collections that have never been on display and will likely never be put on display, so that they can continue to curate and display the pieces for the public to enjoy. I’m suggesting that it’s hypocritical for a museum to claim that it exists in service to the public (as opposed to private collections), but to close its doors or gouge prices, as an alternative to selling or taking out loans on assets that have never been and never will be displayed to the public. From my perspective, a museum with closed doors and good storage is not a museum, it is a private collection with windows and a board of directors. I realize this does not work for small museums. I specifically have the Metropolitan Museum of Art (and its cousin museums in other large American cities, which are run with similarly hyper-acquisitional). It doesn’t make sense to me that these museums can continue to acquire art (a big expense), and lay people off. It’s putting art above people, which does not sound like a public institution to me, regardless of my beliefs about the commercialization of art.
- LeifCarrotson 6y ago
  If they sell or take out loans against (and, hypothetically, default on those loans) they have failed in their primary task, to steward their collection. They're putting art and history, and, critically, many people's ability to learn from and appreciate that art and history 100, 200, 1000 years from now, above a few employee paychecks for a few months. Public institutions should take a long-term view of their public duty.

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.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I agree. In this particular case, there are short term gains, and there’s short term survival. Since long term survival requires short term survival, I, as a museum director, would do what needed to be done, even if such things would be looked down upon in better times.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  > As opposed to the museum shutting down completely? Yes. Shutting down temporary for the short or even medium term is better for humanity,if that is the cost to maintain long-term public access The primary purpose of museums is not profit or employment, but housing cultural artefacts. IMO it is better (for humanity) if all employees are furloughed or even fired, and the buildings shuttered until a time they are viable again - even if it's a whole new organisation that rises from the ashes or if collections have to be transferred to a different surviving museum.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    ...I think I may have been misunderstanding something here. If a museum goes bankrupt, what happens to their collection? Is there some legal avenue where they can keep everything in storage until they (hopefully) get more funding down the road?
gen220 6y ago
I did not suggest killing the golden goose, I suggested selling the golden eggs, so that you can afford produce to continue keeping that goose alive and serviceable to the public.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Common misconception that museums exist to put things on public display, and the collection exists to serve that. For any serious museum, it's the opposite: public exhibits are a nice thing they do, but not the most important. Maintaining the collection, and the research it enables, is mission #1.
  - gen220 6y ago
    And yet many serious museums have never offered their artifacts up to researchers for study, either because the researchers don’t exist, or because they have 1000 examples of a piece, 900 are in long-term storage, and are never planned to be used. At some point in the past, all of these pieces were acquired from private collections. Why must the flow be one-directional?
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      The question you need to consider is: why didn't those private collections sell the objects themselves? No one forced them to donate to a museum. Selling donated items is a direct violation of the concept of the donation. The whole point of donating to a museum is that it is one-directional. Anyone who wants to sell their stuff can do so themselves. > And yet many serious museums have never offered their artifacts up to researchers for study, either because the researchers don’t exist, or because they have 1000 examples of a piece, 900 are in long-term storage, and are never planned to be used. The offer is there, even if it has not yet been taken up. You can't plan for what you don't know yet. Museums are exercises in long-term thinking. For example a fruitful path for finding new species today is to go back through museum collections that have been carefully kept in storage for future researchers.

gen220 6y ago

I agree with you that business rules do not apply to museums. I am not suggesting that a museum sell critical pieces of their collections to make a profit this quarter. I’m suggesting they sell or take out loans against the pieces of their collections that have never been on display and will likely never be put on display, so that they can continue to curate and display the pieces for the public to enjoy. I’m suggesting that it’s hypocritical for a museum to claim that it exists in service to the public (as opposed to private collections), but to close its doors or gouge prices, as an alternative to selling or taking out loans on assets that have never been and never will be displayed to the public. From my perspective, a museum with closed doors and good storage is not a museum, it is a private collection with windows and a board of directors. I realize this does not work for small museums. I specifically have the Metropolitan Museum of Art (and its cousin museums in other large American cities, which are run with similarly hyper-acquisitional). It doesn’t make sense to me that these museums can continue to acquire art (a big expense), and lay people off. It’s putting art above people, which does not sound like a public institution to me, regardless of my beliefs about the commercialization of art.

LeifCarrotson 6y ago
If they sell or take out loans against (and, hypothetically, default on those loans) they have failed in their primary task, to steward their collection. They're putting art and history, and, critically, many people's ability to learn from and appreciate that art and history 100, 200, 1000 years from now, above a few employee paychecks for a few months. Public institutions should take a long-term view of their public duty.