Art Museums: Issues in Profits, Acquisition and Ethics

Art Museums Issues in Profits, Acquisition and EthicsAcquisition, Ethics, and Profit in the Art WorldWhat happens in the cheat world affects all(a) move of it, from the most well endowed museum to the myriad littleer-known and unknown galleries that try to eke out a living. This stem will examine the ways in which museums have weather the vagaries of the market over the past some decades, including not-for-profit institutions as well as the for-profit sector, including the gray bea in which the tworarelymeet.The unifying factor, as this paper will show, is the reputation of the institution. The reputation of some(prenominal) building that houses works of cunning 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. To maintain that reputation at all be is of vital splendor if an institution is to delay and remain a respected part of the art community. Ethics, Profit and conclusion in MuseumsThe role of museums in contemporary society has kindd in the last several(prenominal) decades still considered essential to society as both reflection and mirror, museums have found themselves floundering for financial support as never before. To continue to thrive frequently just to survivethey have had to adapt to meet the overbold demands of a multicultural world, while at the alike(p) time maintaining their respected status. Traditionally seen as temples for the muses, todays museums are being challenged to be good 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 are dependent on cultural travel and funding sources. Admission receipts and gift-shop sales form part of their income. Donations from the government and from private and other funding sources supplement that. In recent years, however, cultura l tourism rates have dropped, and additional funding from government and private sources has dwindled, leaving budgetary necessitate unmet. To stay afloat, museums have had to adapt and change with the times. They have done, and continue to do this, in a number 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 littler galleries, at that place is in any case a hierarchy, primarily based on integrity and fair dealings with artists and with each other. For the larger institutions, though, in order to maintain this regard, they are expected to adhere to a higher standard.This expectation is so deeply ingrained that it seems at times a given museums are considered bastions of artistic socialisati on and historical identity. They are institutions which foster intellectual growth and which exercise discriminating taste and ethical behavior in building and maintaining their sights. Regardless of the exhibition or programme cin one casepts, notes Edson, on that point are qualities and initiatives that are fundamental to museums, such as intellectual honesty, promotion of noviceal thinking, enhancement of open-mindedness and the sensitizing of visitors to the commonwealth of humankind (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 may change our preconceived notions of what a museum should be. For example, the concept of blockbuster exhibits in the eighties was considered unacceptable to some. This blatant advertising to sell artin essence, sell culture, seemed a high treason of the highest standards, a mockery of itself. I t forced many to reconfigure commonly held notions about the institutions themselves.In his memoirs, art critic Richard Feigen echoes what many felt at the time As museums began to commercialize, to adapt to 1970s inflation, exhibitions also veered away from an emphasis on scholarship toward a preoccupation with box office (2000 137). The really 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 accustomedalbeit graduallyto the concept of art-for-profit. After 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 like an obsolete breed, or to reinvent themselves in ways they deem acceptable.Having for the most part chosen the latter, museums have had to become more aggressive in pursuit of the funds necessary to at least survive, and hopefully t o flourish. This has necessarily caused their patrons to reassess and re-evaluate as well. Just as museum definitions have changed, so too has our understanding of museum ethics explain Wood and Rentschler (2003). It has also forced us to understand 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 funds he raises, the buildings he builds, and how effectively he can dodge political cross fire (2000 109).A major issue which has sprung from this work of adaptation 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 real(a) institutions themselveshave evolved to meet the needs of the people they serve the patrons. Todays museums are called upon to offer an enhanced experience in an appropriately comfortable environment, one that instills a no se out 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 extent of the concept of familiar service (Edson, 2001 p. 44). In order to do this, however, the reputation of the museum mustiness remain intact this means that decisions about affiliations with those remote the museum itself must be absolutely circumspect. And this, in recent years, is where museums have been coming under fire.The StaffThe staff 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 security 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 eat.A disturbance that distract s even a single security staff member from absolute vigilance can potentially set 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 access to works of art that they would willingly allow this is untenable, but not inexplicable. Monetary pressures mount, and outside influences can be very persuasive. Arts organisations cannot think that their people will be immune to these pressures assert Wood and Rentschler (2003). They advise that clearly stated ethical practices be a part of every organisation to annul this very thing. They must be part of the training program, and they must be reviewed and reinforced 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 values for which the organisation stands and irrevocably damage the reputation tha t 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 further 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 authentic a piece may be. Any irregularities regarding provenance are a red flag, since a single lapse in judgment can cost a museum its cultural standing as well as its profitability.Alan Shestock, Director of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, explains that museum curators are acquirers. . . . Most of us go into the profession because the desire to pick up and plant together objects of quality is in our blood. We are personally 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 exciting enough discovery for a museum professional. To know, furthermore, or to exactly 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 easy 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 acres of originand also knowing that it will end up in the collection of a rival institution or an unscrupulous private accumulator register is a very hard thing to do (1989 9798).Edson and Dean point out several situations in which the circumstances may lead to ethically questionable behaviors. First, there are curators whose job responsibilities include 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 solely supplied by the institution, all rights would seem to fall back to the museum. However, it is seldom this straightforward, as personal research may be involved as well. The situation becomes further complicated when international objects are involved, as there are several sets of law which much be adhered to in order to maintain high ethical standards. on that point are other, even more contentious situations, however, many 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 discrimination in selection 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 made directly to a museum professional? This can be confusing, since gifts can cover a take to the woods of services. A professional who would never under any circumstance accept a costly creation of artistic work may think vigour 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 lucrative remuneration, there may come times when it is necessary for museum personnel to supplement their incomes with additi onal paying work. This is particularly complex in cases in which higher-level museum professionals, such as curators, moonlight, or do additional evening or weekend work for pay. Such specialized types of work may bring them into contact 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 like this are more common than most would like to admitnot to commendation 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 number which continues to be a point of contention 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 lend a number of Monets to the Bellagiofor a fee.The tradition of extending 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. Lending art works for set sums of money puts a new twist on the issue. In return for the loan of Monets, the Bellagio concur to pay the Museum of Fine Arts a hefty someat least one million dollars. The traditional cashless quid pro quo for lending art to other museumsOK, well lend you our Picasso if we can accept 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 blow 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 r eputations, 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-savory deals, sly cash transactions, cagy tax evasion these are what come to mind before the subject of art comes into focus. Art critic Peter Schjeldahl puts it succinctly in his article on art dealership in refreshful York, in which he asserts that public opinion sees the gallery owner as a stock figure of slinky charlatanry, or worse (2004). Because of this, it is with no small amount of glee that people obtain gossipy 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, affright 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 accomplishment 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, in spite of popular conceptions. Goodman, too, has had to weather the storms of changing times, just as larger, loftier museums have had to do, and she, too, has survived. Among her contemporaries, however, Goodman commands a high level of respect for refusing to follow trends and continuing to maintain her own symbolical standards. She employs what some see as old-fashioned sta ndards 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 mass 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 high-priced showplace to the identical hives of lower Manhattan. Of course, as a private dealer, she is free of the pressures of a committee of trustees 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 i t, 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 exceed 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 understanding for the personal and collective natural 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 shake 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 former stature, nor command the same level of respect.ReferencesEdson, Gary. 2001. Socioexhibitry as Popular Communication. Museum International 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 Collecting Cultural Property. Albuquerque, New Mexico University of N ew 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 forwards 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. honourable behaviour The Means for Creating and Maintaining Better Reputations in Arts Organisations. Management Decision. London 2003.Vol. 41, Iss. 5/6, p.528-537.