‘Will the super-rich soon determine the canon of art history?’
More than 350 private museums have opened since 2000 – mostly by male founders – a number that continues to grow. This was discovered by the research group led by sociology professor Olav Velthuis. ‘Private museums can only exist by the grace of a very wealthy upper class of the population.’
Olav, where did the idea for research into private museums come from?
‘During my research on globalization of art markets, I came across a boom of private museums, particularly in China. That piqued my interest. Almost no contemporary art is shown in Chinese state museums, but it is on display in museums run by private collectors. At the same time, a few years ago I saw a mini-boom of private museums in the Netherlands, such as Museum Voorlinden in Wassenaar and Museum More in Gelderland. What was fascinating is that at first glance, some of those museums were reminiscent of Chinese private museums and other private museums worldwide. That piqued my interest: how is it possible that worldwide, simultaneously, the same kinds of museums are being established?’
How are private museums similar worldwide?
‘In the architecture of the buildings and to some extent the modern and contemporary art that the museums collected. Also, they all have a wealthy founder.’
How has the perception of private museums changed during your research?
‘It was to be expected that the number of private museums is growing. What was surprising is that very few women are founding museums (16 percent), versus quite a few couples (26 percent) and a majority of men (58 percent). What was also striking is how many private museums closed again within a decade. They are actually fragile institutions; that represents one of the most significant findings so far. Ten years seems to be a kind of critical limit for the existence of a private museum.’
Do private museums add anything to the art landscape?
‘Yes, they do indeed. In China, for example, they show art that the government does not exhibit. Or they offer a different museum experience, such as Museum Voorlinden, which is located in a rustic spot outside the city.’
Are there any drawbacks to private museums?
‘The problem, as far as we are concerned, lies in the role museums play in a society where inequality is increasing. Economic inequality has increased worldwide in the last 40 years. Private museums can only exist by the grace of a very wealthy upper class of the population. The number of billionaires has exploded since the 1980s. It is in that group that you can find the museum founders. The question we ask in our research is whether economic inequality also translates into cultural inequality.’
Olav Velthuis says: ‘Most public museums play different roles. They collect art and do research and education. Private museums mainly have the function of forming and exhibiting a collection. The big difference, of course, is in funding. A public museum in the Netherlands is usually largely funded by the government, while private museums must support themselves from ticket sales, a museum store and mainly with financial support from the founder. Also, the organization is different – a public museum has a board of trustees and must answer for grants to the ministry, something a private museum does not have to do.’
Can you cite an example of that cultural inequality?
‘An American artist like Jeff Koons is in fact a darling of the global economic elite. I'm not saying Jeff Koons has few other artistic qualities, but it's worth asking whether in a world without that economic elite, Koons would still be seen as one of THE artists of the moment. All indications are that the economic elite helped make him great. Will they soon determine what modern, contemporary art can be seen and how it is valued? And will they have an important role in shaping the canon of modern art?
In art history, surely art has always been made possible by the super-rich?
‘That's right, our project's working title is not for nothing: 'The return of the Medici.' This Italian banking family is considered to be the driving force behind the entire Renaissance. Art in history has always been entangled with wealth and elites. I myself am a great optimist; I believe in progress. There are a lot of terrible things from the past that we have distanced ourselves from: corporal punishment, slavery, you name it. Similarly, art should fully be part of the democracy we live in today.’
Businessmen like Pinault and Arnault are so rich, they can buy anything. That does not apply to the Centre Pompidou
Where is the rub for private museums in democracy?
‘Private museums should at least be more transparent, both in their finances and in their organization. In many countries, including the Netherlands, establishing a private museum leads to tax advantages. Even for us as researchers, it is incredibly difficult to find out how big those benefits are and who they profit. That has to change because those benefits mean the government receives less tax and indirectly contributes to the existence of these museums.’
What is the relationship between private and public museums?
‘That varies considerably by museum and by country. Often they don't have that much to do with each other, but they can get on with each other. Or they work together by lending works of art to each other, for example. In a city like Paris, there is also competition. There are two private museums there, the Louis Vuitton Museum of businessman Bernard Arnault and the Bourse de Commerce of his rival François Pinault. Both museums compete with the modern art museum Centre Pompidou. In the past, an international exhibition would have gone to the Centre Pompidou. Now it there are two additional competitors. The same goes for buying artwork. Pinault and Arnault are so rich, they can buy anything. That does not apply to the Centre Pompidou.
