4 ms·

Although I agree(stuff bought with tax money should go to tax payers), you do realize that many people don't see it that way. Especially when their career rely

by wiz21c 2y ago

Although I agree(stuff bought with tax money should go to tax payers), you do realize that many people don't see it that way. Especially when their career rely on withholding the stuff in question. Another example: if people have access to 3D scans, then they might come to the museum anymore because they can make a virtual tour... (I doubt of that, but well, it's an example) But, of course, as a tax payer, I wanted these 3D scans (somebody voted for that at some point). So now the pandora's box is open. The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable. Unfortunately, "modern management" crept in there and now they have to be somehow profitable or at least make an effort to be so. And so, information withholding is a way to achieve that goal. As a society we have to choose: we keep museums so that everyone can enjoy art, or we think they have to be profitable first...

grahamj 2y ago
> a museum is not there to be profitable This is so important. Museums (should) exist because the artifacts are rare and must necessarily be protected and confined. They should be overjoyed that scans allow everyone to enjoy these artifacts, even without visiting a museum. Anything else is corruption.
- trinsic2 2y ago
  The problem is that every institution has been corrupted by the capitalistic viewpoint that everything needs to be profitable to work. Everyone believes that and lives there live around those principals there is not much room for a common domain any more.
tirant 2y ago
> The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market. Otherwise you are imposing on the citizens the maintenance of an organization based on the criteria from either the political party in power or some bureaucrats. And we all know that their incentives are usually not aligned with their citizens, but mostly to perpetuate their position of power. I personally also believe Museums are important to preserve our history and facilitate research, but not all types and not at all costs. And specially they should not be a nest of corruption as I have observed. So I’m most inclined to let the free market decide, which includes private foundations or wealthy individuals owning museums (e.g. Getty Center in LA).
- mejutoco 2y ago
  > Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market. I would say the most democratic way we have found is voting. The free market is efficient, but not concerned with democracy.
- necovek 2y ago
  How do you explain the relative success of Internet Archive, Wikipedia and previously, public libraries? Obviously not compared to profitable businesses, but instead to our appetite to support them and use them.

by wiz21c 2y ago

grahamj 2y ago

> a museum is not there to be profitable This is so important. Museums (should) exist because the artifacts are rare and must necessarily be protected and confined. They should be overjoyed that scans allow everyone to enjoy these artifacts, even without visiting a museum. Anything else is corruption.

trinsic2 2y ago
The problem is that every institution has been corrupted by the capitalistic viewpoint that everything needs to be profitable to work. Everyone believes that and lives there live around those principals there is not much room for a common domain any more.

tirant 2y ago

> The problem, I guess, is that a museum is not there to be profitable Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market. Otherwise you are imposing on the citizens the maintenance of an organization based on the criteria from either the political party in power or some bureaucrats. And we all know that their incentives are usually not aligned with their citizens, but mostly to perpetuate their position of power. I personally also believe Museums are important to preserve our history and facilitate research, but not all types and not at all costs. And specially they should not be a nest of corruption as I have observed. So I’m most inclined to let the free market decide, which includes private foundations or wealthy individuals owning museums (e.g. Getty Center in LA).

mejutoco 2y ago
> Well, the most democratic way we have found in the West to understand if a product or an initiative is relevant for the population is to see if it’s profitable (via sales or donations), or in other words, via the free market. I would say the most democratic way we have found is voting. The free market is efficient, but not concerned with democracy.
necovek 2y ago
How do you explain the relative success of Internet Archive, Wikipedia and previously, public libraries? Obviously not compared to profitable businesses, but instead to our appetite to support them and use them.