Fried waterlilies

The claim to fame of Las Vegas' Bellagio casino is its art gallery, so it is more than a bit surprising to hear that the gallery space isn't better protected -- as became apparent when the entire complex had to go on emergency standby power earlier this month. The power outage lasted a couple of days at least; it was unclear if the backup juice was sufficient to keep fire sprinklers functional, but as noted by Tyler Green at the time, the bland reassurances that the artworks were in no danger from the heat were not convincing. The big issue being, of course, that the Bellagio is hosting a for-profit loan exhibition of Monets from Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, which was controversial enough without the paintings getting baked in the bargain (see "Renting art for profit"). In fact, flying artworks around incurs not only risk of loss, but also exposure to considerable climatic changes. A handful of extraordinarily prominent works may be shipped in containers that incorporate their own climate control systems; most, however, travel in ordinary crates as they move from museum to truck to airport to airplane and back again (with stops in customs added in for international loans). And any museum insider will be able to regale you with tales of items temporarily lost in transit, usually at the destination airport.

Some may say this is all a small price to pay for making art accessible. Amy Lamboley over at Crescat Sententia, for example, writes:

But obviously, preservation isn't our only concern. Art only has value insofar as it gives enjoyment to people--not fodder for critics, but enjoyment to ordinary people. And insofar as taking art out of museums increases the number of people enjoying that pleasure, and the quality of that pleasure itself, then we ought to consider a bit of damage to the art incurred in the process as a reasonable cost.

Yet if art is for the ages, shouldn't we be thinking beyond the pleasures of the moment? Present-day access to great art is worth defending, but let's not forget that our historical moment is but a blip in the centuries-long lifetime of a painting. Those "ordinary people" may not notice that "bit of damage" now, yet repeat it a hundredfold and then what will be left for their equally ordinary but much more numerous descendants?

I won't even go into the problems with the naive populist equation of art with enjoyment, which should be apparent on even the most cursory reflection.

Posted by David on April 22, 2004 12:57 PM