Should detroit sell its art

Either of those two concepts — if adopted, regulated, used judiciously — could radically change the economics of museums in this country.

Museums have reservations over such ideas. They are, overwhelmingly, good stewards of their holdings and there is solid risk letting anything out the door. They could figure out reasonable rules and limits. The museum directors association could even draw up guidelines. This radical rethinking could be good for art and the public. Rich guys would show off works at dinner parties, or maybe shopping malls and casinos would create galleries to bring in consumers. Either way the works would be seen, always preferable to them not being seen.

There is a broader benefit to commodifying art, letting its value build playgrounds or pay retired firefighters what they rightly deserve.

It stops being thought of as a relic and becomes a tool to help us live better lives. In turn, we can make better decisions about how to use and acquire public art. No doubt, museums, dealers, artists and critics who profit from the mystery would have to help us get there.

Council members and consumers would have to resist intimidation and take a stand. Show Caption. It spends millions locally each year on goods and services, lures tourists and their money, provides jobs and education, and so on. But these are insufficient metrics.

It helps make a city someplace where people want to buy homes and do business. It concentrates creativity and boosts innovative potential.

The harder and more important question is whether the proceeds gained from selling the collection would be more valuable to the city than the museum itself. Well, it drew , visitors in the last fiscal year. It spends millions locally each year on goods and services, lures tourists and their money, provides jobs and education, and so on.

During the s, when the local economy was booming and the museum was still building its collection, the DIA relied on annual appropriations from the city not just to fund operations, as many museums do, but also to buy art. We easily can imagine that more people would see those artworks if they were located in Los Angeles or other larger and growing cities. Detroit would be sending a signal that it will never even try to go back to what it was, much as if a university spent down most of its endowment and relied on borrowing.

Still, perhaps that is where we are at with Detroit.