Collections: Public Or Private?
Reading of the Center for Sex & Culture's requests for donations (via the SK message boards), I am reminded of several issues.
Personally, I support the center; but like many private collectors, I have mixed emotions on such donations...
It's not just personal greed -- though I readily admit I want stuff! -- I've heard of and seen many smaller museums, centers, 'group collections', organizations etc. fail. And I don't just mean financially in the sense that they fold-up shop; some of them, due to poor funding and training, do not properly care for the items in their collection. And in some cases, people have just up and walked off with goodies they've cherry-picked from the collection (stolen goods cannot be shown to anyone, really). All of which puts objects at risk of permanent loss.
I'm not accusing those with the Center for Sex & Culture of anything here; just allowing the thoughts it prompts to post regarding my mixed emotions and general concerns.
There's an ongoing debate between private, independent collectors and collectives or official museums centered, usually, on the matters of who takes better care of collections, & the public's right to access them.
Often museums view themselves as most trained and prepared for the preservation of items, but in a world of shrinking support for the arts this isn't necessarily so.
Many private collectors do arrange for public viewing of their collections, including lending the collection, in whole or parts, to larger public institutions; even as many organizations and museums relegate items to 'the basement' or other off-limits areas of the institution, rendering them unavailable to the public.
Determining a hard-and-fast rule on what ought to be done is prevented because, as with many things, the decision rests on particulars which vary with individuals and individual organizations. Thus the debate of just 'who should own and collect' continues.
And it brings up several other matters in collecting, pubic access, viewing and ownership.
While your usual artistic fare is available in representation (for example, Monet posters to purchase while the original painting's ownership is not possible), many other artworks & artifacts are not. Some because they are not legally possible to reproduce (copyright ownership issues), others due to budgetary constraints (set up costs for quality work are unobtainable) and even strict restrictions of such things (for example, items willed to a museum with stipulations). And others, such as 'porn', are either deemed in poor taste to do such things with, or with too little buying interest to recoup creation/replication costs.
The Internet has been a boon to such public viewing. Even with censorship (perceived threats and actual actions), it is an opportunity to share as well as research. However, museums and institutions, both large and small, have been among the last to jump in these digital waters.
Partly, this is due to lack of funding -- even a free Blogger blog requires some person to write & post, and a struggling institution may have no one to do such work amidst their other duties. And many volunteers, though interested, are deemed unable simply because they would require supervision and access which diminishes resources.
Largely, however, the matter of not being on the Internet is one of choice.
Having been privy to conversations among museum professionals, it's clear that the matter of entre to the Internet isn't merely a lack of technical ability and understanding, or even funds for such a venture and its staffing needs; it's the simple matter of a lack of understanding the possibility whilst fearing some probability.
Many institutions fear the world wide web's free display of objects & information; the virtual tour will replace the physical visit and it's at-the-door fees -- which are required to support the physical space & persons required to maintain the collection. For organizations which document not only the marvels of technological advances but the fearful cultural responses to these advances is not merely ironic, it's rather sad.
They cannot claim ignorance while they house exhibits dedicated to such things as the story of - and reaction to -- the cotton gin. Or, for a more easily digested comparison, the invention of the television and the groups which feared the tube.
On argument against TV was the fear that it would destroy families, morals, and country with its passive and/or inappropriate programing; this is the anti-culture argument which many professional collecting organizations talk about. It is a two-fold argument. A), having an Internet presence is not only equal to encouraging people not to really experience the arts and interact with community and the world at large with visits to museums, performances, etc. B), such participation in the web is tantamount to assisting in the vast amounts of misinformation which exists 'out here'.
The motion picture studios feared the smaller private screen would trump the larger public experience and put them out of business; this is lack of asses in the paid for seats is exactly what museums fear will be the end of their own industry.
Clearly, in any of these arguments, there is a complete lack of understanding of marketing & audience -- and even of mission.
The huge numbers of historical sites -- from those dedicated to the smallest details of a particular item, time period or person, to the largest more all-encompassing portals -- should only serve to comfort museums, libraries and organizations that there is a hunger for what they offer. Their audience, volunteers, members and even deep-pockets of financial support await them here.
The best way to combat misinformation -- from the ignorant mistakes of the passionate to the mean-spirited zealots who wish to control & use information -- is to participate in the conversations which are already in progress. Put up a site, blog your collection piece by piece, and comment at other blogs and communities. Even if time and budget limits your ability to comment/correct every blogging Joe and Josephine who is missing the facts, your accurate information coupled with your official status as the organization with both artifact and historian, means there is valid information for those who do research.
And then there are the countless possibilities of finding experts, authors, & items.
In the end, any institution or organization with an active presence is likely to garner the attention it wishes -- including more paid admissions and donations. I myself am more likely to visit places, near and far, which I know have the items I am interested in if I am able to see and read of them, knowing that knowledgeable, passionate staff -- and visible objects await me. Ditto any other support (from donations to blog posts).
When it comes to the topic of 'smut collections' and sex history, I must also admit that I see little to convince me that this category won't be the first area to be negatively affected by funding cuts, diminished or invisible display area, curating efforts, and to be under appreciated in general. It's largely why other organizations which began dedicated to this part of our history have failed -- too little public support and outcry in favor of such acquisitions, care & funding while the nay-sayers speak loudly & carry big sticks to punish such sinners.
Countless headlines speak of art museums moving 'offensive' classic artworks from public view, and the world goes on as if this is no big loss. Each one of these cases is used to leverage the next censored public display & so on & so on until one has to wonder just when and where those objects and works will be seen again... Not to mention, wonder just what the hell is going on.
When sex history collections are in private hands, there is little threat from public outcry -- at least while the collector is alive. But then, any decent collector of indecent collectibles will have made proper arrangements through their estate. (I myself am open to receipt of & care for such collections, should no other situation avail itself.)
Given that I have A) a low tolerance for museums and organizations which either resist the Internet or create only static pamphlet-like websites, B) know of so many private collectors who are willing to share their collection and knowledge, and C) see little institutional dedication to sex in terms of a strong public stance against ignorant public outcry (even the Kinsey Institute is too damn quiet these days), I'm more inclined to resist donations to groups and museums.
At least until I see a willingness to share (images and information) and participate (in conversations and study) despite & in spite of censorship calls.
Personally, I support the center; but like many private collectors, I have mixed emotions on such donations...
It's not just personal greed -- though I readily admit I want stuff! -- I've heard of and seen many smaller museums, centers, 'group collections', organizations etc. fail. And I don't just mean financially in the sense that they fold-up shop; some of them, due to poor funding and training, do not properly care for the items in their collection. And in some cases, people have just up and walked off with goodies they've cherry-picked from the collection (stolen goods cannot be shown to anyone, really). All of which puts objects at risk of permanent loss.
I'm not accusing those with the Center for Sex & Culture of anything here; just allowing the thoughts it prompts to post regarding my mixed emotions and general concerns.
There's an ongoing debate between private, independent collectors and collectives or official museums centered, usually, on the matters of who takes better care of collections, & the public's right to access them.
Often museums view themselves as most trained and prepared for the preservation of items, but in a world of shrinking support for the arts this isn't necessarily so.
Many private collectors do arrange for public viewing of their collections, including lending the collection, in whole or parts, to larger public institutions; even as many organizations and museums relegate items to 'the basement' or other off-limits areas of the institution, rendering them unavailable to the public.
Determining a hard-and-fast rule on what ought to be done is prevented because, as with many things, the decision rests on particulars which vary with individuals and individual organizations. Thus the debate of just 'who should own and collect' continues.
And it brings up several other matters in collecting, pubic access, viewing and ownership.
While your usual artistic fare is available in representation (for example, Monet posters to purchase while the original painting's ownership is not possible), many other artworks & artifacts are not. Some because they are not legally possible to reproduce (copyright ownership issues), others due to budgetary constraints (set up costs for quality work are unobtainable) and even strict restrictions of such things (for example, items willed to a museum with stipulations). And others, such as 'porn', are either deemed in poor taste to do such things with, or with too little buying interest to recoup creation/replication costs.
The Internet has been a boon to such public viewing. Even with censorship (perceived threats and actual actions), it is an opportunity to share as well as research. However, museums and institutions, both large and small, have been among the last to jump in these digital waters.
Partly, this is due to lack of funding -- even a free Blogger blog requires some person to write & post, and a struggling institution may have no one to do such work amidst their other duties. And many volunteers, though interested, are deemed unable simply because they would require supervision and access which diminishes resources.
Largely, however, the matter of not being on the Internet is one of choice.
Having been privy to conversations among museum professionals, it's clear that the matter of entre to the Internet isn't merely a lack of technical ability and understanding, or even funds for such a venture and its staffing needs; it's the simple matter of a lack of understanding the possibility whilst fearing some probability.
Many institutions fear the world wide web's free display of objects & information; the virtual tour will replace the physical visit and it's at-the-door fees -- which are required to support the physical space & persons required to maintain the collection. For organizations which document not only the marvels of technological advances but the fearful cultural responses to these advances is not merely ironic, it's rather sad.
They cannot claim ignorance while they house exhibits dedicated to such things as the story of - and reaction to -- the cotton gin. Or, for a more easily digested comparison, the invention of the television and the groups which feared the tube.
On argument against TV was the fear that it would destroy families, morals, and country with its passive and/or inappropriate programing; this is the anti-culture argument which many professional collecting organizations talk about. It is a two-fold argument. A), having an Internet presence is not only equal to encouraging people not to really experience the arts and interact with community and the world at large with visits to museums, performances, etc. B), such participation in the web is tantamount to assisting in the vast amounts of misinformation which exists 'out here'.
The motion picture studios feared the smaller private screen would trump the larger public experience and put them out of business; this is lack of asses in the paid for seats is exactly what museums fear will be the end of their own industry.
Clearly, in any of these arguments, there is a complete lack of understanding of marketing & audience -- and even of mission.
The huge numbers of historical sites -- from those dedicated to the smallest details of a particular item, time period or person, to the largest more all-encompassing portals -- should only serve to comfort museums, libraries and organizations that there is a hunger for what they offer. Their audience, volunteers, members and even deep-pockets of financial support await them here.
The best way to combat misinformation -- from the ignorant mistakes of the passionate to the mean-spirited zealots who wish to control & use information -- is to participate in the conversations which are already in progress. Put up a site, blog your collection piece by piece, and comment at other blogs and communities. Even if time and budget limits your ability to comment/correct every blogging Joe and Josephine who is missing the facts, your accurate information coupled with your official status as the organization with both artifact and historian, means there is valid information for those who do research.
And then there are the countless possibilities of finding experts, authors, & items.
In the end, any institution or organization with an active presence is likely to garner the attention it wishes -- including more paid admissions and donations. I myself am more likely to visit places, near and far, which I know have the items I am interested in if I am able to see and read of them, knowing that knowledgeable, passionate staff -- and visible objects await me. Ditto any other support (from donations to blog posts).
When it comes to the topic of 'smut collections' and sex history, I must also admit that I see little to convince me that this category won't be the first area to be negatively affected by funding cuts, diminished or invisible display area, curating efforts, and to be under appreciated in general. It's largely why other organizations which began dedicated to this part of our history have failed -- too little public support and outcry in favor of such acquisitions, care & funding while the nay-sayers speak loudly & carry big sticks to punish such sinners.
Countless headlines speak of art museums moving 'offensive' classic artworks from public view, and the world goes on as if this is no big loss. Each one of these cases is used to leverage the next censored public display & so on & so on until one has to wonder just when and where those objects and works will be seen again... Not to mention, wonder just what the hell is going on.
When sex history collections are in private hands, there is little threat from public outcry -- at least while the collector is alive. But then, any decent collector of indecent collectibles will have made proper arrangements through their estate. (I myself am open to receipt of & care for such collections, should no other situation avail itself.)
Given that I have A) a low tolerance for museums and organizations which either resist the Internet or create only static pamphlet-like websites, B) know of so many private collectors who are willing to share their collection and knowledge, and C) see little institutional dedication to sex in terms of a strong public stance against ignorant public outcry (even the Kinsey Institute is too damn quiet these days), I'm more inclined to resist donations to groups and museums.
At least until I see a willingness to share (images and information) and participate (in conversations and study) despite & in spite of censorship calls.
Labels: Art, Collecting, Essays, Sex History
posted by Silent-Porn-Star at
6:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home