A museum curator, who unfortunately would not allow me to quote his comments, sent me a well argued e-mail suggesting that my objections to museums’ mounting single-collector exhibitions may make sense for large, prestigious museums, but are less persuasive for smaller museums that have a greater need for these shows and the possible art donations that can ensue.
Similarly, the Modern Kicks blog said this in a thoughtful post about the controversy over the sales at Christie’s of the Hartman jades that had been exhibited at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts:
I still think there’s value in displaying privately owned work, but it’s good to remember these cautionary tales: You hold your exhibition and you takes your chances.
A young docent at the Honolulu Academy of Arts responds here to my recent post about the $41-million Hartman sales, in which I asserted that “a museum should not mount a show devoted to a single-owner collection unless that collection is pledged to the museum.”
Phyllis Nakasone writes:
How can museums avoid being used as prestigious showcases by profit-minded private collectors?
Simple. Ask the question: Would they buy the collection if they could and if gifted, would they keep it? If it is a university gallery like that at the University of Hawaii, now exhibiting a beautifully curated private collection of Chinese jewelry, then who cares if it is sold afterwards? I would love it if, made aware of some of the pieces, our Honolulu Academy of Arts would acquire a few. These are not “museum quality” in the traditional sense but they paint a superb picture of Chinese history, taste and culture.
If the stuff is junk, the public isn’t stupid. Let the museum take the punches. They’ll learn. Besides, museums aren’t all sacred places.
CultureGrrl
Lee Rosenbaum's cultural commentary
an ArtsJournal blog