4 ms·

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

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.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  The spectrum is extremely diverse. The are the large institutions, some of which keeping collections of national interest, and then there are the tiny local initiatives that are generally run by volunteers and enthusiast. And then there's everything in between. There is a global non-governmental organisation that represents the museum domain and formally defines what a museum is: [1] [2] > “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.” [1] https://icom.museum/en/ https://icom.museum/en/ [2] https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/ https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum... This definition is also found it's way in public governance when it comes to recognizing an entity that keeps a collection as a museum, and providing matching public funding. Of course, the term "museum" isn't a protected label. And so, while you may see many scattered museums in a lot of places, that doesn't mean that they are publicly recognized as such nor adhere to the formal definition. > 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) These are indemnity contracts. This is a common practice. Since museums aren't the owners of the objects, they will want to avoid liability. This is determined by the extent to which museums are able to insure themselves against damage, theft or loss when loaning an object. Collectors who loan out objects aren't responsible for the day to day operations - such as 'general preservation - of a museum, nor are they held to fund those operations. However, loan contracts do contain assurances and describe formal conditions trying to ensure the protection of the object during transit and on location. Since a loaning objects always constitutes a risk, a bond of trust between museums and collectors is paramount. This is crucial role played by curators. And it's another reason why networking events are important. > my honest opinion is that most of these places spend far more on organizing the fundraisers rather than paying for artwork and preservation But have you also verified your opinion and actually looked into the economics of running museums? Many large museums publish their finances in great detail since they also receive a public endowment, subsidy or funding. The Met is a great example of that: https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/policies-and-documents/annual-reports https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/policies-and-documen... For 2019, the Met did spend some 18 million $ on promotional and special events, whereas gifts and grants ran a total of 59 million $, and admissions accounted for another 55 million $ in revenue. (admissions being a hot and contested debate in this case [3]) [3] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/08/met-museum-new-pricing-policy-backlash https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/08/met-mus...
crusty 6y ago
Nope, it didn't need any more explanation or accounting for nuance. It was a comment on the the author's apparent lack of awareness. Obviously lots of proactively owned art and antiquities of cultural significance are loaned out, but let's be honest here, rare books aren't Rembrandts.
- mcphage 6y ago
  > It was a comment on the the author's apparent lack of awareness. I think the author was very aware of what they were doing when they put those two sentences next to each other.

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.
CaptArmchair 6y ago
The spectrum is extremely diverse. The are the large institutions, some of which keeping collections of national interest, and then there are the tiny local initiatives that are generally run by volunteers and enthusiast. And then there's everything in between. There is a global non-governmental organisation that represents the museum domain and formally defines what a museum is: [1] [2] > “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.” [1] https://icom.museum/en/ https://icom.museum/en/ [2] https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/ https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum... This definition is also found it's way in public governance when it comes to recognizing an entity that keeps a collection as a museum, and providing matching public funding. Of course, the term "museum" isn't a protected label. And so, while you may see many scattered museums in a lot of places, that doesn't mean that they are publicly recognized as such nor adhere to the formal definition. > 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) These are indemnity contracts. This is a common practice. Since museums aren't the owners of the objects, they will want to avoid liability. This is determined by the extent to which museums are able to insure themselves against damage, theft or loss when loaning an object. Collectors who loan out objects aren't responsible for the day to day operations - such as 'general preservation - of a museum, nor are they held to fund those operations. However, loan contracts do contain assurances and describe formal conditions trying to ensure the protection of the object during transit and on location. Since a loaning objects always constitutes a risk, a bond of trust between museums and collectors is paramount. This is crucial role played by curators. And it's another reason why networking events are important. > my honest opinion is that most of these places spend far more on organizing the fundraisers rather than paying for artwork and preservation But have you also verified your opinion and actually looked into the economics of running museums? Many large museums publish their finances in great detail since they also receive a public endowment, subsidy or funding. The Met is a great example of that: https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/policies-and-documents/annual-reports https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/policies-and-documen... For 2019, the Met did spend some 18 million $ on promotional and special events, whereas gifts and grants ran a total of 59 million $, and admissions accounted for another 55 million $ in revenue. (admissions being a hot and contested debate in this case [3]) [3] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/08/met-museum-new-pricing-policy-backlash https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/08/met-mus...

crusty 6y ago

Nope, it didn't need any more explanation or accounting for nuance. It was a comment on the the author's apparent lack of awareness. Obviously lots of proactively owned art and antiquities of cultural significance are loaned out, but let's be honest here, rare books aren't Rembrandts.

mcphage 6y ago
> It was a comment on the the author's apparent lack of awareness. I think the author was very aware of what they were doing when they put those two sentences next to each other.