how important is it to keep art in public collections?

Question

Should we do all we can to keep pieces of art in public galleries and out of the homes of private collectors?

Answer 1

Absolutely!

Private collectors buy art because of the investment potential, you cannot lose money by buying art. A wealthy person buying art is not going to be viewing it all day every day; it will probably be locked up somewhere, rarely to be enjoyed by th appreciative eye. If art is in a gallery the owner still has the benefit of the value of the piece accumulating, while the public can benefit from viewing it. Right?

It's one of cultural things that we all have a right to . . .

Answer 2

No, but I think that private collectors should be limited to how many pieces they can purchase for each home, before they have to publicly display one. Say a law to display at least 10% of their collection, as part of the insurance deal.

Private collectors are the supporters of contemporary artists, and if you take them away from the equation, then you will effectively kill off art. Art will die, in that there will be no money left to support the up and coming artist, and Art History will stop the day that private collections are banned, because it is the buying by private collectors that informs the narrow minded curators of present collections what to invest in for the future.

The public access of art is important, but then so is the fact that you will want some examples to escape the ravages of sweat and humidity and light damage caused by public display. It is only by examining pictures kept locked away that restorators have any idea of the true colour pigment of some of the more well known works which are damaged by over display.

Answer 3

I wonder if this question arises from the sale of the Lowrey painting previously owned by Bury Council, which recently sold for £1.4 million?

This sale was also feautured on a recent BBC Radio 4 programme.

As the buyer of this painting happens to be my best friend, I think I can be of some comfort, because he regularly loans painting to art galleries, where the public are able to view them. The Bury Lowrey will probably be on display at the Lowrey gallery, Salford Quays sometime in the future.

It may further re-assure the questioner, that my friend was as appalled as anyone else, when the local council wanted to pay off debts by selling this painting.

It isn't just art galleries which are suffering. As an organist, I was aghast when Liverpool Council wanted to shut-down St.George's Hall, Liverpool and allow the stupendous and historic pipe- organ to decay: something which has happened in other places across the UK.

Following protests, St.George's Hall is now a recognised heritage site of world importance.

They key is PROTEST from the local community, because the people who bear responsibility for art and art-treasures, are often complete idiots or phillistines. Due the to the financial ineptitude of council officials, Bury lost a fine painting and an important piece of local history and culture.

The very wealthy people are often those who are the first to recognise this, and whilst my friend owns a major collection of Lowrey's work, he does not keep them eniterly to himself, but regards himself more as a custodian.

The history of art and treasure owes a lot to wealthy individuals who have recognised its worth, and comissioned work by artists and artisans, while lesser people have been happy to discard, destroy or neglect things.

Answer 4

Difficult one that, though nice in principle - take commissioning. Many private collectors are the one who can commission an artwork - this keeps the artist paid, galleries don't generally have that kind of money anymore.
maybe what we should be doing is keeping the private investors buying but encouraging them to lend to galleries (as many do) and to give to public collections on their demise (this must be where some of the great northern (UK) Victorian collections came from, Manchester with its great collection of Rossetti paintings and Birmingham with its Burne Jones collection).
So I think encouraging an altruistic tendency among the rich collectors.

Answer 5

If it wasn't in public collections, it would be owned by rich people and kept in private collections, and the public wouldn't be able to see it.

So, it's *very* important. Great art lifts the spirits, or provokes debate and thought at the very least.