![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
To Keep or not to Keep.
Jan. 24th, 2008 09:12 amI originally saw this article in the New York Times online edition some weeks ago, and I wanted to post about it but just could not find the time until now.
The article concerns the decision of major collector, Eli Broad, to keep his 2,000+ collection of modern and contemporary works in a foundation that makes donations to a variety of museums rather than donate it outright to any one museum.
Now, much of the article is given over to handwringing on the part of the author: this could be an embarrassment for LACMA, who was originally tapped to receive the donation, it could be the end of donations to the art world by powerful collectors, etc. I, however, agree with both Mr. Broad and the LACMA's director, Michael Govan, that this is type of situation is potentially nothing but good. The foundation takes care of the collection properly and ensures that the works get the maximum amount of exposure all over the world. No museum could ever hope to exhibit a donation of 2,000 works with anything like frequency, after all. Plenty of great institutions already have basements filled to the rafters with stuff that no one has seen in years.
There are concerns, naturally. One would hope that Mr. Broad has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the works remain the property of the foundation even after his death, otherwise his heirs might take a more capitalistic view of their overall worth and sell them off to the highest bidders (who would undoubtedly not be museums). That issue aside, however, I can't really see a bad side to this, and I'm intrigued to observe how it impacts the ever-evolving world of the museum.
The article concerns the decision of major collector, Eli Broad, to keep his 2,000+ collection of modern and contemporary works in a foundation that makes donations to a variety of museums rather than donate it outright to any one museum.
Now, much of the article is given over to handwringing on the part of the author: this could be an embarrassment for LACMA, who was originally tapped to receive the donation, it could be the end of donations to the art world by powerful collectors, etc. I, however, agree with both Mr. Broad and the LACMA's director, Michael Govan, that this is type of situation is potentially nothing but good. The foundation takes care of the collection properly and ensures that the works get the maximum amount of exposure all over the world. No museum could ever hope to exhibit a donation of 2,000 works with anything like frequency, after all. Plenty of great institutions already have basements filled to the rafters with stuff that no one has seen in years.
There are concerns, naturally. One would hope that Mr. Broad has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the works remain the property of the foundation even after his death, otherwise his heirs might take a more capitalistic view of their overall worth and sell them off to the highest bidders (who would undoubtedly not be museums). That issue aside, however, I can't really see a bad side to this, and I'm intrigued to observe how it impacts the ever-evolving world of the museum.
