You know what, I didn’t cover this in my essay, but yeah. The basements are overflowing. I only know this because I work on William Blake, whose work is almost entirely stored in the basements (only available on request) because it’s watercolour on paper (subject to light damage).
I think you raise a good question about contemporary collectors, one I have been chewing on since 'Capturing The Moment' at the Tate Modern. It was a collection without cohesion, made by a man who's only interest in art is a parasitic one.
I do wonder if a line needs to be drawn between 'patron-collectors' (investing in living artists directly) and 'investment-collectors' (who often leverage public-facing institutions to increase the profile/value of their collections).
So interesting to read this, as I have been thinking about this issue with regard to the Friedrich exhibit, where some of the works are in private collections. As if that weren’t frustrating enough, it’s hard, and sometimes impossible, even to get a good quality image to save as a reminder. This lovely little work falls into that category. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/903409 I really don’t understand why a private collector—or really anyone—would want to prevent the general public from being able at least to have access to good quality images of paintings most of us will never be able to see in person. What could be the reason for that, with a work like the one I linked?
When placed in historical context, no work of art is separate from war, from colonialism, patriarchy, from religious oppression, exploitation, etc. There is no 'clean' art.
This exhibit looks amazing!! Wish I lived in London, but I love your posts bc even far away I feel like I get a sense of the exhibit! I love when private collectors decide to exhibit their work publicly -- my favorite museum is The Frick in NYC which was not only a private collection but a private house at one point!
Oskar Reinhart is one of those collectors in Switzerland who built a collection in large part during the 1930s. Mostly from acquisitions in Germany. Switzerland has the worst record in the Western World for returning art that was directly, or indirectly looted in the years leading up to WWII. It also has the most forgiving legislation to deal with these issues, holding its citizens free of guilt in virtually any circumstance.
Unfortunately, we are obliged to question most of the collections built in the 1930s in Switzerland. There is almost a reverse burden of proof. It is difficult to view these collections without feeling uncomfortable. It is important to bear this in mind anytime a Swiss 'loan' exhibition arrives on your doorstep.
As for private collectors; we would have empty museums without them. It is the private collectors who keep the artists fed. There is virtually no public money involved. One can hope that private collectors ultimately donate their collections to public institutions. It is up to the artists to keep track of who has their work, that is what a catalogue raisonné is for, so that scholars know where to look.
I was thinking about the “how many grand artworks are in private collections?” question so often this month in the aftermath of the LA fires. How many privately owned artworks in wealthy Los Angeles homes must have been lost? I don’t think I want to understand the scale of the loss!
Are there a lot of masterpieces stored in museum basements? 🖼️
You know what, I didn’t cover this in my essay, but yeah. The basements are overflowing. I only know this because I work on William Blake, whose work is almost entirely stored in the basements (only available on request) because it’s watercolour on paper (subject to light damage).
Very much enjoyed this! In the same loose category, this story of a private collection made public in the past couple of years (which you may already have known about): https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/jul/11/soloviev-collection-billionaire-private-art-museum-new-york
I did not hear about this! Very interesting. Thank you. I would like to go visit it 👍
I think you raise a good question about contemporary collectors, one I have been chewing on since 'Capturing The Moment' at the Tate Modern. It was a collection without cohesion, made by a man who's only interest in art is a parasitic one.
I do wonder if a line needs to be drawn between 'patron-collectors' (investing in living artists directly) and 'investment-collectors' (who often leverage public-facing institutions to increase the profile/value of their collections).
This is a thoughtful distinction which I didn’t consider. Thank you!
So interesting to read this, as I have been thinking about this issue with regard to the Friedrich exhibit, where some of the works are in private collections. As if that weren’t frustrating enough, it’s hard, and sometimes impossible, even to get a good quality image to save as a reminder. This lovely little work falls into that category. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/903409 I really don’t understand why a private collector—or really anyone—would want to prevent the general public from being able at least to have access to good quality images of paintings most of us will never be able to see in person. What could be the reason for that, with a work like the one I linked?
Completely agree, and I really struggled with this when finding image sources for my PhD.
In your view, is this show 'clean'?
When placed in historical context, no work of art is separate from war, from colonialism, patriarchy, from religious oppression, exploitation, etc. There is no 'clean' art.
Not entirely true, but, you know what I mean.... particularly when it comes to the Swiss.
This exhibit looks amazing!! Wish I lived in London, but I love your posts bc even far away I feel like I get a sense of the exhibit! I love when private collectors decide to exhibit their work publicly -- my favorite museum is The Frick in NYC which was not only a private collection but a private house at one point!
I wish I had been able to visit the Frick when I was in New York recently, but it's closed until April!
Oskar Reinhart is one of those collectors in Switzerland who built a collection in large part during the 1930s. Mostly from acquisitions in Germany. Switzerland has the worst record in the Western World for returning art that was directly, or indirectly looted in the years leading up to WWII. It also has the most forgiving legislation to deal with these issues, holding its citizens free of guilt in virtually any circumstance.
Unfortunately, we are obliged to question most of the collections built in the 1930s in Switzerland. There is almost a reverse burden of proof. It is difficult to view these collections without feeling uncomfortable. It is important to bear this in mind anytime a Swiss 'loan' exhibition arrives on your doorstep.
As for private collectors; we would have empty museums without them. It is the private collectors who keep the artists fed. There is virtually no public money involved. One can hope that private collectors ultimately donate their collections to public institutions. It is up to the artists to keep track of who has their work, that is what a catalogue raisonné is for, so that scholars know where to look.
Nice post.... I like it! ;0)
This is all very true. We must be mindful of provenance and ownership, particularly during times of war. I'm glad you enjoyed the article!
Your writing is seriously lovely.
I was thinking about the “how many grand artworks are in private collections?” question so often this month in the aftermath of the LA fires. How many privately owned artworks in wealthy Los Angeles homes must have been lost? I don’t think I want to understand the scale of the loss!
Thank you!! I am always trying to improve my writing.
The wildfires are a really worry for the Getty Institute!