Art Museums: Issues in Profits, Acquisition and Ethics

Art Museums Issues in advantages, Acquisition and moral philosophyAcquisition, Ethics, and Profit in the Art WorldWhat happens in the device world affects both powers of it, from the most summationy endowed museum to the myriad lesser- cognize and unknown g eithitherries that enterprise to eke out a living. This paper will examine the shipway in which museums gain weathered the vagaries of the market over the past fewer decades, including non-for- clear cosmoss as well as the for-profit sector, including the gray ara in which the twoseldommeet.The unifying factor, as this paper will show, is the character of the institution. The reputation of either girding that houses dos of art is a invaluable commodity, whether it is a hefty institution of international reputation, or a sm exclusively(prenominal) but well-respected verandah with equally last standards of decorousness and ethics. To honour that reputation at all costs is of vital impressiveness if an inst itution is to survive and remain a respected assort of the art community.Ethics, Profit and Culture in MuseumsThe giving medication agency of museums in contemporary society has changed in the last several(prenominal) decades restrained considered essential to society as both reflection and mirror, museums break comprise themselves flo benea affaire for financial support as never before. To continue to thrive often practiced to survivethey have had to change to meet the new demands of a multi ethnic world, while at the same time keep oning their respected status. traditionally seen as temples for the muses, todays museums be being challenged to be ethical for society and to build their reputation (Wood Rentschler, 2003).Traditionally, museums throughout the Western world have supported themselves in a variety of ways, most of which ar dependent on cultural travel and funding sources. Admission receipts and gift-shop sales form part of their income. Donations from the government and from under mop up and opposite funding sources add that. In recent historic period, however, cultural tourism rates have dropped, and additional funding from government and semiprivate sources has dwindled, leaving budgetary needs unmet. To stay afloat, museums have had to adapt and change with the times. They have d unrivaled, and continue to do this, in a subjugate of ways. Among these ways, unfortunately, have been activities that have raised eyebrows in the art world, and questions about acquisition, ethics, and profit have come to the fore.Importance of ReputationAs institutions which house the priceless treasures and artifacts of our cultural pasts, museums are generally held in high regard. Among smaller galleries, there is also a hierarchy, primarily based on equity and modal(a) dealings with artists and with each other(a). For the orotundr institutions, though, in order to asseverate this regard, they are expected to adhere to a higher standard.Th is expectation is so profoundly ingrained that it seems at times a given museums are considered bastions of delicious culture and historical identity. They are institutions which foster intellectual growth and which exert discriminating taste and ethical behavior in building and maintaining their assemblings. heedless of the exhibition or programme constructs, notes Edson, there are qualities and initiatives that are thorough to museums, such(prenominal) as intellectual h unitarysty, promotion of dilettanteal thinking, enhancement of open-mindedness and the sensitization of visitors to the commonwealth of human mental (2001 p. 43). This is a tall order to upholdand one which is under constant scrutiny.What happens when these hallowed institutions fall upon financial hardship? They adapt. The ways in which they adapt whitethorn change our preconceived notions of what a museum should be. For example, the concept of blockbuster exhibits in the eighties was considered unaccepta ble to some. This blatant advertising to lot artin essence, sell culture, seemed a betrayal of the highest standards, a travesty of itself. It forced m both a(prenominal) to reconfigure usually held notions about the institutions themselves.In his memoirs, art critic Richard Feigen echoes what m whatsoever felt at the time As museums began to commercialize, to adapt to seventies inflation, exhibitions also veered away from an emphasis on scholarship toward a concentration with box office (2000 137). The very words box office, in such close proximity to scholarship and museums, would have seemed quite jarring at the time. Yet, since then, we have grown more(prenominal) accustomedalbeit graduallyto the concept of art-for-profit. subsequently all, someone has got to pay for the acquisitions and maintenance of cultural artifacts. If the funding is not forthcoming, museums have had to choose whether to close up their doors and die out uniform an rare breed, or to reinvent thems elves in ways they deem acceptable.Having for the most part chosen the latter, museums have had to become more aggressive in interest of the cash in hand necessary to at least survive, and hopefully to flourish. This has necessarily caused their patrons to assess and re-evaluate as well. Just as museum definitions have changed, so too has our cause of museum ethics explain Wood and Rentschler (2003). It has also forced us to see to it the roles of the individuals who run these institutions, as Feigen concedes In this new era of museology, he writes, a directors success has come to be measured by the crowds he attracts, the notes he raises, the buildings he builds, and how effectively he evoke dodge policy-making cross fire (2000 109).A major issue which has sprung from this process of registration is the need to maintain an impeccable reputation in the process. The last few decades have been a period of just that, as the concept of the museumand the genuine institutions th emselveshave evolved to meet the needs of the population they serve the patrons. Todays museums are called upon to crack cocaine an enhanced experience in an appropriately comfortable environment, one that instills a sense of cultural pride as well as challenge. In so doing, Edson writes The museum by facilitating that experience serves the individual and the host community to the fullest bound of the concept of public service (Edson, 2001 p. 44). In order to do this, however, the reputation of the museum moldiness remain intact this means that decisions about affiliations with those distant the museum itself moldiness be absolutely circumspect. And this, in recent years, is where museums have been coming under fire.The StaffThe cater of a museumfrom curators to custodiansforms the backbone of day-to-day operations. Considered in that light, the actions of staff members may be seen as a reflection on the museum itself. This is something that pertains to all levels of staffing. The warranter personnel who are responsible for safeguarding national treasures may not be accorded the highest prestige in society, but the importance of their roles should never be played down.A disturbance that distracts even a single security staff member from absolute vigilance bathroom potentially focalize off a series of events that may lead to loss through damage or theft. And there are several known instances in which the roles of security personnel have been key in allowing unauthorised portal to works of art that they would willingly allow this is untenable, but not inexplicable. pecuniary pressures mount, and outside influences can be very persuasive. liberal arts governances cannot think that their pot will be immune to these pressures assert Wood and Rentschler (2003). They advise that distinctly stated ethical practices be a part of every organisation to reverse this very thing. They must be part of the training program, and they must be reviewed and reinforc ed on a regular basis to maintain both morale and loyalty. Failure to do so can have irrevocably damaging results If temptation is not resisted, it can compromise the value for which the organisation stands and irrevocably damage the reputation that it may have worked for years to create (Wood Rentschler, 2003).These practices must apply to all levels of museum staff, not just those who can provide immediate access. What about those in positions elevate up in the hierarchy, who have just as much access as well as additional access and power? Their actions must at all times be in accordance with museum policy in addition, they must adhere to the lawlocal, national, and international. This is particularly important when it comes to acquisition of properties whose histories may be questionable. To knowinglyor unknowinglyacquire stolen property is anathema, however bona fide a piece may be. Any irregularities regarding provenance are a red flag, since a single lapse in judgment can c ost a museum its cultural standing as well as its profitability.Alan Shestock, Director of the Museum of delicately Arts Boston, explains that museum curators are acquirers. . . . Most of us go into the profession because the desire to accumulate and bring together objects of quality is in our blood. We are privately and professionally devoted to adding to and improving our holdings . . . (Shestock, 1989 9798). This kind of passion, paired with the need to keep ones collection top-rate, can cause considerable angst. To know that a particular, highly coveted item is authentic is an elicit enough discovery for a museum professional. To know, furthermore, or to merely suspect, that its origins may be less-than-circumspect, means that this object cannot become a part of the museums holdings. This is not an unclouded thing to do. Explains Shestock To consciously or intentionally turn down a highly desirable object we can afford to buy on the basis that we suspect that it might have been removed illegally from its state of originand also knowing that it will end up in the collection of a rival institution or an unscrupulous private collector is a very hard thing to do (1989 9798).Edson and doyen point out several situations in which the circumstances may lead to ethically questionable behaviors. First, there are curators whose job responsibilities take researching and writing about the objects in their collections. Curators hired to research and interpret the collection in their care sometimes regard the notes and associated materials that result from this work as their personal property, regardless of the museums ownership of the actual collections objects (Edson Dean, 1994 p. 235). If the funding for this research is altogether supplied by the institution, all rights would seem to revert to the museum. However, it is seldom this straightforward, as personal research may be involved as well. The situation becomes further complicated when international obje cts are involved, as there are several sets of law which much be adhered to in order to maintain high ethical standards.There are other, even more controversial situations, however, m whatever of which result in unavoidable conflicts of interest. With whom should ones loyalty lie? According to Edson and Dean, in the case of curators, loyalty must be first to the institution to avoid having to resolve the issue, they suggest judicious secretion in plectron of any extracurricular pastimes activities that conflict with this loyalty or cause curators to favor outside or personal interests over those of their institutions must be avoided (1994 232). What of gifts that are do directly to a museum professional? This can be confusing, since gifts can cover a range of services. A professional who would never under any circumstance accept a costly creation of artistic work may think nothing at all of accepting other favors, such as discounts. But these, too, must be avoided, and ultimately rejected.Finally, since it is commonly accepted that most individuals do not go into the arts for its compensable remuneration, there may come times when it is necessary for museum personnel to supplement their incomes with additional paying work. This is particularly complex in cases in which higher-level museum professionals, such as curators, moonlight, or do additional evening or spend work for pay. Such specialized types of work may bring them into refer with numerous opportunities for temptation, all of which are to be turned down to maintain propriety. Even a distant association with parties who are entangled with any kind of illegal trade can taint that professionals reputation, and therefore the museum itself. And cases alike(p) this are more common than most would like to admitnot to mention far-reaching the illicit traffic in cultural property is, like narcotics, an international problem (Herscher, 1989 p. 118).Art for ProfitIn their article, Show Me the Monet, Steve Friess and peter Plagens broach a subject which continues to be a point of animosity in the art world. They discuss an agreement between the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the new Bellagio in Las Vegas, Nevada. According to the agreement, the Boston museum would modify a number of Monets to the Bellagiofor a fee.The tradition of ex drawing loans to one another is long-standing among museums, large and small. The agreement to do so for cash, is less common. Among the loftier institutions, it is practically unheard of. add art works for set sums of money puts a new wind up on the issue. In return for the loan of Monets, the Bellagio agreed to pay the Museum of Fine Arts a hefty someat least one million dollars. The traditional cashless quid pro quo for alter art to other museumsOK, well lend you our Picasso if we can borrow your Matissehad been augmented by lending fees (Friess and Plagens, 2004). This calls into question a number of issues, the most pressing of which seems to be, where does one pee the line? If items which are part of a museums permanent collection are accorded dollar values and made available for that price, can anyone with appropriate funds borrow them? What will this do to the reputations, not only of the museums that engage in this, but to the works of art themselves, and to the notion of cultural heritage in general?Ethics, Profit, and Culture in DealershipIn a similar vein, private art dealers have had problems of a slightly different nature over the past few decades. Contemporary notions of an art dealer tend to be unkind. Less-than- sapidityy deals, sly cash transactions, cagy tax evasion these are what come to mind before the subject of art comes into focus. Art critic barb Schjeldahl puts it succinctly in his article on art dealership in forward-looking York, in which he asserts that popular opinion sees the gallery owner as a stock figure of slinky charlatanry, or worse (2004). Because of this, it is with no small amo unt of glee that people welcome talky tidbits about high-society art dealers being brought down in shady, six-figure stings. People savor the cynical rush of discovering garden-variety greed behind a pose of lofty, intimidate sophistication notes Schjeldahl (2004).But, Schjeldahl points out, no matter what one thinks of an art dealers character, one thing remains constant good taste. Without it, all the pretension means nothing. In addition, there is a hierarchy among the smaller circle of individual galleries that are also part of the art world. Judging by her record of science and her reputation in the art world, Marian Goodman seems to embody the highest of standards. First of all, when it comes to discrimination and taste, Goodman seems to have an abundance of both.The reputation of a dealer is of great importance in the art world, despite popular conceptions. Goodman, too, has had to weather the storms of changing times, just as larger, loftier museums have had to do, and sh e, too, has survived. Among her contemporaries, however, Goodman commands a high level of respect for refusing to be trends and continuing to maintain her own exemplary standards. She employs what some see as old-fashioned standards in both her selection of gallery site and her selection of artists.For example, her gallery is still located in Manhattan, New York City, despite the pack exodus of galleries to outer boroughs of the metropolis. Furthermore, she has steadfastly remained in the pricier part of Manhattan, in the heart of the theatre district, in the mid-fifties. In his New Yorker article, art critic Peter Schjeldahl explains that Goodman could very easily save money and gain vastly more visibility by relocating to Chelsea . . . (2004, p. 36). However, Goodman refuses to budge, preferring instead the uniqueness of her own more expensive showplace to the identical hives of lower Manhattan. Of course, as a private dealer, she is empty of the pressures of a committee of tru stees and similar directives.ConclusionThe art world is at once a seemingly small and insular community on the one hand, and a global community of vast proportions on the other. What happens in this world affects all parts of it, from the most well endowed museum to the lesser-known private galleries. This paper has attempted to examine how both the not-for-profit and for-profit sectors have managed to survive in the last several decades, adapting to best meet the needs of their patrons while maintaining the integrity and values they hold dear.One thing that is undeniable is reputation To maintain that reputation at all costs is of vital importance if an institution is to survive and remain a respected part of the art community.Edson and Dean have noted that Objects communicate far beyond the walls of the museum in which they are housed. They influence the appreciation and appearance of objects of everyday use, and the level of respect and dread for the personal and collective natu ral and cultural heritage of a people or nation (Edson, 1996, p. 7). The reputation of any building that houses works of art is a priceless commodity, whether it is a huge institution of international reputation, or a small but well-respected gallery with equally high standards of decorum and ethics. The slightest hint of a breach in ethical standards is enough to stir up the very foundation of an institution if the breach itself is, in fact, made known to be fact, it is highly unlikely that it will every regain its spring stature, nor command the same level of respect.ReferencesEdson, Gary. 2001. Socioexhibitry as Popular Communication. Museum transnational July 2001, Vol. 53, Iss. 3, pp. 4044.Edson, Gary and Dean, David. 1994. The Handbook for Museums. London Routledge.Feigen, Richard. 2000. Tales from the Art Crypt The Painters, the Museums, the Curators, the Collectors, the Auctions, the Art. New York Knopf.Friess, Steve, and Plagens, Peter. 2004. Show Me the Monet. Newsweek. New York, Vol. 143, Iss. 4, p. 60.Herscher, Ellen. 1989. International Control Efforts Are There Any Good Solutions?In Messenger, P., ed. The Ethics of ingathering heathen Property. Albuquerque, New Mexico University of New Mexico Press, pp. 117128.Messenger, Phyllis, ed. 1989. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Albuquerque, New Mexico University of New Mexico Press.Schjeldahl, Peter. 2004. Dealership Onward and Upward With the Arts. The New Yorker. New York Feb. 2, 2004, p. 36.Shestock, Alan. 1989. The Museum and Cultural Property The Transformation of Institutional Ethics. In Messenger, P., ed. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Albuquerque, New Mexico University of New Mexico Press, pp. 93 102.Wood,Greg, and Rentschler, Ruth. 2003. Ethical behaviour The representation for Creating and Maintaining Better Reputations in Arts Organisations. Management Decision. London 2003.Vol. 41, Iss. 5/6, p.528-537.