Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,913   Posts: 1,521,698   Online: 1042
      
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 67 of 67
  1. #61
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Why is it automatically assumed that the museum used taxpayer funds to purchase this work?

    I don't know the ownership structure in Oz, but here in the U.S. most museums are run by private, not-for-profit organizations. They raise funds from a variety of sources including contributions, "suggested" admission fees, donations of art works and usually some small fraction of public monies.

    Further, most well-established museums regularly rotate their collections through deascessions(?(i.e. sales of works no longer considered important to the collection) and ascessions with the former funding much of the purchase of the latter.

    And so what if public money was used to acquire this work? It means that the public acquired an asset which should rise in value over time and even permit, through its eventual deascession(?), the procurement of other work(s).

  2. #62

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by jd callow View Post
    The argument you make is true, but could be applied to all museum purchases...
    Well, I did say that there were other valid arguments, and you've made them eloquently. My only real point was that most people don't think about the policies behind arts spending. Some decry it all as bad (the philistine/Nazi view of 'the government wasting our money'). Others, it seems, see no need for any debate on the idea of a committee spending a million dollars of someone else's money, as long as it's a photograph (how would some of them reacted had it been digi?).

    Cheers,

    R.

  3. #63
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    Why is it automatically assumed that the museum used taxpayer funds to purchase this work?

    I don't know the ownership structure in Oz, but here in the U.S. most museums are run by private, not-for-profit organizations. They raise funds from a variety of sources including contributions, "suggested" admission fees, donations of art works and usually some small fraction of public monies.

    Further, most well-established museums regularly rotate their collections through deascessions(?(i.e. sales of works no longer considered important to the collection) and ascessions with the former funding much of the purchase of the latter.

    And so what if public money was used to acquire this work? It means that the public acquired an asset which should rise in value over time and even permit, through its eventual deascession(?), the procurement of other work(s).


    These are good points.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  4. #64
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Hey! What do you know? I can use the salad bowl to eat popcorn from AND count beans.

    Regards, Art.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  5. #65
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    My only real point was that most people don't think about the policies behind arts spending.

    how would some of them reacted had it been digi?
    Assuming the money was public money (good point George), and a large portion of the populace was oblivious, is it the fault of the museum or should the populace wake up and see where their money is going?

    I don't confuse the purpose of this site with the greater world around us. I suspect and hope others here do the same. If the image in question was digital it would not be posted here (for long).

    I want all museums and public institutions that deal in the arts to be well funded and generous with their assistance. This would include stone carvings through digital creations, as it is they are not. I, as with most, can only supply a limited focus to what they are doing, I need to be able to trust them and, in this instance, I think they have done well.
    Last edited by jd callow; 03-29-2007 at 02:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.

    *

  6. #66

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by jd callow View Post
    I don't confuse the purpose of this site with the greater world around us. I suspect and hope others here can do the same.
    Optimist!

    The rest of your post is, however, well taken.

    Cheers,

    R.

  7. #67
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,816
    Images
    29
    Well I decided to do some digging around regarding just how the money for this $1,000,000 photograph came to be in the purse of my local government gallery, National Gallery of Victoria (NGV).

    It appears that the gallery had wished to purchase a Wall work for some time. There is one other in the country at the Art Gallery of Western Australia. NGV deputy director Tony Ellwood said the gallery bought Untangling with money from the NGV Foundation while Wall's prices were still affordable.

    I chased around to find out about this, "NGV Foundation", apparently it is made up of various organisations and individuals who donate, or bequests to the Gallery.

    The source of this information comes from the original newspaper article from last December.

    http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/ngvfoundation/

    The above link will take anyone to the NGV Foundation home page.

    It appears that my money hasn't been used after all, doesn't change my view of the picture though.

    Interestingly, every painting, piece of pottery or whatever in the gallery, if it has been purchased from one of the three parts of the NGV Foundation, always has this information on the description attached to, or near the piece of work being shown. This picture doesn't have this information at all, which is why I thought it had been purchased outright by the gallery.

    Mick.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin