Should museums use all resources available to show the best art?

Posted on by magshegs

magshegs

This spring the national museum in Norway announced that the museum had made a deal with the Fredriksen sisters. Kathrine and Cecilie Fredriksen are daughters of one of Norway’s most famous businessmen. The deal means that the sisters will lend out art to the museum for at least ten years, and it includes a room in the national gallery named after the sisters’ mother.

The collaboration created big discussions all summer, and has gotten a lot of critique, but also support. The critique mainly focuses on that the sisters are gaining value from investing, and that the public owned gallery shouldn’t help them increase their value. Some say the project is a “trojan horse in glossy paper”. People argue that the collaboration only is positive for the Fredriksen-sisters because they get help from art advisors, an attractive arena to display and great resources for restoring and taking care of the art. “All this will increase the value and reputation of their own collection, not the museum”, says an article in Aftenposten. They also criticize it because they believe that private buyers are getting an increasing influence over what it bought and showed. Should museums use all resources available to show the best art? 

Private donations are not uncommon in the art industry, it might even be necessary because of the financial situations in the art institutions. The museum itself says this deal gives the museum the opportunity to display world class art. Art which wouldn’t be seen in the public otherwise. But is it legitimate that museums prioritize monetary over artistic choices? 

“Art museums would be poorer without private donors”, said another article. They claim it’s naive thinking all culture can be funded by the public. The sisters have also been criticised for doing it for business purposes. In an article in Finansavisen, the editor says that the price to pay for the art the museum receives is small. He also argues that it’s common in the rest of the world to recieve help from private buyers. And if the art increases in value, he says “So what? The museum have saved large amounts of money anyway”. 

Maybe this is not a discussion about whether the deal with the Fredriksen sisters is wrong or right, but rather a discussion whether all art institutions should allow private donors influence the art market and culture. Personally, I believe that this is a great deal for the national museum. But also for the sisters, naturally. The gallery shows art they never would have without the deal, and the sisters get their fair share back. It is worth discussing whether it’s the private art collectors who decide the art marked, but in this case it is the curators at the national gallery who decides what to buy, together with the sisters. So in this case it’s still the national gallery which is responsible and in charge of what is being both bought and showed. 

(Word count: 490) 

References: 

Photo of the national gallery in Oslo, taken by Martin Beek, downloaded from Flickr, with all creative commons.

Leave a comment