Modern Art Museums as Benefactors of Corporate Sponsorship - Coursework Example

International Art Market A Critic on the ideological functions of Universal Art Survey Museums and Modern Art Museums The traditional Universal Art Survey Museum is a type of museum that hosts historical works that are of a universal nature (Carbonell, 2004). These works portray a universal idea. These museums are not profit-oriented and are mainly in existence for the historical education of the public. This was the initial idea behind such museums. They were meant to provide a viewing to all citizens. The objects in these museums can be of scientific, historical as well as an artistic nature. A distinctive feature of the design of such museums is in the impact it has on its visitors. The design is intended to shape the perception and change the behaviour of the viewers. The mood is supposed to convey an aura of reverence. This is to give a feeling like one would get in a religious place. The order of work is not random. It is intended to show the change in the objects of art and their evolution. The art is meant to show that the next metamorphosis refines what other generations before have achieved (Marotta, 2010). It takes a conservative approach to how art should be displayed. An example of such a museum is the Louvre in Paris, France. It has a rich history, beginning as a fortress in the 12th century (Quallen, 2006). Over the years it underwent several additions by the people in power at this time to its present form. The final addition was the glass pyramid named the Louvre Pyramid in 1989 (Quallen, 2006). It is a significant landmark in Paris, and helps preserve works from all over the world. The most famous is probably Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Monalisa’. Modern Art Museums are those that display both modern and contemporary art (Storr, 2006). These are museums created with the idea of urban regeneration behind them. Many western economies suffered during the latter stages of the 20th century. Their industries faced stiff competition internationally, bringing a need for alternative sources of finance. To counter this problem, most economies invested in the cultural sector to cope. This sector had massive potential to generate income, and helped boost the economy. It provided diversification, as well as a change in ideology (Kromm, 2010). The main contrast between Modern Art Museums and Universal Art Survey Museums is on the basis of their purpose. Traditional Universal Art Survey museums mainly house items of historical value. They do not operate for profit, and are solely concerned with preservation of history. Modern Art Museums have a different reason for operation. Most are built in an effort to stimulate economic development in the area it is in. it is seen as a magnet that would attract massive viewers. Critics of such museums deem them no more than tourist attractions that hold little cultural value but contribute towards gentrification of such areas. An example is the Guggenheim Bilbao in Spain. It was built to spur growth and development in the city of Bilbao. It was opened in October, 1997 by the King of Spain, Juan Carlos I (Guasch & Zulaika, 2005). it was a joint effort by the Basque government and the Guggenheim foundation. Another difference between them is on how they procure their art. When the two categories of museums are compared there is a major difference in this process. The two main ways of procuring art are through purchases and donations. The Louvre, which is an art survey museum, depends mainly on donations. Most museums of this type began as private collections of royalty. These were the collections of wealthy aristocrats who wanted to showcase their treasures. The collections then grew when they were open to the public, mostly through donations from all over. These museums have been able to keep adding to their collections through these philanthropic donations from wealthy art owners. An example is of the Baron Edmond de Rothschild. He donated 500 books, 4000 engravings and 3000 drawings (Bautier, 1995). This is the main way in which these Universal Art Survey Museums get works of art. In contrast, the Guggenheim-Bilbao does not majorly rely on philanthropy. Since most modern art museums are initiatives to boost the economy, there is often government assistance. Most of the collection is obtained through purchases. To keep people coming, the museum will purchase unique and attractive pieces. This will serve to attract more people to these museums. Another difference is in the sustainability of their modes of operation. The modern museums focus more on income generation and the traditional museums on historical preservation. To maintain itself, even a traditional museum will have to move away from this model. They will have to operate more like modern museums and mix preservation with income generation. The issue that is raised in this case will be the functions of museums. A museum is supposed to be for the preservation of objects of significance historically, artistically as well as scientifically (Kemp, 2000). This objective enabled a philanthropic approach to art foundation. This enabled donations and gifts to serve a major role in collections within these museums. Recently, the economic situation has forced a change in ideology. This has brought about museums like the Guggenheim-Bilbao with a different purpose. The Guggenheim-Bilbao was created for urban regeneration (Guasch & Zulaika, 2005). This means that its main purpose is to improve the urban area it is situated in. The focus will then initially be to make the museum be a magnet to both local and foreign audiences. The thought is that when this happens, the basic functions of a museum may be ignored. Most people see museums as ‘warehouses for old art’. This concept may be misguided but it is the truest of most assertions. A museum is supposed to maintain the culture of both the local area and the international culture in general. When a museum focuses on revenue generation, it will tend to focus on art that draws in people. This may not always be culturally significant art. Currently, the world moves from one trend to another. This is typified through social media advances. People can almost overnight shift from one social media site to another. An example is of the demise of ‘Myspace’. In terms of art, the same mentality is apparent. A hypothetical comparison can be made with two musicians of different generations. A portrait of Mozart would be considered a important piece of art and to be culturally significant. On the other hand with his current fame, a portrait of Justin Bieber may draw more people to a museum than the Mozart portrait. A museum may then decide to include the Bieber portrait because it would be a means to accessing more revenue. In the current climate universal art survey museums may be forced to resort to this to survive. Approximately 22 million people went to art museums in the United States in 1962. By the year 2000, this figure was 100 million (Columbia Daily tribune, p.15). With such numbers it is evident that museums will be forced to drop some items if they do not bring in the numbers. This is important to note because the cultural significance of such items may not be big. If current trends dictate what will be viewed in museums, then a dilution in cultural quality may take place. This is where the traditional art survey museums are most likely to be affected. A similarity in these two types of museums is on the evolution of their activities. Nowadays, the focus is moving away from purely educating and preserving. The museums are also introducing entertainment-based activities. This can be seen in the diversification of programs in the Guggenheim-New York which is a sister museum to the Guggenheim-Bilbao. (Stoller & Goldberg, 1999). Activities are mixed up between enlightenment of visitors and refreshment. The idea is to provide a place that you would prefer to go to instead of going to theatres. While this is not a bad idea, the main focus should not be forgotten. In making the museum experience richer, the fundamental function of the museums should not be forgotten. The traditional museums have mostly been forced to make this adjustment. The Louvre is seen as a landmark of Paris. This means that sometimes people will visit for reasons other than the artefacts in the museum. The Louvre may end up just being another stop over on a person’s tour of Paris. This is an unfortunate result of evolution. For a major museum (like the Louvre) to be reduced to a tourist site, the cultural significance will reduce. Education of the public will be limited to audiences who visit with that purpose in mind. Another difference is in the method in which these two types of museums are run. Modern Art Museums are mainly benefactors of corporate sponsorship. This is where a corporation pays for the expenses of the museum in part or fully (Corporate Sponsorship). Their aim in doing this would be recognition for their brand. An example can be the IMF deciding to sponsor the Guggenheim-Bilbao. They would end up giving partial or full financial sponsorship to the museum. In return they would be able to place their logo alongside that of the museum. The main benefit to the corporation would be recognition for its brand. This would serve to boost their profile even further. With large numbers of people visiting museums worldwide, this could serve as a powerful marketing tool to these corporations. There would be favourable public goodwill accrued by the sponsoring corporation. This is because in the eyes of the public, the corporation would be fulfilling its corporate social responsibility. The benefits to a modern art museum are numerous. It would gain valuable funding from the corporation and this would help it meet its operational costs. Many of these museums are expensive to manage. This is because there is a wide range of criteria needing to be satisfied to effectively manage the various pieces of art works. Preservation of dated artefacts is a process that requires specialist knowledge. Procuring such professionals is costly and this makes the whole business an expensive one. This funding can help in managing these expenses. The museum can also benefit from increased publicity (Pollox, 2010). For example, if British Petroleum decided to sponsor the Guggenheim-Bilbao it may have the effect of interesting the public. Public announcement of such a deal may have a galvanising effect. This can increase the number of people visiting the museum through raising awareness in a person’s mind regarding the importance of museums. This brings up the difference in how much a museum will be affected by this commercialisation. The traditional universal art survey museums will also be most affected. The main priority may end up shifting from preserving culture to what the sponsor wants. If the sponsor is in the environmental conservation business, the museum may end up leaning towards pieces that raise awareness on this topic. It may be inadvertent, but the focus can shift and be biased towards the sponsor’s preference. The sponsor may also prefer exhibitions that raise funds as opposed to those that don’t. Majority of people visiting the Louvre have the ‘Monalisa’ in mind (Quallen, 2006). A sponsor may take advantage of this to make it the main attraction in the museum. This could be in place of other significant pieces of work that are also culturally significant. This shows that Universal Art Surveys will be more afflicted by commercialisation. In a slight deviation, a big problem to this is the risk of corruption. An example is of the Guggenheim-Bilbao. In 2008, a case was filed against the director of the museum. It was contended that he had been siphoning the money into his account. This was at a time when the museum had acquired art worth over 27 million dollars between the years 2005 and 2008(Guasch & Zulaika, 2005). This shows how risky it could be under corporate sponsorship. Another difference is in how they tackle this disparity. There can be programmes that promote education among the public, regeneration of the community as well as youth audience engagement (Pollox, 2010). An illustration of the Louvre provides a good reference. They have programs for patrons where one can join. Two examples of such programmes include the ‘Friends of the Louvre’ and ‘Young Patrons Circle’ (Quallen, 2006). These two enable one to actively participate in the life of the museum. It gives one a pride in being able to help in preservation and growth of the museum. Instilling this virtue in people not only helps preserve the museum, but helps grow it as well. Members will be eager to donate and source for ways to help improve the museum. The community outreach programs can help educate the public on the importance of museums. Organizing membership for the youth goes a long way in developing a museum culture among them. Once this is rooted early on, the future will be secure as the coming generation will have an appreciation for art. This is the biggest contributor to effective preservation of art. Without an appreciation for it, the need to preserve will be lost (Pollox, 2010). As much as funding is a good way to maintain museums, public programmes are the way to ensure the long term goals are achieved. In conclusion, the traditional art survey museums and the modern art museums are fundamentally different. The Universal Art Survey Museums are established to preserve items of historical significance. This makes them conservative in their approach. The Modern Art Museums are economic boosters. Their main function is to uplift the area they are located in. This means that they are inclined to make money and opportunities for the surrounding areas. The change in the current economic situation means that these roles are increasingly becoming blurred. Universal Art Survey Museums have to adopt more commercial methods of survival and risk diluting their art content. Modern Art Museums also face the risk of having too many commercial programs that a shift in tastes may make large parts of their collections redundant. Bibliography Bautier, G. 1995. The Louvre: architecture and history. London: Thames and Hudson. Carbonell, B. M. 2004. Museum studies: an anthology of contexts. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. City to tap tourism fund for museum. 2006, April 17. Columbia Daily Tribune, p. 15. Corporate Sponsorship. (n.d.). Answers. Retrieved April 2, 2014, from http://www.answers.com/topic/corporate-sponsorship Guasch, A. M., & Zulaika, J. 2005. Learning from the Bilbao Guggenheim. Reno, Nev.: Center for Basque Studies, University of Nevada, Reno. Kemp, M. 2000. The Oxford history of Western art. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kromm, J. 2010. A history of visual culture: western civilisation from the 18th to the 21st century. Oxford: Berg. Marotta, A. 2010. Contemporary museums. Milan: Skira. Quallen, S. 2006. The Louvre. Detroit: Blackbirch Press. Pollox, J. 2010. The new museum community: audiences, challenges, benefits : a collection of essays.. Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc. Stoller, E., & Goldberg, J. 1999. Guggenheim New York. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Storr, R. 2000. Modern art despite modernism. New York: Museum of Modern Art. Read More