3 ms·

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 service

by 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
      Firstly, people choose to donate to museums over selling for a wide variety of reasons, ranging from philanthropic to less-than-philanthropic. I do not believe that selling donated items is a direct violation of the concept of donation, but reasonable people are allowed to disagree on this, I think. I agree that the status quo is that donating to a museum is traditionally one-directional. I do not think it needs to be. Yes, people can sell things themselves, but it's often cheaper and easier to donate them to museums for a tax deduction, than it is to sell them at auction. I totally agree that museums should be exercises in long-term thinking. One aspect of long-term thinking is fiscal responsibility. If museums are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, posting $100mm losses, they are not thinking long-term or being responsible stewards. The world is not black and white, and I think it's silly that we should hold museums to black and white standards regarding their ability to borrow loans against some portion of their assets.
      - snowwrestler 6y ago
        “We” are not unfairly holding museums to these standards, these are standards that museums have developed and set for themselves. I am just trying to explain why they did that.

by 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
    Firstly, people choose to donate to museums over selling for a wide variety of reasons, ranging from philanthropic to less-than-philanthropic. I do not believe that selling donated items is a direct violation of the concept of donation, but reasonable people are allowed to disagree on this, I think. I agree that the status quo is that donating to a museum is traditionally one-directional. I do not think it needs to be. Yes, people can sell things themselves, but it's often cheaper and easier to donate them to museums for a tax deduction, than it is to sell them at auction. I totally agree that museums should be exercises in long-term thinking. One aspect of long-term thinking is fiscal responsibility. If museums are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, posting $100mm losses, they are not thinking long-term or being responsible stewards. The world is not black and white, and I think it's silly that we should hold museums to black and white standards regarding their ability to borrow loans against some portion of their assets.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      “We” are not unfairly holding museums to these standards, these are standards that museums have developed and set for themselves. I am just trying to explain why they did that.