3 ms·
Every significant museum has vastly more in reserves than what can be shown. They're not art galleries, they also have a scientific and conservancy purpose.
by Bayart 3y ago
Every significant museum has vastly more in reserves than what can be shown. They're not art galleries, they also have a scientific and conservancy purpose.
- boomboomsubban 3y agoI don't get "conservation" in the terms of art. They should keep art safe so that someday it may be seen? Why not let it be seen now? I bet they could even lease out a fair amount of it with requirements of maintenance and some amount of public accessibility. That alone would drive down their costs at least.
- ceejayoz 3y agoLease it to whom? All the other museums are in the same scenario. There's more art of value than there is space to show it, so we rotate stuff in and out with special exhibitions and whatnot.
- boomboomsubban 3y agoOffices or galleries. I imagine a fair number of businesses would be willing to pay for Guggenheim approved art, and though making it accessible to the public may be difficult they could allow scheduled viewings.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThat sounds like an insurance and preservation nightmare leading to lost and damaged art.
- boomboomsubban 3y agoIMO, better a somewhat higher risk of loss or damage actually being used than paying for them to slowly rot in a storehouse.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThey're not slowly rotting in a storehouse. They're restored, conserved, and rotated in and out of the museum's public collection so it's ever-changing, which helps generate repeat business. (They're often also available for academic purposes.)
- boomboomsubban 3y agoConserving them only slows the rate of rot. There's some truth to helping generate repeat business, but even with a 100% yearly rotation rate that's a 17 year cycle to see everything without counting new additions. I doubt people are going to lose interest because two years prior to the new showing they could have traveled to Oklahoma City to view it.