Random art question

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by raptor96, Nov 12, 2006.

  1. raptor96 macrumors regular

    Nov 5, 2006
    I know this is random and probably macrumors is the most inane place to post this but macrumors ppl seem to know a lot about everything so I figured I'd ask:

    While museums take gifts and even pieces 'on permanent loan' is there any instance of a painting being purchased from a museum? Is there a precedent for this? Thanks!
  2. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor


    Staff Member

    Jan 20, 2005

    The Albright-Knox Art Gallery in my hometown of Buffalo is currently gearing up to auction off about $15 million worth of art that doesn't really fit into the core holdings of the gallery. According to the guidelines of the American Art Museum Directors Association, all proceeds from the sale of museum art should go into an endowment to support future art purchases. (They don't want museums selling off art to support salaries or other expenses.)

  3. iMeowbot macrumors G3


    Aug 30, 2003
    The process you're asking about is called deaccession. STFW on that and you'll find plenty.
  4. raptor96 thread starter macrumors regular

    Nov 5, 2006
    I had asked whether a museum like the met had ever deaccessioned a work of art by a major artist and it looks as though it has; while I only found an example of the museum having to remove from sale a piece because of a donor's complaint, it would seem as though even a major museum could be persuaded to part with a piece by a well known artist. Thanks guys!
  5. SMM macrumors 65816


    Sep 22, 2006
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    That could raise some interesting ethical questions, depending on how it was obtained. If it was donated, purchased with grant, or endowment money, I could easily see issues arising. In fact, I believe there was once a much publicized case of a major piece being auctioned. Since only private collectors could bid competitively, the ethical dilemma was centered around the world's great art treasures being removed from the public domain. I seem to recall having a strong opinion supporting art remaining in the public domain, once it found its' way there. After all, who would want Rupert Murdoch owning the Mona Lisa, unless someone could feed it to him?

Share This Page