Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I feel angry when I read about stolen art, and I get angry too when I
    read about a painting by say, Van Gogh, going for millions of
    dollars: as if a price could be put on a cultural artifact. A painting 
    like "Irises," which recently was sold to a private collector, can 
    now be seen only by that collector and anyone he chooses to see the 
    painting. A shame. 
    
    Because art prices are soaring, many museums are finding it difficult
    to bid for certain works by certain artists: it's simply too expensive
    to do so on their budgets. Museums are now being forced to sell off
    three works to get one (more famous) work. Obviously, museum
    collections are dwindling. 
    
    I'm angry with a system that allows art "investors" to remove beautiful
    and significant cultural treasures from public enjoyment. Let them
    invest their money elsewhere and keep their greedy hands off of what
    belongs to all of us! 

    I think their heinous.  Creative genius is one of the things I admire
    most in this world.  I went to the Monet exhibit recently (the largest
    gathering of Monet's works in about a century) - and was very moved by
    the art, the varying shades of light, his interpretation of weathers
    and winds and times of day and how they affected the "series" of
    scenes.  
    
    A loss of art would be like the loss of a symphony, the loss of great
    poetry.  I value these things quite highly.   However, I must wonder
    *why* someone would steal them.  I toy with the thought that (although
    this is highly unlikely) they thought the works so compellingly
    beautiful that they *must* have them or perish......
    
    Sheesh.  What a romantic.
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  I know they were probably motivated by greed.  Or that weird
    compulsion that makes people do things *because they *can** - just to
    prove they could.
    

    The tax laws have been changed, so now the incentive to contribute
    funds and works of art is not what it used to be.  Add to that the rise
    in insurance which a museum has to pay when a major exhibit is shown.
    
    Until art is supported at all levels - not just the old masters, but
    new artists and art education - the range of art that we are able to
    view will continue to be limited.
    
    When schools cut their art programs, both classes and visiting artists,
    it severely limits students exposure to art.  If the arts are not
    accessible to the general public, they run the danger of becoming
    accessible only to those who can afford the cost of admission and the
    cost of a ticket.
    
    Congress, through Jesse Helms, is also working to define "what is art". 
    Personally, I want the freedom to define it for myself.
    
    The irony of the art theft at the Gardner Museum is that the paintings
    are so readily identifiable that they cannot be easily sold or disposed
    of.  Were they stolen for the enjoyment of *one* person?  If that
    person had the means to hire theives, why couldn't s/he have put those
    funds to better use.  (Ever the eternal optimist)  Where is the
    enjoyment if the art is locked away?
    
    Lots of ponderings, but I come up empty-handed for an answer.
    
    Judi
    

Just a note for the person complaining about private art collections:

What do you think the Elizabeth Gardner Art Museum is??

It is a private collection started by Mrs. Gardner many years ago that is now
open for public viewing.  The only difference between the Gardner and an art 
gallery is that none of the paintings there are available for purchase.

Now, I am not slameing the Gardner, i have spent a more than a few afternoons
there while at NU, and I like the place, and the loss does sadden me...

Grins,

clark.

    The Gardner Museum did originally begin as a private collection, yes;
    after all, it was the woman's home. I have no objection to the Gardner
    Museum _now_, because it is open to the public.
    
    You seem to be assuming that all private collections will eventually
    be made into public museums. Not everyone is so philanthropic. 
    
    The woman loved art; she was not merely an "investor."

 I do not agree that we have a "right" to certain pieces of art. If such a
right were to exist, how would it be possible to charge admission to view
such a work of art? How would it be possible for an artist to create a work
of art and then charge someone for it?

 One of my talents is designing electrical circuits and communication protocols.
DEC benefits from this talent by selling things which I design. An artist may
have a certain talent by which s/he may also profit. Her/his works are
not any more public property than my circuits are.

 The beauty of art is that art gets much of its importance and value by being
admired/enjoyed by people- the more people, the better. It is not, however,
the right of the people to demand to be allowed to enjoy certain pieces of art,
any more than it is a "right" to demand to be allowed to drive a Porsche or
Ferrari. It is a gift.

 It is natural to feel a sense of loss when an art theft or private sale
precludes us from enjoying a piece of art. It is akin to having a gift taken 
away. But we do not have the right to demand such a gift. Ms. Gardner did
a very wise and noble deed in allowing her private collection to be viewed by 
the general public. She gave us a gift; she allowed us to view a collection
of works which she amassed. The loss is great.

 I feel angry when a wealthy person arranges to have great works of art stolen
so he can have them in her/his own private collection. You can't share an
important and well known stolen piece like that or risk going to jail. You
must hide it. And that's the tragedy- the greed and selfishness have destroyed
the value of the work.

 The Doctah

    RE: .6
    
    >>> I do not agree that we have a right to certain pieces of art.
    
    Let me ask you a theoretical question. Say that some wealthy person
    wanted to buy the pyramids from the Egyptian government. Would you
    approve of the sale?
    
    I think that certain art objects, after a while, become so important to a
    culture's sense of itself that it is unthinkable for that object to be
    in the hands of a sole collector. Imagine the "Mona Lisa" owned by a
    private collector! Or Michangelo's "David"! 
    
    What if some private collector wanted to buy the collection of colonial
    art in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston? Do we, the public, not have a
    right to these artifacts?

>    Let me ask you a theoretical question. Say that some wealthy person
>    wanted to buy the pyramids from the Egyptian government. Would you
>    approve of the sale?

 Frankly, my personal opinion wouldn't count for anything, however, I'll give
you my cut on the deal. If the government were to sell the pyramids, I'd be
displeased. I don't think it would be a smart idea. But if they did it, I'd
have no choice but to deal with the situation.

>    I think that certain art objects, after a while, become so important to a
>    culture's sense of itself that it is unthinkable for that object to be
>    in the hands of a sole collector.

 Unthinkable merely means you don't want to have to deal with the ramifications 
of such an event. However, it could happen.

>Imagine the "Mona Lisa" owned by a
>    private collector! Or Michangelo's "David"! 

 It could be a loss, if the new owner chose to be selfish.

>    What if some private collector wanted to buy the collection of colonial
>    art in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston? Do we, the public, not have a
>    right to these artifacts?

 I don't know what the legal status of the Museum of Fine Arts is. If someone
were able to buy the artifacts, then we'd have no legal recourse. Even
assuming they kept the art to themselves, there's no "right" defined anywhere
that entitles us to make use of any piece of art.

 While it would be an effront to humanity if one were to remove art from
public consumption, there is simply no reason to believe that we are entitled
to the fruit of another's labor, no matter who they are, or what the fruit
happens to be.

 The Doctah

    Given the lack of support so many artists seem to encounter in their
    own lifetimes, something positive could be said for the role private
    collectors play in preserving art until it's old enough to be
    considered "great."  And if private collectors are playing a valuable
    role, shouldn't there be some reward for doing so?
    
    How many times have you heard of a "great" piece of art being
    discovered beneath a pile of rags in the basement of some church or
    library, put there long ago by custodians who didn't recognize the
    value of the piece?  I'm no art historian, but I'd venture to guess
    that private collectors have played a more important role in preserving
    the mastepieces than public collections have!  On the whole the public
    is remarkably common in its artistic tastes, hence the wide
    availability of paintings of Elvis on black velvet!
    
    I do believe that private collectors have a _noblesse oblige_
    responsibility to share their collections, on a reasonable basis, with
    the members of the public who have enough sense to recognize their
    importance, just as owners of beachfront property have, in my opinion,
    an obligation to allow public access and use of the shoreline portion
    of that property.
    
    Karen

    RE: .8 
    
    This is a complex issue.
    
    I would like to see a law that would prevent certain artworks from
    ever being in a private collection. But museums often have to sell
    artworks:
    
    1. To remain financially solvent.
    
    2. To acquire other works to enhance their collection.
    
    Maybe the law could permit a museum _to sell to another museum_; thereby
    keeping the artwork available to the public.
    
    The trouble is, even if there were a law to protect certain artworks
    from being in private collections, who in government could decide,
    or even feel empowered to decide, what belongs to the people?
    This sounds like a rhetorical question, but...
    
    I feel that it could be done. Works by Van Gogh have clearly
    passed from being "investment objects" to being beyond value, in my
    opinion. Whether you like him or hate him, Van Gogh's significance in
    the art world was so profound that his work belongs in museums as part
    of the Western cultural tradition. To deprive the public of these works
    would be to deprive the public of its heritage, its history, and its
    sense of self.   

    RE: .9
    
    Private collectors serve a role in supporting the arts, but would you
    have heard of Monet, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, and others had all their
    works remained in private hands? 

    Private collectors now have more incentive to sell their works of art
    at auction than to loan or donate them to museums.  Due to the rapid
    rise in the price of art, few museums can afford the major acquisitions
    that distinguish collections.
    
    Re accessibility.  It is the artist's and the collector's choice
    whether or not the piece of art will ever be seen by the public.  If
    art is relegated only to the elite, how will the general public learn
    about culture and through that, a piece of history.
    
    Museums are the caretakers of art.  If they can not afford the
    insurance for a major show (The insurance for one MFA show jumped
    several thousand dollars only 2 months before the opening.  How can a
    museum budget, given the financial uncertainty.), how can they produce
    the revenues to maintain the permanent collection?
    
    If schools continue to cut arts programs, how are students going to
    learn about art and culture?  The avenues are getting limited, I'm
    afraid.
    
    Art is a link to the past; it is a means of expression.  By limiting
    access to art, how will those links be found and those thoughts &
    feelings expressed?
    
    
    Doctah - Yes, you posess a degree of creativity in your job.  At the
    same time, you are producing the component of a piece of equipment
    which will generate revenue.  That is very different from an artist who
    is producing a piece of art, whether to express a point in time, or one
    which has been commissioned.  Interesting analogy, but it seems to me
    that we're comparing apples and oranges here.
    
    Judi

<    Private collectors serve a role in supporting the arts, but would you
<    have heard of Monet, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, and others had all their
<    works remained in private hands? 

    If it weren't for private collectors these works of art wouldn't even
    BE here today. In the case of Monet a few dedicated investors and
    artists bought his work while the French public laughed at him. Many of
    them eventually donated what they had to museums. Cezanne could hardly
    give his work away. The Italian masters relied on a patronage system.

    If you look at the name plates below many museum pictures you'll notice
    that more than a few are on loan from private collectors. The Smithsonan
    has mostly collector donated art.

    As for those who hire thieves to aquire a masterpiece for themselves
    alone. They are scum. liesl

>Imagine if the Mona Lisa were bought by a private party

The truth is, many famous paintings *are* owned by privaviduals.

The great Monet exhibit in Boston, which I just viewed, is a temporary
accmulation from all over the world.  Many of those paintings are on loan
from privaviduals.  I was fascinated reading the owner's name posted next to
many of those pictures.

Monet was saddened by the thought that his series of pictures, showing the
same scene at different times of day, would never again be shown together,
when people and museums all over the world bought individual pieces.

So he would have been thrilled to see what we did bringing all these pictures
together in Boston, at some personal risk to their owners.

/Eric

    RE: .13 
    
    >>> while the French Public laughed at him. 
    
    Actually it was the conservative Salon that was the most severe critic
    of the Impressionists. Monet was an artist of the people; his
    landscapes celebrate the beauty of nature and of peasant life, something
    Monet and many of the other Impressionists saw as something to hold
    dear in the face of rapid industrialization. Monet still remains most
    popular among the people, because his work is easily accesible. An assembly 
    of C�zannes landscapes, which most art critics (including me, and I'm
    no professional but I have studied art) feel are more provocative and 
    influential, would draw a far smaller crowd.
    
    >>>If it weren't for private collectors these work of art wouldn't
    >>>even BE here today.
    
    On the other hand, it is because of private collectors that many works
    are not available for the public to see. For as many Monets that are
    assembled for the show in Boston, there are as many in the hands of
    private collectors who are NOT willing to loan them to museums.   
    
    What we are seeing lately at art auctions are paintings being sold to
    private collectors, many of whom do not intend to loan them to museums.
    I don't underestimate the importance of the patronage system throughout
    art history; I just think that today we're seeing more greed and less
    genuine love of art among collectors.

>    art history; I just think that today we're seeing more greed and less
>    genuine love of art among collectors.

 And the point is...

    The point is that greed is causing inflated, ridiculous prices to be
    paid for works that aren't worth it. A Picasso sells for $30 million
    because of its name, nothing else. Inflated prices mean museums
    can't compete with the big-buck buyers these days, whereas a few years 
    ago they could. As I've said before, a private sale is no guarantee
    that the private buyer will loan the work to a museum. 
    
    I hate to see cultural treasures being handled this way.  
    
    

    A different point of view... I am a craftsman/artist in my free
    time.  I'm good enough at it that if I wanted to dedicate myself
    souly to it I could make a living at it.  However, it is a hobby
    that I enjoy when I want to.  Regardless...My pieces sell from as
    little as $20 dollars to as much as $5000.  I do original glass
    engravings on leaded glass using my own designs.  I figure out the
    price of a piece by the material costs and time involved... I have
    no doubt that someday they will be worth money as examples of a
    dieing art form if nothing else.  Every piece I've sold has been
    to a "private" individual.  The one museum that showed my work
    (San Jose Art Museum in 1978) did so only with the understanding that
    I would "lend" my work to them for display.  From my point of view
    this was okay because it gave me exposure to people who would 
    later buy my work.  The museum purchased one piece by me for $800
    shortly after my showing.  It has yet to be displayed anywhere and
    for all I know now it was smashed or destroyed in the earthquake
    back in October.  The thrill was in the showing... The reality is
    in the sale.  I liked having the public view my work but I didn't
    get anything for it until the private collectors bought it.  That
    money from the private collectors went right back into buying better
    materials and equipment for my hobby.  It's nice to have people
    compliment and critique what I created but it is the private 
    patrons of the arts that make it possible for me to continue doing
    it.  Museums do not often invest in potental they want estabished.
    But you can't be established unless you get showings.  That is where
    private Gallerys come in and again, these would fold if not for
    the private collector.  People never realize how much time, sweat,
    dedication, and energy goes into a piece of art.  Some of my work
    I do in "limited" numbers now... creating a master pattern and making
    several engraved pieces from it.  This allows me to sell the pieces
    to several people at a lesser price because I only have to create
    one master for multiple pieces.  I have been commissioned for unique
    pieces and those I charge heavier for... I have to spend time creating
    a master that I can only use once.  Then give the master to the
    owner with the completed piece.  A painter doesn't have that advantage
    unless he sells his work via lithos only.  Still his master is worth
    far more because of the work involved in the creating.  
    
    Finally... I believe my works will one day hang in a museum long
    after I'm dead and dust.  I'm not bragging about myself, it's more
    like I said before... I practice a craft/art form that is dieing.
    how many people do you know use hand held diamond tips and a small
    hammer to create pictures on a piece of leaded glass?  How many
    of you have even seen it available?  I'm not talking about acid
    etched or sand blasted glass nor electric engraved glass.  There
    are masters out there still practicing the form but fewer and fewer
    every year.  
    
    I wouldn't like the thought of my work becoming valuable enough
    to hang in a museam being stolen but on the other hand it isn't
    going to happen while I'm alive...(sigh)
    
    

    
    From what I've read recently the real threat to museums is changes to
    tax laws that will not allow private collectors to fully write off the
    value of donated artworks. 
    
    Since many museums depend on donations for a large part of their new
    acquisitions, the drop off in donations has been disastrous.
    
    Mike.
    
    
      

    The true irony to me is that other than the courtyard, the collection
    of paintings stolen from the ISABELLA Stuart Gardner Museum were the 
    best part of the whole collection.  She has such a mish-mash of styles,
    many of which are gothic religious artifacts, that the one room I 
    FINALLY enjoyed is no longer there.  To me, that is the real crime.
    I would otherwise NOT visit this museum.

    
    the managers of the gallery (who probably don't give a damn about
    art)....just $$$, arranged the whole thing...for the insurance $$$...??
    
    steve_who_isn't_really_into_art
    

    Re:-1
    
    Might work, except for the fact that the museum isn't insured for
    theft.
    
    So much for the conspiricy....
    
    Sue
    
    P.S. But I would have loved to see the look on the crooks faces when
    they found out that there was no insurance money to ransom them
    against!!!!!!
    
    

    
    oh well.....with the knowledge of those works...it is going to be
    pretty tough to get em' sold......especially with the amount of $$$
    offered for the returns....?
    
    steve