by neonbluelights
The deal between the National Museum and the Fredriksen sisters have led to strong reactions from people. The deal includes, among other things, that the museum will borrow the family’s art collection, and the Fredriksen sisters will fund several large exhibitions and a research program.
NRK published an article about the case on Aug. 21st where they wrote that the International Council of Museums (ICOM) have commented that the deal gives the Fredriksen Family Art Company power over the museum.
The National Museum is a state-owned museum that collects, preserves, displays, and conveys the country’s most expensive collection of art, architecture and design. Many people are critical to the Fredriksens displaying their art at the museum, which I can understand, because the National Museum displays art for the people of Norway. When a museum displays art, it adds value to the object. So my question here would be why would the museum display and add more value to art that belongs to already wealthy people?
According to ICOM, a problem with a deal like this is that the value of art already owned by private collectors increases, as well as it gives private collectors influence over the museum. The Fredriksen’s art will still be owned by them, and the museum will be borrowing it and displaying it for a signed 10-year period. But what will happen when the art is returned to the Fredriksens? The art will have a much higher value and there is a risk that the museum will be left empty-handed.
Should museums be a place for commerce? Art and commerce become viewed as “hostile worlds”. Considering a museum is a non-profit institution in the service of society, it’s up for discussion how much private influence and profit we should allow within the museum industry. What I mean by this is that we should be more critical regarding sponsorships and gifts, especially when they come with deals and contracts. The contract sets limitations for what the museum can and cannot do, and it also states that the Fredriksen’s company should have up to four representatives in the group who will decide what art to buy, along with four representatives from the National Museum. I see this as a risk that it might undermine the museum’s academic authority, given the Fredriksens get big enough influence in the museum’s purchasing decisions.
As mentioned, the art’s value increases, and I therefore see it as important for the museum to understand the motives the private collector has when making a deal like this. The museum should not just be a place for private collectors to display their art to increase the value and gain from it. This goes against the fact that museums are non-profit institutions.
Making sense of art and design industries 
Without elaborating you give a brief description of the case and the National Museum’s role in society, which can give any reader not familiar with the case an understanding of the conflict. You concluded that “the museum should not just be a place for private collectors to display their art to increase the value and gain from it”. Although I fully agree, I can’t help but search for counterarguments in the text. In a time where private collectors have budgets for art that surpass those of public museums, non-profit organizations such as the National Museum are dependent on borrowing valuable artworks worthwhile seeing by the public. Therefore I ask the question, Should the museum ignore Fredriksen’s capitalization in order to provide valuable art for society?
LikeLike