Insights

Museums Should Beware of Being Used as Marketing Tools

from The Art Newspaper
April 2008
By Adrian Ellis

艺术博物馆det365首页购买什么物品和展出什么物品的决定影响了这些艺术品及其相关作品在市场上的价格. In the case of “related” works of art, the mechanics are very straightforward: if the Museum of Modern Art, New York (MoMA) buys a Lawrence Weiner painting, then that’s good news if you happen to own one. And the more closely related your painting is to the MoMA’s, then the better news it is – most obviously, if it is painted during the same period; of the same quality; in the same medium; and the same size or bigger – the greater the impact of MoMA’s decision to acquire it will be on the price of your work. All other things being equal – which, of course, they rarely are – the greater the standing of the museum, then the greater the impact of its actions on the value of affected works. So MoMA moves markets, so to speak.

This is one obvious reason why museums need, axiomatically, to be able to make decisions about acquisitions, whether bought or donated, and about the choice of works to borrow and display, 不受第三方的压力,因为第三方可能会因其价值或相关作品的价值增加而获益.

Obviously, 当这些第三方同时负责博物馆本身的管理时,可能会有困难, when they are also first parties. Museum boards are unsurprisingly filled with collectors who should, and usually do, formally recuse themselves from decisions that are likely to have an impact on the value of works that they own; most obviously, the decision to seek to borrow and display a work for a specific show, 或者决定购买或取消与他们自己的财产有关系的作品.

在艺术博物馆领域,大多数国家自我监管机构和国际博物馆理事会的职业道德规范将这一基本的经济逻辑编入法典. 博物馆董事会和馆长有责任确保这些守则得到遵守, which they generally are. When disrespected, 他们把博物馆变成了一个把公众地位转化为私人利益的泵,在这个过程中,他们系统地降低了博物馆的地位.

This is all pretty much black and white: the integrity of the art museum sector, as is always the case with self-regulated systems, depends on the clear articulation of the ground rules; on the probity of the players; and on the transparency of decision making – in this case by curators, directors and board members.

There are however some grey areas, and two are dark grey. First, 博物馆工作人员是否有权就自己应该购买什么物品向董事会成员(或其他收藏者)提出建议, 如果这些董事会成员也是活跃的收藏家,他们是否可以自由地获得作品, in effect, 根据内部人士的了解,他们正在做出与他们所在的博物馆董事会相同的押注或判断?

There is no such thing as a one-handed economist. On the one hand, it’s the excitement of the studio tour, of meeting the artist or, if deceased, at least their biographer or widow(er), 以及参与收购委员会精心安排的辩论, that makes the tedium and the cost of serving on a museum board worthwhile. 你究竟为什么不能通过直接支持这位艺术家以及向博物馆捐款来表达你的信念呢? Indeed, 通常是董事会成员作为收藏家的热情,在情感上和经济上吸引他们接近博物馆. Collectors make passionate, informed and often generous trustees. And that is better than the alternative.

On the other hand, insider trading is not a victimless crime, even if the art heist perpetrator is, in this case, 几乎没有意识到所犯的罪行,如果面对它的严重性,将会极度轻视它. In the highly subjective world of contemporary art, in particular, 声誉是由一个相对较小的有影响力和影响力的群体——批评者创造的, dealers, collectors, and curators – and the collector may be as influential, or more, as the curator in the mix. 但就目前而言,博物馆证实并认可了收藏者的判断, 由于他们的董事会det365首页,收藏家在收购方面走在了市场的前面, there is an outstanding and knotty issue in museum ethics.

其次,当一件借出的作品被“卖掉”时,艺术博物馆往往会表示反对。. And when the whole exhibition is sold off they are seriously upset. 收藏家从借给博物馆的展览中受益,因为这些作品的价值提高了,而且借来的作品随后会以更高的价格出售,如果没有借来展览提供的出处和公共关系的推动,就不可能以更高的价格出售. 这是几番之一查尔斯•萨奇指控站在“感觉”的骚动,他出售的许多标志性的作品展览的价格显著增加宣传之后他们收到时在皇家美术学院展出在伦敦和纽约的布鲁克林艺术博物馆.

这也是2003-04年在波士顿艺术博物馆(Boston Museum of Art)展出、随后在拍卖会上售出的阿兰•哈特曼(Alan Hartman)和西蒙娜•哈特曼(Simone Hartman)收藏的中国玉器的命运, most recently, 在丹麦的路易斯安那博物馆(Louisiana Museum)和耶路撒冷的以色列博物馆(Israel Museum)的展览结束后,交易商比尔·阿奎维拉(Bill Acquavella)在拍卖会上买下了这些当代中国藏品(pp1),4). 而且我预计,随着不稳定的经济财富的消逝,以及基础薄弱的品味的改变,未来几年还会有一系列著名的和最近新建的藏品被出售.

In these cases, museums serve as accomplices, albeit unwilling, 在一系列事件中,他们的地位被用来谋取私利. 随后处置其贷款的贷款人可能一直都有这个意图,或者他们的情况可能只是发生了改变——不可抗力. But museums, in protecting the public interest and their long term reputations, 有责任寻求并获得比目前更坚定的有关意图的保证,而不受(或表现出)贷款人的欺骗吗. 当人们谈论的不是一件作品,而是整个展览或相关物品的展示时,这种情况尤其明显, shown and catalogued as an entity, then broken up and sold off following its display. 一套细致入微的道德准则是不必要的,也不能替代对概率的衡量和客观判断. To quote Nancy Reagan: “Just say no.” 

通过使用det365首页的网站,您同意det365首页使用cookies以提供更好的体验.

AcceptPrivacy Policy