Article translated by Amritee Mahabir

Art and wealth have gone hand in hand since time began. In the last decade, we have observed an upset in the distribution of wealth and in the birth of a very high number of so called “new riches”; this doesn’t mean to say that there were no consequences within the artistic sphere. Public institutions and private collectors often found themselves having to always confront the same issue; points of contact but also of contrast have grown in recent years for which just consideration cannot be found, especially when regarding museums. Individuals have become fundamentally influential in their choice of museums. The Broad Contemporary Art Museum could be considered as one of the most powerful examples. American tycoons and renowned contemporary art collectors, Eli and Edythe Broad donated 60 million dollars to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art to create the Broad Contemporary Art Museum, a sort of museum within a museum belonging to the donars where they exhibit their private collections. The most interesting phenomenon is the enormous increase in the number of museums and galleries managed by private collectors, often financed thanks to donations or by foundations.

The ‘nouveau riches’ private collectors find that publically exhibiting their collections doesn’t only allow them to obtain generous fiscal support, but is also a way in which they can keep the spirit of the collection alive by handing down the creators wishes. The outcome of this new trend is that less private collectors will always consider their future locations in public institutions and instead they will form a nucleus of new exhibition sites unfailingly entitled to the collectors. Private museums however have earned an even more important role in the cultural setting in which they are placed. The Neue Galerie of New York, and the Rubin Museum are two of numerous examples of how the artistic sphere is evolving. Regarding the italian situation, it is enough to think of Francois Pinault and Palazzo Grassi. The new private museums have a permanent collection that actively participate to the cultural life of the city. But why not do it in a public museum? The main reason is that donations to public institutions do not consist of maintaining the right level of control, and in some cases it also poses doubts on a maintainece level. Public museums are often slow, inflexilble and not adapt to accomodating the needs of the private collectors, decidedly more attracted by the alternative in comparison to a museum that is certainly not scared of investment.

The greatest risk that these institutions have to confront is the vague definition of the confines between public and private interest. Collections represent the interest of only one person; this orientation is in total contrast to the encyclopaedic spirit of traditional museums. And the moment in which private museums continue to rise, the rules that apply here will become ever more influential to the entire sphere of museums. This could open a new window that can only have the effect of aging long used pratices. The risk however is that it will reach a true privitazation of institutes. A museum’s job is absolutely relevant within the whole cultural setting of a single local system and, in an ever more globalizing world, for all of the public. This signifies that whoever is the owner, whether public or private, should be able to maintain a non-individualistic vision in their goal.

Things certainly become more difficult when the owner, founder and president, if not also honorary member of the scientific committee, is a business man used to stating their own opinion. However private collection is free to move in whichever direction and to thus win favour in the market. When regarding institutions for public enjoyment of these collections they must know how to confront it with broader requests. That which is certain is that it is neither the duty or in the interest of the individual to worry about it. The public sector should therefore be able to provide the necessary superstructure to encourage donations towards public institutions or, better still, trigger correct governing mechanisms which agree to constrain individual petitions, and transform private institutions into true points of reference beyond their affiliations.