Few Quids on the Block
September 17, 2020 8:50 AM Subscribe
The Brooklyn Museum is auctioning off twelve works of art (NYT) to raise funds for the care of its collection. Deaccessioning is typically discouraged if not explicitly forbidden for many museums as way to raise funds, but amid rolling financial crises, the Association of Art Museum Directors (of US, Canada, and Mexico) announced that for the next two years, it won't sanction museums that sell art for the “direct care” of permanent collections.
Previously: The Deaccessioning Debate (2009)
Previously: The Deaccessioning Debate (2009)
Public access to art is so overrated.
posted by octothorpe at 9:05 AM on September 17, 2020
posted by octothorpe at 9:05 AM on September 17, 2020
On the one hand it's sad that they have to do this - but on the other hand, I have been to the Brooklyn Museum many times and never remember even ever seeing any of the paintings they are auctioning off, so they were presumably one of those items from the collection that were already getting short shrift and not being used in exhibitions anyway.
If they get rid of their Thomas Cole or anything from the Sackler collection, now, then that's a different story.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:08 AM on September 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
If they get rid of their Thomas Cole or anything from the Sackler collection, now, then that's a different story.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:08 AM on September 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
A lot of museums are just storing these paintings in back rooms with no public access anyway (there's only so much wall space in a museum), so I feel like selling a few paintings won't actually limit the amount of art publicly accessible to your regular museum-goer.
To some extent, it feels like museums are limiting public access to works of art by holding onto more art than they can display reasonably.
posted by that girl at 9:09 AM on September 17, 2020 [12 favorites]
To some extent, it feels like museums are limiting public access to works of art by holding onto more art than they can display reasonably.
posted by that girl at 9:09 AM on September 17, 2020 [12 favorites]
The auction page is here (fyi, it includes lots of stuff from other sellers), and you can check the "literature and exhibited" section to see when they were on display. The Cranach, for example, was last exhibited in 1990.
posted by theodolite at 9:12 AM on September 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 9:12 AM on September 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
The joke is, anyone who could afford these works could just fucking give the money to the museums, nsa.
fucking rich people.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:13 AM on September 17, 2020 [32 favorites]
fucking rich people.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:13 AM on September 17, 2020 [32 favorites]
The joke is, anyone who could afford these works could just fucking give the money to the museums, nsa.
Or we could just take it from them, which is what taxes are supposed to be for.
fucking, indeed, rich people.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:14 AM on September 17, 2020 [39 favorites]
Or we could just take it from them, which is what taxes are supposed to be for.
fucking, indeed, rich people.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:14 AM on September 17, 2020 [39 favorites]
I think the general rule of thumb is that most museums are able to display, at most, 10% of their collection. (Really vast collections are more like 2%.) The rest is accessible to researchers -- so it is publicly accessible, but requires an appointment so they can pull what you're interested in. Some museums may make you prove you're not just requesting access for funsies or whatever, but that's generally reserved for very rare or fragile works.
Digitizing collections also increases access, but requires time and money, and a fair amount of both, so it's not really happening at the scale it needs to happen at.
I have...extremely not-good* feelings about essentially okaying de-accessioning without particular rules.. The only way I see it ending is more artwork going into the hands of private collectors (where access isn't guaranteed), and the money not going to pay employees a decent wage or even keeping the lights particularly on, because I've seen museums fuck up handling money so, so many times in the past.
(Full Disclosure: I interviewed for a pretty specialized job at Brooklyn Museum many years ago that paid a salary that, when broken down to an hourly rate, was less than $15/hr for full-time work that required pretty advanced education and experience. So I'm extremely prone to side-eye what they plan to do with the money and how they treat their staff.)
*I'd initially written 'mixed' and then realized on preview that nope, mostly I don't like this.
posted by kalimac at 9:22 AM on September 17, 2020 [24 favorites]
Digitizing collections also increases access, but requires time and money, and a fair amount of both, so it's not really happening at the scale it needs to happen at.
I have...extremely not-good* feelings about essentially okaying de-accessioning without particular rules.. The only way I see it ending is more artwork going into the hands of private collectors (where access isn't guaranteed), and the money not going to pay employees a decent wage or even keeping the lights particularly on, because I've seen museums fuck up handling money so, so many times in the past.
(Full Disclosure: I interviewed for a pretty specialized job at Brooklyn Museum many years ago that paid a salary that, when broken down to an hourly rate, was less than $15/hr for full-time work that required pretty advanced education and experience. So I'm extremely prone to side-eye what they plan to do with the money and how they treat their staff.)
*I'd initially written 'mixed' and then realized on preview that nope, mostly I don't like this.
posted by kalimac at 9:22 AM on September 17, 2020 [24 favorites]
> The joke is, anyone who could afford these works could just fucking give the money to the museums, nsa.
Or we could just take it from them, which is what taxes are supposed to be for.
Amen to both of these.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:30 AM on September 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Or we could just take it from them, which is what taxes are supposed to be for.
Amen to both of these.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:30 AM on September 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
If I were a rich person, I would "buy" that Cranach (which is gorgeous) and give it back to the museum in perpetuity.
On preview, what everyone about rich people above. But no doubt rich people will prove themselves to be utterly useless, so . . . (sigh) Museums were cool, right?
posted by thivaia at 9:36 AM on September 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
On preview, what everyone about rich people above. But no doubt rich people will prove themselves to be utterly useless, so . . . (sigh) Museums were cool, right?
posted by thivaia at 9:36 AM on September 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
hahahasob just yesterday my library coworkers and I were joking that by this time next year the city will probably be selling our rare book collection to keep the lights on
Story goes (I'm working from memory here, so bear with me) that the Bodleian library back in the old days sold off their Shakespeare first folio because they had bought the brand spanking new second folio, which had to be better. (They have since gotten a first folio. Probably more than one.)
De-accessing rare books - don't know about your place, but there are well endowed libraries that have multiple copies of given rare books, limited editions, that sort of thing. It's a bit dog in the mangerish. Any time I have occasion to look at this sort of thing, I always have to wonder when was the last time anyone looked at it, and how long before someone else does. Esp. in this age of the internet
If I were a rich person, I would "buy" that Cranach (which is gorgeous) and give it back to the museum in perpetuity.
According to Christie's, re the Cranach: Provenance: A. Augustus Healy, by whom bequeathed in 1921 to The Brooklyn Museum, New York.
Don't know if A. Augustus put strings on the bequeathment, maybe, maybe not, but museums have been known to quietly ignore such restrictions.
posted by BWA at 9:51 AM on September 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
Story goes (I'm working from memory here, so bear with me) that the Bodleian library back in the old days sold off their Shakespeare first folio because they had bought the brand spanking new second folio, which had to be better. (They have since gotten a first folio. Probably more than one.)
De-accessing rare books - don't know about your place, but there are well endowed libraries that have multiple copies of given rare books, limited editions, that sort of thing. It's a bit dog in the mangerish. Any time I have occasion to look at this sort of thing, I always have to wonder when was the last time anyone looked at it, and how long before someone else does. Esp. in this age of the internet
If I were a rich person, I would "buy" that Cranach (which is gorgeous) and give it back to the museum in perpetuity.
According to Christie's, re the Cranach: Provenance: A. Augustus Healy, by whom bequeathed in 1921 to The Brooklyn Museum, New York.
Don't know if A. Augustus put strings on the bequeathment, maybe, maybe not, but museums have been known to quietly ignore such restrictions.
posted by BWA at 9:51 AM on September 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
If I were a rich person, I would "buy" that Cranach (which is gorgeous) and give it back to the museum in perpetuity.
This is why you're not a rich person.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:51 AM on September 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
This is why you're not a rich person.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:51 AM on September 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
Museums should sell as many paintings as they need to in order to insure that they will never again have to charge anyone entrance fees. To my mind, it is unthinkable (and highly regressive) that these well-endowed institutions charge everyday joes money to look at art — especially when these museums are famous for hoarding warehouses full of art that nobody will ever see. We should be incentivizing engagement with the arts, not disincentivizing.
posted by panama joe at 10:14 AM on September 17, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by panama joe at 10:14 AM on September 17, 2020 [5 favorites]
> De-accessing rare books - don't know about your place, but there are well endowed libraries that have multiple copies of given rare books, limited editions, that sort of thing. It's a bit dog in the mangerish. Any time I have occasion to look at this sort of thing, I always have to wonder when was the last time anyone looked at it, and how long before someone else does. Esp. in this age of the internet
We generally don't have multiple copies of one book unless it's part of a larger themed collection, but in a few cases we have literally dozens of editions. So for all my garment rending up there in the first comment (and as librarians go, I definitely lean towards the "enthusiastic weeder" end of the scale), I do sometimes walk through the stacks and think melancholy thoughts along the lines of "when was the last time anyone looked at this?" (then I comfort myself by imagining that I work in the Cemetery of Forgotten Books). I would imagine this sort of Archivists Malaise is fairly common.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:29 AM on September 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
We generally don't have multiple copies of one book unless it's part of a larger themed collection, but in a few cases we have literally dozens of editions. So for all my garment rending up there in the first comment (and as librarians go, I definitely lean towards the "enthusiastic weeder" end of the scale), I do sometimes walk through the stacks and think melancholy thoughts along the lines of "when was the last time anyone looked at this?" (then I comfort myself by imagining that I work in the Cemetery of Forgotten Books). I would imagine this sort of Archivists Malaise is fairly common.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:29 AM on September 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
NKOTB fan here loving your title!
posted by kimberussell at 10:33 AM on September 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by kimberussell at 10:33 AM on September 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Museums should sell as many paintings as they need to in order to insure that they will never again have to charge anyone entrance fees.
At some point, however, it would get to the point where "as many paintings as they need to sell" would be "all of them". Unless, of course, we went with a model where they were funded via taxes, or they adopted a pay-what-you-wish model.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:35 AM on September 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
At some point, however, it would get to the point where "as many paintings as they need to sell" would be "all of them". Unless, of course, we went with a model where they were funded via taxes, or they adopted a pay-what-you-wish model.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:35 AM on September 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
Museums Can Change—Will They?: Our great art institutions are cheating us of our artistic patrimony every day, and if they wanted to, they could stop. (2015)
"Think about a world in which our great paintings and sculpture are mostly on view instead of where they actually are, which is mostly locked up in the basements and warehouses of a handful of our largest museums. In which you didn’t have to go to one of a half-dozen big cities to see them, and didn’t rush through an enormous museum for a whole day because you paid so much to get in. In which you weren’t constantly afraid that you aren’t entitled to what you see, or competent to engage with it. That world is actually within reach, and the main reason we don’t have it is that the people to whom we have entrusted our visual arts patrimony have nailed each other’s feet to the floor so they can’t move toward it, and done so with the tacit approval and even collaboration of government.
Big museums have long refused to recognize their unexhibited collections of duplicates and minor works as a financial resource. As a consequence, they are wasting value by keeping these works hidden. If they were redistributed to smaller institutions, and even to private collectors and businesses, they would fund an explosion of the value for which we have museums in the first place: people looking at art and getting more out of it when they do."
(Full article is quite long, but worth the time.)
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:51 AM on September 17, 2020 [13 favorites]
"Think about a world in which our great paintings and sculpture are mostly on view instead of where they actually are, which is mostly locked up in the basements and warehouses of a handful of our largest museums. In which you didn’t have to go to one of a half-dozen big cities to see them, and didn’t rush through an enormous museum for a whole day because you paid so much to get in. In which you weren’t constantly afraid that you aren’t entitled to what you see, or competent to engage with it. That world is actually within reach, and the main reason we don’t have it is that the people to whom we have entrusted our visual arts patrimony have nailed each other’s feet to the floor so they can’t move toward it, and done so with the tacit approval and even collaboration of government.
Big museums have long refused to recognize their unexhibited collections of duplicates and minor works as a financial resource. As a consequence, they are wasting value by keeping these works hidden. If they were redistributed to smaller institutions, and even to private collectors and businesses, they would fund an explosion of the value for which we have museums in the first place: people looking at art and getting more out of it when they do."
(Full article is quite long, but worth the time.)
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:51 AM on September 17, 2020 [13 favorites]
I just don't understand how people can be so passionate about wanting museums to hoard art in a vault somewhere. To my mind, the current situation is a travesty - a handful of the world's great museums have an unbelievable percentage of the world's high-quality European art, most of which is never displayed, while private collectors and museums that were founded more recently compete for scraps. Here in Austin, there isn't a museum in a hundred mile radius that has old masters equal to the ones being sold, but a handful of museums have hundreds of equal works that will never be displayed.
When I lived in Baltimore, the Baltimore Museum of Art (which has become sort of famous for deaccessioning a couple works) put on a very nice exhibit of 350 works from their print collection, most of which have not otherwise been displayed. Their total print collection is 65,000 works. Displaying well under 1% of their collection took up an entire gallery, and after the exhibit the prints were put back in the archive, surely not to be seen again for decades.
Fueled by tax incentives and the vanity of donors, the 20th century saw a blizzard of donations of art, books, and other materials that have built out our cultural archives well beyond the point of usefulness. I understand why people don't like the idea of art circulating on the private market where it's unattainable for most people, but if the alternative is entombing it in vaults where no one sees it, I just can't see how that's worse. This is especially the case because if this entombed art were to reenter the private market, much of it would likely end up being donated somewhere eventually, which would likely result in a more equitable distribution of art across museums. The really shameful thing is that the Brooklyn Museum has been hiding all of this lovely art, not that they're releasing it into the world to be enjoyed by someone. And that doesn't even get into the absurdity of museums sitting on millions and millions of dollars in undisplayed art while charging admission and underpaying employees.
posted by vathek at 10:52 AM on September 17, 2020 [10 favorites]
When I lived in Baltimore, the Baltimore Museum of Art (which has become sort of famous for deaccessioning a couple works) put on a very nice exhibit of 350 works from their print collection, most of which have not otherwise been displayed. Their total print collection is 65,000 works. Displaying well under 1% of their collection took up an entire gallery, and after the exhibit the prints were put back in the archive, surely not to be seen again for decades.
Fueled by tax incentives and the vanity of donors, the 20th century saw a blizzard of donations of art, books, and other materials that have built out our cultural archives well beyond the point of usefulness. I understand why people don't like the idea of art circulating on the private market where it's unattainable for most people, but if the alternative is entombing it in vaults where no one sees it, I just can't see how that's worse. This is especially the case because if this entombed art were to reenter the private market, much of it would likely end up being donated somewhere eventually, which would likely result in a more equitable distribution of art across museums. The really shameful thing is that the Brooklyn Museum has been hiding all of this lovely art, not that they're releasing it into the world to be enjoyed by someone. And that doesn't even get into the absurdity of museums sitting on millions and millions of dollars in undisplayed art while charging admission and underpaying employees.
posted by vathek at 10:52 AM on September 17, 2020 [10 favorites]
→
ah, the kind of job that can only be taken by those with a huge trust fund. They have to advertise these, as the law frowns upon grace and favour appointments. The law also prevents them from adding “No plebs may apply”.
I'm angry for you too, kalimac. How can we interpret the museum holdings fully if all the curators are so homogenous?
posted by scruss at 11:02 AM on September 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
a pretty specialized job at Brooklyn Museum … that paid … less than $15/hr
ah, the kind of job that can only be taken by those with a huge trust fund. They have to advertise these, as the law frowns upon grace and favour appointments. The law also prevents them from adding “No plebs may apply”.
I'm angry for you too, kalimac. How can we interpret the museum holdings fully if all the curators are so homogenous?
posted by scruss at 11:02 AM on September 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
I just don't understand how people can be so passionate about wanting museums to hoard art in a vault somewhere.
Yes, this! An art museum should not be a graveyard for art. Museums should be more like libraries, which are constantly rethinking and winnowing and curating their holdings to suit the needs of the public. Yes, libraries have rare book rooms, but they also acknowledge that not every single thing in their collection is a rare book. Making room for the new is one way of diversifying museum collections, which are notoriously very male and very white.
posted by oulipian at 11:17 AM on September 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yes, this! An art museum should not be a graveyard for art. Museums should be more like libraries, which are constantly rethinking and winnowing and curating their holdings to suit the needs of the public. Yes, libraries have rare book rooms, but they also acknowledge that not every single thing in their collection is a rare book. Making room for the new is one way of diversifying museum collections, which are notoriously very male and very white.
posted by oulipian at 11:17 AM on September 17, 2020 [3 favorites]
I just don't understand how people can be so passionate about wanting museums to hoard art in a vault somewhere. To my mind, the current situation is a travesty - a handful of the world's great museums have an unbelievable percentage of the world's high-quality European art, most of which is never displayed, while private collectors and museums that were founded more recently compete for scraps. Here in Austin, there isn't a museum in a hundred mile radius that has old masters equal to the ones being sold, but a handful of museums have hundreds of equal works that will never be displayed.
I absolutely agree -- I would love to see the great hoarders share their wealth with other museums! Everyone should be able to see amazing art -- and feel welcomed and wanted and included in the museum -- where they live. It's not so much 'get rid of part of your collection that is never on display but would be the centerpiece of a smaller museum's collection' that gives me hives, but what happens to the collection got rid of, plus where the money is going.
I think my biggest sticking point is the private collectors though; especially those buying art as investment pieces and not even because they love the artwork. To me, that disappears it even more than a museum storage room. If there's a bright side to this, I would genuinely be happy to hear it: a statistic that 90% of private collectors display their art publicly, or make it available to scholars, or what-have-you. My POV is that, right now, museums at least provide some kind of access, even if they're dramatically imperfect about it. I would, genuinely, but happy to be presented with evidence otherwise!
posted by kalimac at 11:22 AM on September 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
I absolutely agree -- I would love to see the great hoarders share their wealth with other museums! Everyone should be able to see amazing art -- and feel welcomed and wanted and included in the museum -- where they live. It's not so much 'get rid of part of your collection that is never on display but would be the centerpiece of a smaller museum's collection' that gives me hives, but what happens to the collection got rid of, plus where the money is going.
I think my biggest sticking point is the private collectors though; especially those buying art as investment pieces and not even because they love the artwork. To me, that disappears it even more than a museum storage room. If there's a bright side to this, I would genuinely be happy to hear it: a statistic that 90% of private collectors display their art publicly, or make it available to scholars, or what-have-you. My POV is that, right now, museums at least provide some kind of access, even if they're dramatically imperfect about it. I would, genuinely, but happy to be presented with evidence otherwise!
posted by kalimac at 11:22 AM on September 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
Museums should be more like libraries
Museums should partner with libraries, and put artwork languishing in storage on display at local branches.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:30 AM on September 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
Museums should partner with libraries, and put artwork languishing in storage on display at local branches.
posted by Iris Gambol at 11:30 AM on September 17, 2020 [6 favorites]
> Making room for the new is one way of diversifying museum collections, which are notoriously very male and very white.
My library department's manuscript collection is a treasure, but at the same time...there's almost nothing in there by or about POC*, but if some rich white guy bought a goat in 1874? WE'VE GOT YOU COVERED.
* we're actively working to change that, but even once we do it will still be a testament to what our society considers capital-I Important
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:35 AM on September 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
My library department's manuscript collection is a treasure, but at the same time...there's almost nothing in there by or about POC*, but if some rich white guy bought a goat in 1874? WE'VE GOT YOU COVERED.
* we're actively working to change that, but even once we do it will still be a testament to what our society considers capital-I Important
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:35 AM on September 17, 2020 [2 favorites]
This might be a bit too radical, but.. why do museums even exist? How did we get to the point where every single piece of humanity is quartered off into tiny, niche boxes that you then have to prove you deserve access to, either by status, free time, or wealth?
posted by FirstMateKate at 11:44 AM on September 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by FirstMateKate at 11:44 AM on September 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
Compared to the universally private collections that preceded them, museums are open and democratic. But the article I linked to (Museums Can Change—Will They?) argues not only that more art should be made more available (free admissions, broader distribution to more institutions), but that it should be more accessible: "Second, for “better” engagement, museums could have educational programs that, as a nurse grad student of mine once said, 'start where the patient is' and begin before the visitor leaves home. Enjoy history? Here’s how this painting explains it, and why it happened when and where it did. Basement woodworker? Here’s how they made the inlays in this chest. Religious? This painting is a theological tract, and here’s how it works. Political lefty? Let me introduce you to George Grosz. Think you might want to own original art? Here’s how to start."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:56 AM on September 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:56 AM on September 17, 2020 [9 favorites]
Almost everything currently held in museums and archives which doesn't confer profit, status and/or immediate practical usefulness to its owner would wind up in the trash if they all closed.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:00 PM on September 17, 2020
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:00 PM on September 17, 2020
This might be a bit too radical, but.. why do museums even exist? How did we get to the point where every single piece of humanity is quartered off into tiny, niche boxes that you then have to prove you deserve access to, either by status, free time, or wealth?
Oh man, I can answer this!! I love the history of museums!
Ok, two disclaimers: this is a really broad summary, and it's an extremely White, Euro-centric history which reflects my education (which I have Opinions about, but moving on for the moment).
So a pretty major proto-museum in Europe was the the wunderkammer, where people who had traveled a lot basically dedicated a room of their house to showing off all the cool stuff they had bought/stolen on their journeys. They were private collections, obviously not open to the public, but your rich friends could come over and admire your stuffed crocodile.
This slowly grew into private collections that were available to scholars, mostly art students -- the Sir John Soane's Museum in London is a preserved-in-aspic representative of this style. Building off the idea of the wunderkammer, but maybe slightly arranged for study or aesthetics. Still not accessible to the public, really.
Where the public (in Europe, or at least definitely England) starts to come in is in the 19th century, as part of the Victorian push to bring culture to the masses. Alongside public parks, you get the opening of The British Museum, where objects are arranged pedagogically; here is the Egyptian stuff, here is the Assyrian stuff, here is some fine art from a particular time period. (Many or most of these things are stolen or otherwise unethically acquired.) There were still barriers to access, but in general for the first time, the idea was that an ordinary person could have access to beautiful and important things, and learn about them.
There have been variations on a theme since, of course -- I'm particularly fascinated by the advent of open-air museums in the mid-20th century, where the lives and objects of ordinary people begin to become really important. (Thinking here in particular of St. Fagan's Museum just outside of Cardiff; the emphasis there is wholly on the lives and activities of ordinary folks in Wales over thousands of years.)
I'm too long out of the sector to answer your question about how museums might radically change (cf my previous comment about the kind of pay I was looking at...among other reasons, but that's the big one), but basically, the really huge museums are still very much following this Victorian model. The proof of deserved access probably comes from that as well; you've got to be the right sort of person to really be allowed access, so barriers are consciously and unconsciously put in place. I know there is discussion, and recognition that lots of museums aren't actually serving their community, but there isn't any serious move in transforming the underlying model of what a museum is -- that I know of. (Please, please correct me if anyone knows of movements in this direction! About the best I know of is the increasing unionization of museum employees which may increase pay and improve working conditions, which might attract people who are not normally able to or welcome to work in museums?)
posted by kalimac at 12:05 PM on September 17, 2020 [15 favorites]
Oh man, I can answer this!! I love the history of museums!
Ok, two disclaimers: this is a really broad summary, and it's an extremely White, Euro-centric history which reflects my education (which I have Opinions about, but moving on for the moment).
So a pretty major proto-museum in Europe was the the wunderkammer, where people who had traveled a lot basically dedicated a room of their house to showing off all the cool stuff they had bought/stolen on their journeys. They were private collections, obviously not open to the public, but your rich friends could come over and admire your stuffed crocodile.
This slowly grew into private collections that were available to scholars, mostly art students -- the Sir John Soane's Museum in London is a preserved-in-aspic representative of this style. Building off the idea of the wunderkammer, but maybe slightly arranged for study or aesthetics. Still not accessible to the public, really.
Where the public (in Europe, or at least definitely England) starts to come in is in the 19th century, as part of the Victorian push to bring culture to the masses. Alongside public parks, you get the opening of The British Museum, where objects are arranged pedagogically; here is the Egyptian stuff, here is the Assyrian stuff, here is some fine art from a particular time period. (Many or most of these things are stolen or otherwise unethically acquired.) There were still barriers to access, but in general for the first time, the idea was that an ordinary person could have access to beautiful and important things, and learn about them.
There have been variations on a theme since, of course -- I'm particularly fascinated by the advent of open-air museums in the mid-20th century, where the lives and objects of ordinary people begin to become really important. (Thinking here in particular of St. Fagan's Museum just outside of Cardiff; the emphasis there is wholly on the lives and activities of ordinary folks in Wales over thousands of years.)
I'm too long out of the sector to answer your question about how museums might radically change (cf my previous comment about the kind of pay I was looking at...among other reasons, but that's the big one), but basically, the really huge museums are still very much following this Victorian model. The proof of deserved access probably comes from that as well; you've got to be the right sort of person to really be allowed access, so barriers are consciously and unconsciously put in place. I know there is discussion, and recognition that lots of museums aren't actually serving their community, but there isn't any serious move in transforming the underlying model of what a museum is -- that I know of. (Please, please correct me if anyone knows of movements in this direction! About the best I know of is the increasing unionization of museum employees which may increase pay and improve working conditions, which might attract people who are not normally able to or welcome to work in museums?)
posted by kalimac at 12:05 PM on September 17, 2020 [15 favorites]
Museums should sell as many paintings as they need to in order to insure that they will never again have to charge anyone entrance fees.
It should be noted that all public museums in New York, of which the Brooklyn Museum is one, are already either free or pay-as-you-wish (though the city's crown jewel, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, recently changed policy so that's only true for NY state residents now, sadly).
And it's astonishing to see these utterly, utterly bizarre anti-museum comments on MeFi of all places. These already are tax-payer funded, publicly accessible displays of art! The Met is one of the world's greatest art collections, and anyone can just walk in and see it!
Languishing in some vault? The current alternative to public museums isn't even works hanging in some billionaire's cavernous Xanadu where only they and their rich buddies will see them: it's being stored in some tax-free storage facility somewhere where they will literally never be seen by anyone, and will merely have their ownership swapped on paper between investors. It's hard to believe people are making these comments in good faith. What do they think the realistic (realistic, not ideal) alternative is to public museums in the current world? Because if public museums go, The Card Cheat is right: whatever works aren't snapped up by investors for their potential value will go in the trash.
posted by star gentle uterus at 1:15 PM on September 17, 2020 [16 favorites]
It should be noted that all public museums in New York, of which the Brooklyn Museum is one, are already either free or pay-as-you-wish (though the city's crown jewel, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, recently changed policy so that's only true for NY state residents now, sadly).
And it's astonishing to see these utterly, utterly bizarre anti-museum comments on MeFi of all places. These already are tax-payer funded, publicly accessible displays of art! The Met is one of the world's greatest art collections, and anyone can just walk in and see it!
Languishing in some vault? The current alternative to public museums isn't even works hanging in some billionaire's cavernous Xanadu where only they and their rich buddies will see them: it's being stored in some tax-free storage facility somewhere where they will literally never be seen by anyone, and will merely have their ownership swapped on paper between investors. It's hard to believe people are making these comments in good faith. What do they think the realistic (realistic, not ideal) alternative is to public museums in the current world? Because if public museums go, The Card Cheat is right: whatever works aren't snapped up by investors for their potential value will go in the trash.
posted by star gentle uterus at 1:15 PM on September 17, 2020 [16 favorites]
To second star gentle uterus: here is an NYTimes article on art warehouses.
"The drab free port zone near the Geneva city center, a compound of blocky gray and vanilla warehouses surrounded by train tracks, roads and a barbed-wire fence, looks like the kind of place where beauty goes to die. But within its walls, crated or sealed cheek by jowl in cramped storage vaults, are more than a million of some of the most exquisite artworks ever made.
Treasures from the glory days of ancient Rome. Museum-quality paintings by old masters. An estimated 1,000 works by Picasso.
As the price of art has skyrocketed, perhaps nothing illustrates the art-as-bullion approach to contemporary collecting habits more than the proliferation of warehouses like this one, where masterpieces are increasingly being tucked away by owners more interested in seeing them appreciate than hanging on walls.
With their controlled climates, confidential record keeping and enormous potential for tax savings, free ports have become the parking lot of choice for high-net-worth buyers looking to round out investment portfolios with art."
posted by PussKillian at 1:34 PM on September 17, 2020 [11 favorites]
"The drab free port zone near the Geneva city center, a compound of blocky gray and vanilla warehouses surrounded by train tracks, roads and a barbed-wire fence, looks like the kind of place where beauty goes to die. But within its walls, crated or sealed cheek by jowl in cramped storage vaults, are more than a million of some of the most exquisite artworks ever made.
Treasures from the glory days of ancient Rome. Museum-quality paintings by old masters. An estimated 1,000 works by Picasso.
As the price of art has skyrocketed, perhaps nothing illustrates the art-as-bullion approach to contemporary collecting habits more than the proliferation of warehouses like this one, where masterpieces are increasingly being tucked away by owners more interested in seeing them appreciate than hanging on walls.
With their controlled climates, confidential record keeping and enormous potential for tax savings, free ports have become the parking lot of choice for high-net-worth buyers looking to round out investment portfolios with art."
posted by PussKillian at 1:34 PM on September 17, 2020 [11 favorites]
And it's astonishing to see these utterly, utterly bizarre anti-museum comments on MeFi of all places. These already are tax-payer funded, publicly accessible displays of art! The Met is one of the world's greatest art collections, and anyone can just walk in and see it!
I don't know how you can read most of this thread and come away thinking it's anti-museum and pro-tax haven warehouse. It seems pretty clear to me that most of the comments are that museums are good but could do better. Here's an example.
Rembrandt is one of the undisputed great masters (and a personal fave), and he's not particularly prolific, so I picked him to look at for an example. The Met has the largest collection of Rembrandt paintings on display in the USA; 13 works. The second largest collection is the National Gallery in DC, 11 works*. The fourth largest is MFA in Boston, displaying 6, and the fifth is the Getty in LA, displaying 4.
You may be wondering about the third largest collection. It's the vaults of the Met, where another 7 Rembrandts are totally unavailable for the public to view; no one can just walk in and see them.
I was actually pleasantly surprised that there are 15 other cities beyond the ones above in the US where a Rembrandt can be seen; but I would argue that those 7 Rembrandts in the Met's vault would be better for the common good in cities where there aren't currently a Rembrandt -- for example, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, and Philadelphia. Or why not even smaller cities; I'm sure if the Met called the art museum in Spokane or Albuquerque or Rochester or Springfield, they'd be willing to find enough space to take a Rembrandt off their hands for a while.
One could even go so far as to look beyond national borders; there are currently only three Rembrandts in Asia (in Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi and Tokyo) and none in Latin America or Africa. The Met has a great display of Egyptian art; perhaps there's a fine art museum in Cairo that would be happy to display a Rembrandt for a while. And the hoarding is similar internationally; 10 museums have half of the Rembrandts in the world.
* The National Gallery website lists all 11 as not on display, because the entire section of the museum that houses Dutch Masters is currently closed; I don't know if all 11 are normally on display, or if only a subset are; I don't think that all 11 are but it's been a few years since I've been to that gallery. The Getty has a fifth Rembrandt not on display.
posted by Superilla at 2:08 PM on September 17, 2020 [8 favorites]
I don't know how you can read most of this thread and come away thinking it's anti-museum and pro-tax haven warehouse. It seems pretty clear to me that most of the comments are that museums are good but could do better. Here's an example.
Rembrandt is one of the undisputed great masters (and a personal fave), and he's not particularly prolific, so I picked him to look at for an example. The Met has the largest collection of Rembrandt paintings on display in the USA; 13 works. The second largest collection is the National Gallery in DC, 11 works*. The fourth largest is MFA in Boston, displaying 6, and the fifth is the Getty in LA, displaying 4.
You may be wondering about the third largest collection. It's the vaults of the Met, where another 7 Rembrandts are totally unavailable for the public to view; no one can just walk in and see them.
I was actually pleasantly surprised that there are 15 other cities beyond the ones above in the US where a Rembrandt can be seen; but I would argue that those 7 Rembrandts in the Met's vault would be better for the common good in cities where there aren't currently a Rembrandt -- for example, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, and Philadelphia. Or why not even smaller cities; I'm sure if the Met called the art museum in Spokane or Albuquerque or Rochester or Springfield, they'd be willing to find enough space to take a Rembrandt off their hands for a while.
One could even go so far as to look beyond national borders; there are currently only three Rembrandts in Asia (in Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi and Tokyo) and none in Latin America or Africa. The Met has a great display of Egyptian art; perhaps there's a fine art museum in Cairo that would be happy to display a Rembrandt for a while. And the hoarding is similar internationally; 10 museums have half of the Rembrandts in the world.
* The National Gallery website lists all 11 as not on display, because the entire section of the museum that houses Dutch Masters is currently closed; I don't know if all 11 are normally on display, or if only a subset are; I don't think that all 11 are but it's been a few years since I've been to that gallery. The Getty has a fifth Rembrandt not on display.
posted by Superilla at 2:08 PM on September 17, 2020 [8 favorites]
And it's astonishing to see these utterly, utterly bizarre anti-museum comments on MeFi of all places.
Who here is anti-museum? I love museums. What I don't love is hoards of art that will rarely if ever be seen by human eyes. When a museum possesses such a hoard, it's only mildly better than if a private party has one. It may provide some additional value and convenience to researchers, but it provides almost no real value to the public. Justifying endless accumulation by museums by focusing on how it's slightly better than an even more abhorrent form of art hoarding totally misses the point, unless you think (wrongly) that the fate of all deaccessioned art is to end up in one of these tax-haven warehouses.
posted by vathek at 3:01 PM on September 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
Who here is anti-museum? I love museums. What I don't love is hoards of art that will rarely if ever be seen by human eyes. When a museum possesses such a hoard, it's only mildly better than if a private party has one. It may provide some additional value and convenience to researchers, but it provides almost no real value to the public. Justifying endless accumulation by museums by focusing on how it's slightly better than an even more abhorrent form of art hoarding totally misses the point, unless you think (wrongly) that the fate of all deaccessioned art is to end up in one of these tax-haven warehouses.
posted by vathek at 3:01 PM on September 17, 2020 [4 favorites]
The problem is that the vast majority of works that are deaccessioned by sale will indeed end up on some billionaire's wall at best, and more likely in one of those warehouses. The FPP isn't describing an obviously worthy plan to distribute works languishing in an archive to other museums, but a plan to sell them to the highest bidder because the museum needs the money.
posted by wierdo at 3:09 PM on September 17, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 3:09 PM on September 17, 2020 [5 favorites]
Glad to see cultural wealth trickling upwards finally, just like we were promised.
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:13 PM on September 17, 2020
posted by turbid dahlia at 3:13 PM on September 17, 2020
Story goes (I'm working from memory here, so bear with me) that the Bodleian library back in the old days sold off their Shakespeare first folio because they had bought the brand spanking new second folio, which had to be better. (They have since gotten a first folio. Probably more than one.)
Basically, but it was the Third Folio that made them decide the First was obsolete, and most remarkably, the copy they bought back in 1905 was the very one they had sold.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:15 PM on September 17, 2020
Basically, but it was the Third Folio that made them decide the First was obsolete, and most remarkably, the copy they bought back in 1905 was the very one they had sold.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:15 PM on September 17, 2020
Wealth trickling. I believe none of the collections are for sale, they rent or did.
Going from memory but I think it was the only cultural center in America built with private funds.
posted by clavdivs at 4:27 PM on September 17, 2020
Going from memory but I think it was the only cultural center in America built with private funds.
posted by clavdivs at 4:27 PM on September 17, 2020
Relevant for the "different ways to be a museum topic": I adore the Frye Art Museum here in Seattle. It's founding collection was the personal collection of some rich people of yesterday, who made a lot of stipulations in their will, including that the paintings remain on permanent display and admission be free.
This kept it from being acquired by the larger Seattle Art Museum, and the result is a great place. They have one room that's the original collection, which is occasionally re-arranged or placed alongside other works to change their juxtapositions. The rest of the museum is always something different, every six months or so. You can see the whole place in about two hours, and there's no admission fee. It's great.
I believe they have their own collection of stored and rarely seen pieces these days. A lot of the exhibitions I've seen there are ones they had a hand in funding, or bringing to the US for the first time, and they seem to usually purchase one or two of the exhibited works to keep. I don't think that's a terrible model, especially as it deals with new works by contemporary artists.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:37 PM on September 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
This kept it from being acquired by the larger Seattle Art Museum, and the result is a great place. They have one room that's the original collection, which is occasionally re-arranged or placed alongside other works to change their juxtapositions. The rest of the museum is always something different, every six months or so. You can see the whole place in about two hours, and there's no admission fee. It's great.
I believe they have their own collection of stored and rarely seen pieces these days. A lot of the exhibitions I've seen there are ones they had a hand in funding, or bringing to the US for the first time, and they seem to usually purchase one or two of the exhibited works to keep. I don't think that's a terrible model, especially as it deals with new works by contemporary artists.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:37 PM on September 17, 2020 [1 favorite]
Rembrandt is one of the undisputed great masters (and a personal fave), and he's not particularly prolific, so I picked him to look at for an example.
Surprised you omitted Kaplan who has one of the biggest collection of Rembrandts and Dutch masters. Whether his Leiden collection counts as a museum or not is worthy of discussion here. All privately owned, no museum but it displays the artworks here and there...
Then there's the Rijksmuseum in Rembrandt's hometown which coincidentally enough had an exhibition last year called All the Rembrandts, acknowledging that much of their collection is not regularly on display.
posted by vacapinta at 1:32 AM on September 18, 2020 [2 favorites]
I have a lot of complicated and conflicted feelings about this, especially since I have many museum people in my life. I think it's simultaneously true that museums are, right now, the least-worst option for conserving and displaying art and historical artefacts for the public, while also saying that they do a terrible job at that – and it hurts especially more for those museums that are publicly or state-funded.
Other commenters have noted that it's possible for researchers to view museum archives, where most objects are kept (since it'd be very expensive to display everything in public securely, and frankly because a lot of objects aren't very interesting) if they have a good reason. In practice, this severely limits the number of people who can see them, which is an unfortunate necessity given how limited most museums resources are in terms of letting people in to the archives and making sure they don't break or steal stuff.
I imagine most people understand the need for some level of rationing physical access but it's not clear that we have the right balance. My guess is that most museums don't really care for increasing public access to archives and so they don't try very hard to increase it or ask for more funding in that area – it's not as sexy as a new exhibition or gallery, and not as career-enhancing as a new academic paper. But it's important to the public and so it should be improved.
Vastly improved digital access would also help everyone – curators, researchers, public – and also preserve objects that may get destroyed through accidents, fires, natural disasters, etc. Again, most museums don't really care about this for the same reasons as above, at least, not as much as they should do; and when they do care, because they lack institutional expertise in technology, they end up overspending and under-delivering. We need faster and better digitisation – not just a few objects here and there, but every object – and we need to start doing this in 3D.
Putting those digital assets into the public domain is an absolute must. It is reprehensible that any publicly-funded museum charge for reuse of images and 3D models for any purpose. Museums need to learn from the open access movement in the wider academic community.
If museums did all those things, I imagine they'd have much broader public support, and it would also demystify their "hoards". Of course, they'd still have plenty of other things to fix.
posted by adrianhon at 4:08 AM on September 18, 2020 [3 favorites]
Other commenters have noted that it's possible for researchers to view museum archives, where most objects are kept (since it'd be very expensive to display everything in public securely, and frankly because a lot of objects aren't very interesting) if they have a good reason. In practice, this severely limits the number of people who can see them, which is an unfortunate necessity given how limited most museums resources are in terms of letting people in to the archives and making sure they don't break or steal stuff.
I imagine most people understand the need for some level of rationing physical access but it's not clear that we have the right balance. My guess is that most museums don't really care for increasing public access to archives and so they don't try very hard to increase it or ask for more funding in that area – it's not as sexy as a new exhibition or gallery, and not as career-enhancing as a new academic paper. But it's important to the public and so it should be improved.
Vastly improved digital access would also help everyone – curators, researchers, public – and also preserve objects that may get destroyed through accidents, fires, natural disasters, etc. Again, most museums don't really care about this for the same reasons as above, at least, not as much as they should do; and when they do care, because they lack institutional expertise in technology, they end up overspending and under-delivering. We need faster and better digitisation – not just a few objects here and there, but every object – and we need to start doing this in 3D.
Putting those digital assets into the public domain is an absolute must. It is reprehensible that any publicly-funded museum charge for reuse of images and 3D models for any purpose. Museums need to learn from the open access movement in the wider academic community.
If museums did all those things, I imagine they'd have much broader public support, and it would also demystify their "hoards". Of course, they'd still have plenty of other things to fix.
posted by adrianhon at 4:08 AM on September 18, 2020 [3 favorites]
This might be a bit too radical, but.. why do museums even exist? How did we get to the point where every single piece of humanity is quartered off into tiny, niche boxes that you then have to prove you deserve access to, either by status, free time, or wealth?
Being brought to the Philadelphia Museum of Art on a field trip when I was twelve woke up a curiosity and appreciation for art in me that is still going strong 38 years later. I was not in a well-off enough family to be exposed to fine art just hanging around the house - but at a museum, I could see it.
And over the years, as I've visited more museums, I have been exposed to other kinds of art, so I've learned that the European Paintings are just a tiny fraction of what is available. If you were to follow me in the Brooklyn Museum, you'd see me start up in the "American" section that starts with pre-Columbian artifacts from both North and South America, wander at a fast clip past the early colonial art. I'd pause at the Thomas Cole work they have, maybe check out another couple 19th Century works and then zip straight to the Art Nouveau stuff before finishing with the more modern works, including a 1958 African-American artist' mural about "the Web of Life".
Then down to the 4th Floor, where I wander through the various decorative arts rooms before heading to the Sackler collection of Feminist Art, where I usually check out whatever the latest exhibit is before walking slowly through Judy Chicago's Dinner Party again.
Sometimes I take in some of the Egyptian collection on the 3rd floor after that, but only to review some of the scrolls.
Usually, though, I head straight to the 2nd floor, where they have a collection of Korean, Chinese, and Japanese works, and are working on installing a collection of Art of the Islamic world. I hope they put back a photo I saw once that spliced the image of the lower half of a Muslim teen boy's face, complete with wires from his headphones, to the top half of a painting depicting a Persian battle. Then down to the first floor, where they usually have a special exhibit - often some kind of video installation or an exhibit they've curated from some oddball theme (the most recent one was just "the color blue", and it included everything from lapis-lazuli Egyptian necklaces to Wedgeware figurines to neon-sign installations to an artist's whole series of sky paintings she did for a year).
Many of those things could have been isolated away from me in other parts of the world, in people's houses, and I would never have known of them. But they're in a place where I can just go look at them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:07 AM on September 18, 2020 [6 favorites]
Being brought to the Philadelphia Museum of Art on a field trip when I was twelve woke up a curiosity and appreciation for art in me that is still going strong 38 years later. I was not in a well-off enough family to be exposed to fine art just hanging around the house - but at a museum, I could see it.
And over the years, as I've visited more museums, I have been exposed to other kinds of art, so I've learned that the European Paintings are just a tiny fraction of what is available. If you were to follow me in the Brooklyn Museum, you'd see me start up in the "American" section that starts with pre-Columbian artifacts from both North and South America, wander at a fast clip past the early colonial art. I'd pause at the Thomas Cole work they have, maybe check out another couple 19th Century works and then zip straight to the Art Nouveau stuff before finishing with the more modern works, including a 1958 African-American artist' mural about "the Web of Life".
Then down to the 4th Floor, where I wander through the various decorative arts rooms before heading to the Sackler collection of Feminist Art, where I usually check out whatever the latest exhibit is before walking slowly through Judy Chicago's Dinner Party again.
Sometimes I take in some of the Egyptian collection on the 3rd floor after that, but only to review some of the scrolls.
Usually, though, I head straight to the 2nd floor, where they have a collection of Korean, Chinese, and Japanese works, and are working on installing a collection of Art of the Islamic world. I hope they put back a photo I saw once that spliced the image of the lower half of a Muslim teen boy's face, complete with wires from his headphones, to the top half of a painting depicting a Persian battle. Then down to the first floor, where they usually have a special exhibit - often some kind of video installation or an exhibit they've curated from some oddball theme (the most recent one was just "the color blue", and it included everything from lapis-lazuli Egyptian necklaces to Wedgeware figurines to neon-sign installations to an artist's whole series of sky paintings she did for a year).
Many of those things could have been isolated away from me in other parts of the world, in people's houses, and I would never have known of them. But they're in a place where I can just go look at them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:07 AM on September 18, 2020 [6 favorites]
If we really thought this art was that important to the public we would commission excellent forgers to copy them and put them in every public building in the world.
Only extremely picky people who walk around with electron microscopes really care about the authenticity of the original picture more than they would care about beauty like that being available in their everyday world.
posted by srboisvert at 7:09 AM on September 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
Only extremely picky people who walk around with electron microscopes really care about the authenticity of the original picture more than they would care about beauty like that being available in their everyday world.
posted by srboisvert at 7:09 AM on September 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
If we really thought this art was that important to the public we would commission excellent forgers to copy them and put them in every public building in the world.
Well, in the age of digital reproduction, we are doing that? Preceding that, in a museum you were more likely to see a plaster cast of a sculpture than the sculpture itself.
I've never seen the Bayeaux Tapestry but I have seen the reproduction in Reading, UK which gave me a sense of the scale of the original at least.
Copies are abundant of most well-known paintings. Van Gogh as an example spent a lot of time copying other paintings. These copies exist, consigned to basements perhaps.
You have a valid point that too much emphasis is placed on the original but the reason is not lack of copies. It might be more the same instinct that has us place value on an object that was held or owned by someone famous. But that goes beyond the world of Art.
posted by vacapinta at 7:47 AM on September 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
Well, in the age of digital reproduction, we are doing that? Preceding that, in a museum you were more likely to see a plaster cast of a sculpture than the sculpture itself.
I've never seen the Bayeaux Tapestry but I have seen the reproduction in Reading, UK which gave me a sense of the scale of the original at least.
Copies are abundant of most well-known paintings. Van Gogh as an example spent a lot of time copying other paintings. These copies exist, consigned to basements perhaps.
You have a valid point that too much emphasis is placed on the original but the reason is not lack of copies. It might be more the same instinct that has us place value on an object that was held or owned by someone famous. But that goes beyond the world of Art.
posted by vacapinta at 7:47 AM on September 18, 2020 [1 favorite]
The Everson Museum in Syracuse NY is selling off a Jackson Pollack which has generated some controversy both locally and further afield. The president of the Board of Trustees defended the decision in today's paper.
posted by maurice at 9:44 AM on September 18, 2020
posted by maurice at 9:44 AM on September 18, 2020
Well, in the age of digital reproduction, we are doing that?
While I am clearly a philistine in regard to my opinions on the actual authentic originals I'm not quite at the point where I'd consider a flat digital representation on a screen or printed on paper to match the depth and textures of most art's original materials. Otherwise campus poster sales would suffice (and for some I guess they do).
posted by srboisvert at 1:09 PM on September 18, 2020
While I am clearly a philistine in regard to my opinions on the actual authentic originals I'm not quite at the point where I'd consider a flat digital representation on a screen or printed on paper to match the depth and textures of most art's original materials. Otherwise campus poster sales would suffice (and for some I guess they do).
posted by srboisvert at 1:09 PM on September 18, 2020
Royal Academy is being urged to sell a Michelangelo tondo
posted by PussKillian at 10:59 AM on September 20, 2020
posted by PussKillian at 10:59 AM on September 20, 2020
Frankly, the number of works I've seen utterly destroyed by poor climate control and bad stewardship has made me rabidly pro-deaccession over the course of my career. Smaller museums may have no Rembrandts or Pollacks to sell, but my god can they ruin a ton of local/regional/national history with simple mismanagement.
If a museum is struggling, better they sell a few pieces in order to fund the preservation of what they have. I'd rather museums stay open and able to care for objects and the public than make their pieces and viewers suffer due to lack of funds.
posted by EinAtlanta at 9:25 PM on September 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
If a museum is struggling, better they sell a few pieces in order to fund the preservation of what they have. I'd rather museums stay open and able to care for objects and the public than make their pieces and viewers suffer due to lack of funds.
posted by EinAtlanta at 9:25 PM on September 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
Baltimore Museum of Art planning to sell three paintings. (Washington Post article)
A response to the BMA's plan by Tyler Green, who makes the Modern Art Notes podcast (Twitter thread).
posted by PussKillian at 8:49 AM on October 5, 2020
A response to the BMA's plan by Tyler Green, who makes the Modern Art Notes podcast (Twitter thread).
posted by PussKillian at 8:49 AM on October 5, 2020
« Older "shortly before his troubling and inexplicable... | sculptures with a twist Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:53 AM on September 17, 2020 [7 favorites]