7 ms·

I also came to note the ridiculousness as well, castigating thieves for stealing and literally burying something of great value to the world and then, in the ve

by crusty 6y ago

I also came to note the ridiculousness as well, castigating thieves for stealing and literally burying something of great value to the world and then, in the very next breath, casually allude to their accepted fate, being sold off to the mega-rich and hidden away for maybe one person to infrequently gaze at through glass or, more likely, to sit in a dark climate controlled vault waiting to be sold on to the next collector for the same fate.

CaptArmchair 6y ago
I think this deserves a more nuanced take. Collectors don't wholly stow their collections away for nobody to see. Many of them actively cooperate with heritage institutions and loaning out for temporary or even permanent exhibitions. Why? First, because doing so is an expression of power and status. Second, because heritage institutions are scientific authorities. Having your works on displays asserts their authenticity, and thereby their value. Barring a handful of well known names, heritage institutions, publicly funded smaller organizations in particular, have always struggled to acquire enough resources to stay operational. Sponsoring, private donations and fundraising events are indispensable. There's a good reason why the Met Gala is a thing. And even the Met struggles financially. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art#Fin... Your comment reflects on the fact that heritage objects are hidden from the public's view when they end up in a private collection. Now, what's on public display in a museum doesn't constitute the entire collection either. It's a selection made by curators and scientists based on historical and cultural significance. The Met collection counts 2 million objects, for instance. Some objects are only put on display once every few decades in a temporary exhibition because their fragility and their intrinsic value require expensive logistics, insurances,... Finally, consider how galleries and museums acquire objects and ammend their collections. It doesn't happen by accident. Either it happens because a private collector bequeaths their own collection to a public institution; or it's because public institutions also participate in auctions. I understand the point you're trying to make. There are, indeed, private collectors who simply acquire objects at auctions which then disappear from the public's view for many decades. That's absolutely not a new thing
- fakedang 6y ago
  Honestly having attended some of these fundraisers, having donated to some fundraisers, and having donated a piece of artwork (and my only piece of art tbh) to a well-renowned museum in London, my honest opinion is that most of these places spend far more on organizing the fundraisers rather than paying for artwork and preservation. In most cases, the collectors themselves take on the costs of general preservation (we have to sign a contract explicitly stating the cases where the institutions are responsible for damage, idk how it works with larger donors), and the museums are just charged a one-time cost for the hosting infra, and then there are the recurring costs of maintaining the museum. One issue I've noticed is that there are far too many scattered museums in a lot of places, mostly converted homes, churches and the like. Some of it might be ripe for consolidation.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    The only way to get enough funds is fund raisers. Spending 40% of their money on fund raisers looks wasteful, but if they didn't spend that much on fund raising the total amount they would have to spend on the useful work they do would be much less. That is also why the board and CEO positions are really pay to play: the board of these places are all people who are big donors, and the CEO is chosen by the connections she has to people who will donate big dollars. You must admit people who have the kind of money to throw around to buy a board seat probably have some business success as well as interest in the subject, so it isn't all bad. It gets people who care and are good. That is the alternative view of the situation. There is some real merit, but I'm not sure how much I believe it.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      I wouldn't mind a 40% expenditure on fundraisers - heck, normal public companies spend 25-45% on marketing alone right? The issue comes when many of these places have spent close to 60-70% of the budget, sometimes more, on fundraisers. Not to mention, the younger moneyed crowd these days (the 35-50s demographic) has in no way been enticed to donate by these museums, unless they were part of pre-built networks.
  - 6y ago

by crusty 6y ago

CaptArmchair 6y ago

I think this deserves a more nuanced take. Collectors don't wholly stow their collections away for nobody to see. Many of them actively cooperate with heritage institutions and loaning out for temporary or even permanent exhibitions. Why? First, because doing so is an expression of power and status. Second, because heritage institutions are scientific authorities. Having your works on displays asserts their authenticity, and thereby their value. Barring a handful of well known names, heritage institutions, publicly funded smaller organizations in particular, have always struggled to acquire enough resources to stay operational. Sponsoring, private donations and fundraising events are indispensable. There's a good reason why the Met Gala is a thing. And even the Met struggles financially. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Museum_of_Art#Fin... Your comment reflects on the fact that heritage objects are hidden from the public's view when they end up in a private collection. Now, what's on public display in a museum doesn't constitute the entire collection either. It's a selection made by curators and scientists based on historical and cultural significance. The Met collection counts 2 million objects, for instance. Some objects are only put on display once every few decades in a temporary exhibition because their fragility and their intrinsic value require expensive logistics, insurances,... Finally, consider how galleries and museums acquire objects and ammend their collections. It doesn't happen by accident. Either it happens because a private collector bequeaths their own collection to a public institution; or it's because public institutions also participate in auctions. I understand the point you're trying to make. There are, indeed, private collectors who simply acquire objects at auctions which then disappear from the public's view for many decades. That's absolutely not a new thing

fakedang 6y ago
Honestly having attended some of these fundraisers, having donated to some fundraisers, and having donated a piece of artwork (and my only piece of art tbh) to a well-renowned museum in London, my honest opinion is that most of these places spend far more on organizing the fundraisers rather than paying for artwork and preservation. In most cases, the collectors themselves take on the costs of general preservation (we have to sign a contract explicitly stating the cases where the institutions are responsible for damage, idk how it works with larger donors), and the museums are just charged a one-time cost for the hosting infra, and then there are the recurring costs of maintaining the museum. One issue I've noticed is that there are far too many scattered museums in a lot of places, mostly converted homes, churches and the like. Some of it might be ripe for consolidation.
- bluGill 6y ago
  The only way to get enough funds is fund raisers. Spending 40% of their money on fund raisers looks wasteful, but if they didn't spend that much on fund raising the total amount they would have to spend on the useful work they do would be much less. That is also why the board and CEO positions are really pay to play: the board of these places are all people who are big donors, and the CEO is chosen by the connections she has to people who will donate big dollars. You must admit people who have the kind of money to throw around to buy a board seat probably have some business success as well as interest in the subject, so it isn't all bad. It gets people who care and are good. That is the alternative view of the situation. There is some real merit, but I'm not sure how much I believe it.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    I wouldn't mind a 40% expenditure on fundraisers - heck, normal public companies spend 25-45% on marketing alone right? The issue comes when many of these places have spent close to 60-70% of the budget, sometimes more, on fundraisers. Not to mention, the younger moneyed crowd these days (the 35-50s demographic) has in no way been enticed to donate by these museums, unless they were part of pre-built networks.
- 6y ago