« Should we keep prostitutes on the streets? | Main | Markets in everything, shoe laces and masochism edition »
The Power of Philanthropy
The British Museum is one of the world's premier arts institutions. But last year it spent less than a million pounds on new acquisitions. Compare this to the more than 55 million pounds spent by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, or the more than 20 million pounds spent by MOMA. The Met figure is inflated above normal levels because of the purchase of an expensive Duccio painting but the comparison remains. The Louvre spent 16.8 million pounds in the same year, coming in third internationally. The Getty was fourth and the Rijksmuseum fifth.
That is from The Art Newspaper, December 2006, p.25. Here is a good article on a Frenchman who has realized the power of decentralized philanthropy. Here is a good article on NYU's obsession with philanthropy.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 27, 2006 at 05:25 AM in The Arts | Permalink
Comments
Does anyone know of papers or resources that describe ROI for major art buyers? I mean long term stuff, like what they purchased in the 50s and 60s.
Posted by: Paul N at Dec 27, 2006 9:34:58 AM
I'm surprised to see that the Getty ranked fourth, as I had thought that it far outspent all other museums.
Posted by: Peter at Dec 27, 2006 10:48:46 AM
Er...I don't think the British Museum is an "art institution". The National Gallery is more like the Metro.
Posted by: khalid mir at Dec 27, 2006 11:49:41 AM
Khalid Mir is spot on. The British Museum is a museum, not an art gallery (I think the source of the confusion is that in the United States, art galleries are sometimes called "art museums.") Galleries have higher acquisition budgets than museums for several reasons because there is a lively international market in art: paintings are auctioned in one country and then hauled back to another. Cultural artefacts are hedged in with many restrictions on sale across national boundaries- many countries don't want to see a repeat of the Elgin marbles episode with their cultural treasures. As well, the BM doesn't need to buy much new stuff because it had been building its collection since 1753, when the Smithsonian was a forest.
Posted by: andrew smith at Dec 27, 2006 2:20:23 PM
Tyler, it would also be nice to know what you're trying to say.
Are you making a comaprison between the U.S. and the U.K. and if so:
1. why only figures for this year, and no other?
2. should the figures be in terms of proportion of GDP?
3. Even if one were to accept that in certain matters Americans
are more philanthropic might it not be the case their sense of altruism
is well, let's be polite, and say less than generous (in particular, with reference
to the welfare state and attitudes to the other , "blacks".
4. Anyway, I'm not sure what the relationship is between spending and the actual
quality of the art. Perhaps the key thing, as Hannah Arendt once said, is that art transcends
the market and the values it stands for.
5. On a positive note, the American Empire might be able to accumulate the same type of collection
that the British one managed :)
Posted by: khalid mir at Dec 27, 2006 3:00:51 PM
Buy Cialis Online - buy cialis online
Cialis - cialis
Buy Levitra - levitra
Buy Viagra - buy viagra
Yahoo! - Yahoo!
----------------------------------------------------------
Buy Propecia - buy propecia
Buy Meridia - buy meridia
Buy Paxil - buy paxil
Zocor - buy zocor
Google - Google
----------------------------------------------------------
Buy Prozac - buy prozac
Buy Xenical - buy xenical
Buy Soma - buy soma
Buy Wellbutrin - buy wellbutrin
Posted by: Sharon at Sep 10, 2007 2:02:02 PM
