In response to Brian Kimsey-Hickman's post, I wrote:

>> (snip) if these objects are to be sold after being temporarily exhibited
>> in a museum  . . . the exhibiting museum
>> would be allowing itself to serve as a marketing tool for the commercial
>> enterprise -- both advertising its merchandise and possibly affecting the
>> value of the objects.
>
And Greg Stemm responded:

>How would this apply to the policy of art museums relating to the
>display of privately-owned works of art which are loaned to museums?
>
>Is it possible that their display and the public enjoyment of the
>resource may be diminished by the fact that they may someday be sold at
>a profit by the individual who owns them?
>

Loaned works of art are usually sought out by the borrowing institution in
order to fulfill a curatorial or scholarly premise.  The difference between
this selective purposeful borrowing and a commercial enterprise pitching an
exhibition idea is not even subtle, and ethical questions often turn on
much less obvious distinctions.

Whatever its degree, possible public enjoyment is not relevant to the
question Brian Kimsey-Hickman presented.  Frankly I don't know if it would
be unethical for a museum to collude in achieving the interests of a
commercial archeological venture, but I would feel uncomfortable knowingly
doing so.


Stephen Nowlin, Vice President
Director, Alyce de Roulet Williamson Gallery
Art Center College of Design
1700 Lida Street
Pasadena, California 91103  USA (818)396-2397vox (818)405-9104fax
[log in to unmask]    http://www.arcenter.edu