The article has fun roasting this specific exhibition but as usual the various entities are independent and follow their own agenda and are all satisfied. No deep plot needed.
The museum loves to get along with rich private collections (which will donate money and art and will lend rare pieces on demand) and as a mission wants to host popular exhibitions. The directors score big in their network and get closer to rich collectors and add this feat to their resume. The public gets rarely seen pieces (for a steep fee in this case.) The museum will at least break even on the cost of running the thing. Insurance was needed and that's expensive and the government pitched in. The owners of the art fulfill their public-good objective AND increase the value all these pieces - now still better known. Scholarship got the short end of the stick - nobody on this crew depended on that too much. Everyone else is happy enough.
The question, rather buried, is that the show uses a scarce resource: six months of exhibition space at a major museum. Was this really the best the museum could do for the public in that time? On balance, because of so many major works, perhaps it was! But either actual curators couldn't be convinced (they would have little say as to which art), or the directors felt they could add a round of curation to their resume and didn't need to share credit. They might have had good success asking various art critics to write something to hang in each room (for the prestige or for money).
There is no doubt that the show is still useful to the public. Some private collections hold many big name art pieces and do not (yet) have a space of their own to display them. If you care greatly about one of these artists - or that period - you will pay to visit. This will be your only chance to ever see some works. If you care about art in general, you will be sorely tempted - for that single reason. You have heard of all these works and you finally get a chance to see a pile of them. In both cases, let's be clear: curation is NOT relevant. Quantity is sufficient (quantity of these well known pieces).
If you care about well-known art, when you are in Los Angeles, you visit the Broad. You have to score a time slot (it's free) but this private collection "has everything". It stands out: a private collection of mostly big-shot art that has a permanent exhibition space of its own (an extravagant half city block in the middle of downtown.)
There's an outdoor park in the region with what was a well-loved area — a common place to get married, beautiful views.
Several years ago there was a major donation and suddenly this area — prime park topography — was filled haphazardly with modern sculptures. The aesthetics of the place were totally destroyed, and obviously because of this donor. It wasn't even so much that the sculptures are ugly, it's that putting them there in particular was completely nonsensical. It would be sort of like if someone donated billions of dollars to the NPS in the US and then they just filled the national mall with contemporary abstract outdoor sculptures.
The exhibit that's the focus of this article will pass and you're right that in the grand scheme of things it's probably inconsequential. Museums show private collections all the time. But to me the underlying concerns were very important and relevant — the exhibit seemed to be incoherent, the real reason for the exhibit is kind of buried, basically a poor exhibit is happening because of money and there's an attempt to conceal it so as to not anger the donor. There are certain situations where all of that becomes more consequential or long lasting, as in permanent outdoor sculpture exhibits, or if the exhibit also has some controversial outcome.
I hear you. I was trying to counter the all too common "because of money".
Art lovers should be happy that this London exhibition happens. Many will pay to see it. Because it presents a pile of significant works rarely seen otherwise. [That art gained high value because at least the artists have been celebrated by critics and collectors. Not only because of art circuit shenanigans. Some of that but not only.]
For your sculpture donation: Was the issue the donation? Or the money that allowed amassing this collection? Or was the city clueless about what to do with it? Or corruption: Was this park chosen because that donor has connections and insisted on it or because a greedy city hopes this prime location will bring more donations?
There's only so far that "just the money" goes.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the SFMOMA museum was turned from 3rd rate to world class by one massive art donation from one wealthy donor. On Stanford campus there are two instances of massive donations from wealthy donors: the Rodin sculpture collection and the Anderson Collection (and its dedicated building). They take a lot of space - and very skillfully done I think - and art lovers can't really complain about the money itself.
Yeah I'm not opposed to exhibits of private collections. Sometimes it's a good opportunity to see lesser-known works, and I don't have a problem with "here's a random selection of artworks collected by someone". But I wish they would just be up front about it.
I think I'm just sensitive because of this dynamic in this park I mentioned.
I think what happened is this donor donated a lot of money, had a collection of outdoor sculptures, and wanted them placed in this prime area of the park for narcissistic reasons or something, and the park administration felt that the donation was too large to turn down the strings attached of the sculptures.
I love modern art, so it's not the sculptures themselves that bother me, and I don't mind the donation, it's that I think the landscape is key and they would have been better located dispersed throughout the park. Sometimes negative space on a landscape is as important as "stuff" on it.
The museum loves to get along with rich private collections (which will donate money and art and will lend rare pieces on demand) and as a mission wants to host popular exhibitions. The directors score big in their network and get closer to rich collectors and add this feat to their resume. The public gets rarely seen pieces (for a steep fee in this case.) The museum will at least break even on the cost of running the thing. Insurance was needed and that's expensive and the government pitched in. The owners of the art fulfill their public-good objective AND increase the value all these pieces - now still better known. Scholarship got the short end of the stick - nobody on this crew depended on that too much. Everyone else is happy enough.
The question, rather buried, is that the show uses a scarce resource: six months of exhibition space at a major museum. Was this really the best the museum could do for the public in that time? On balance, because of so many major works, perhaps it was! But either actual curators couldn't be convinced (they would have little say as to which art), or the directors felt they could add a round of curation to their resume and didn't need to share credit. They might have had good success asking various art critics to write something to hang in each room (for the prestige or for money).
There is no doubt that the show is still useful to the public. Some private collections hold many big name art pieces and do not (yet) have a space of their own to display them. If you care greatly about one of these artists - or that period - you will pay to visit. This will be your only chance to ever see some works. If you care about art in general, you will be sorely tempted - for that single reason. You have heard of all these works and you finally get a chance to see a pile of them. In both cases, let's be clear: curation is NOT relevant. Quantity is sufficient (quantity of these well known pieces).
If you care about well-known art, when you are in Los Angeles, you visit the Broad. You have to score a time slot (it's free) but this private collection "has everything". It stands out: a private collection of mostly big-shot art that has a permanent exhibition space of its own (an extravagant half city block in the middle of downtown.)