5 ms·

> Patrons can sit and enjoy a very small section of the museum instead of rushing through, since they can simply come back for more later They can do this now.

> Patrons can sit and enjoy a very small section of the museum instead of rushing through, since they can simply come back for more later They can do this now. But if museum sells collection the can't "simply come back for more later" cause it will be gone forever into private hands. > More people get to see fine art until it's all been sold. > Second- and third-tier museums start to gain access to better art, since they can simply buy it instead of waiting for estate donations (which go to larger museums) There is no way 2nd and 3rd teir museums are going to be able to compete with private buyers on price. Also where will they get money to buy this if they have to sell art to raise money. This sounds like typical "privatize everything cause free markets!" privileged people spew because they'll benefit more than when they have to share public services with the "dirty" masses.

clarkmoody 6y ago
Why don't you take some time to listen to the podcast before getting angry about the market or someone else's privilege? Also, maybe you missed the part where there is 10x-100x the amount of art sitting in the archive than on display? Bringing lots of new supply of art onto the market would necessarily lower prices. This would make it less profitable to buy up art privately in the hope that it appreciates. It would also make it more affordable for other museums. At the same time, there's nothing preventing a first-tier museum from only selling to other museums rather than to private collectors. They might even stipulate terms of the sale that the art must stay with the new owner for a minimum time frame.
- andrepd 6y ago
  Why must everything be mercantilised? Why must everything fit the logic of The Market? Increase supply, lower prices, etc. Is it a good thing that so much art is in the hands of private individuals? Shouldn't the legacy and heritage of past generations by rights belong to everybody?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    One problem with storing it all in one basement is what if the basement burns or catches fire? All gone. Distributing it widely means enormously lowering the risk of it all being lost.
    - gkop 6y ago
      > Distributing it widely means enormously lowering the risk of it all being lost. You may not have intended it, but that sounds like loose statistical language meant to misguide the reader. Yes the probability that ALL is lost is lower when works are distributed, so your statement is correct. But what actually matters is the expected total value of the works successfully preserved over time under each methodology. I’d bet on libraries, specifically top tier institutional libraries, where they have whole preservation departments for whom disaster planning is a key responsibility.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        The professional archivists stored all the unpublished Kennedy pictures in a vault in the bottom of the World Trade Center. Perfectly safe there. No need to make copies.
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        Whilst it emphasises that loss is still a factor, I don't feel your anecdote counters the position of the parent comment at all.
    - calebkaiser 6y ago
      It's not as if all art exists in one basement. There are over 1,500 art museums in the US alone, not accounting for all of the art stored in galleries, public buildings, and in private collections. If one particularly large node--say MoMA--burnt down, that would be a huge blow, but it would not destroy the world's art archive by any means. Ironically, distributing art widely via the private market leads to way more lost art. A painting living in the AIC's basement means there's an entire team dedicated to preserving it, and a system for accessing it should you want to see it. A painting living in the basement of an anonymous investor who bought it off-the-record from someone who themselves bought it anonymously at auction may never resurface (incidentally, this scenario describes the state of quite a bit of classic art).
- subaquamille 6y ago
  Saddly the kind of pieces sitting in Rijskmuseum basement will never refill with "lots of new suplly". Its heritage from past that you may not be able to see yourself but which is publicly cared and may be enjoyed by future generation. I really like the disruptive idea and it may work as expected for a while but in a few decades everything's gone in private collections. The primary goal of museum is to care of masterpieces and history traces. They're definitely not an entertainment center as a zoo. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the opposite because lions are sensible beings are status aren't.

clarkmoody 6y ago

Why don't you take some time to listen to the podcast before getting angry about the market or someone else's privilege? Also, maybe you missed the part where there is 10x-100x the amount of art sitting in the archive than on display? Bringing lots of new supply of art onto the market would necessarily lower prices. This would make it less profitable to buy up art privately in the hope that it appreciates. It would also make it more affordable for other museums. At the same time, there's nothing preventing a first-tier museum from only selling to other museums rather than to private collectors. They might even stipulate terms of the sale that the art must stay with the new owner for a minimum time frame.

andrepd 6y ago
Why must everything be mercantilised? Why must everything fit the logic of The Market? Increase supply, lower prices, etc. Is it a good thing that so much art is in the hands of private individuals? Shouldn't the legacy and heritage of past generations by rights belong to everybody?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  One problem with storing it all in one basement is what if the basement burns or catches fire? All gone. Distributing it widely means enormously lowering the risk of it all being lost.
  - gkop 6y ago
    > Distributing it widely means enormously lowering the risk of it all being lost. You may not have intended it, but that sounds like loose statistical language meant to misguide the reader. Yes the probability that ALL is lost is lower when works are distributed, so your statement is correct. But what actually matters is the expected total value of the works successfully preserved over time under each methodology. I’d bet on libraries, specifically top tier institutional libraries, where they have whole preservation departments for whom disaster planning is a key responsibility.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      The professional archivists stored all the unpublished Kennedy pictures in a vault in the bottom of the World Trade Center. Perfectly safe there. No need to make copies.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        Whilst it emphasises that loss is still a factor, I don't feel your anecdote counters the position of the parent comment at all.
  - calebkaiser 6y ago
    It's not as if all art exists in one basement. There are over 1,500 art museums in the US alone, not accounting for all of the art stored in galleries, public buildings, and in private collections. If one particularly large node--say MoMA--burnt down, that would be a huge blow, but it would not destroy the world's art archive by any means. Ironically, distributing art widely via the private market leads to way more lost art. A painting living in the AIC's basement means there's an entire team dedicated to preserving it, and a system for accessing it should you want to see it. A painting living in the basement of an anonymous investor who bought it off-the-record from someone who themselves bought it anonymously at auction may never resurface (incidentally, this scenario describes the state of quite a bit of classic art).
subaquamille 6y ago
Saddly the kind of pieces sitting in Rijskmuseum basement will never refill with "lots of new suplly". Its heritage from past that you may not be able to see yourself but which is publicly cared and may be enjoyed by future generation. I really like the disruptive idea and it may work as expected for a while but in a few decades everything's gone in private collections. The primary goal of museum is to care of masterpieces and history traces. They're definitely not an entertainment center as a zoo. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the opposite because lions are sensible beings are status aren't.