|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Morality and Running a Museum
| Article
# : |
10933 |
|
|
Section : |
EDITORIAL
|
| Issue
Date : |
5 / 1993 |
874 Words |
| Author
: |
Morton A. Kaplan
Editor and Publisher |
Jason Kaufman's review of Making the Mummies Dance ["The Met's Erstwhile Dictator of Taste," p. 321], the account by Thomas Hoving of his stewardship of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, shows that Hoving was not deterred by petty principles of morality from building the museum into the premier American showcase of cultural Monuments. Hoving cajoled, lied, and condoned theft. I am not a Kantian in the field of ethics. Although stealing and lying always are evils, there are circumstances in which each can be justified. But what counts as a justification?
If a museum is a repository of works of cultural value, and it preserve such works, makes them available to the public at large, and educates the public concerning them, it is possible to build a great museum without lying or condoning theft. Not every target of opportunity is necessary for this task, and perhaps some should be ignored even if lying or condoning theft is not necessary. If the item in question is of particular cultural importance to a poor country, one might even argue that it should not be bid up.
The psychology of some collectors is highly competitive. They must have a better collection than anyone else and possess every rare item that exists. This motivation is as distorted as that of the compulsive eater who must swallow every last morsel of food, no matter how much he has eaten. The old fable of King Midas reveals this type of motivation for what it is.
If condoning theft is the only means left to secure a great work of art for the public domain, then perhaps it can be justified. If the original Declaration of Independence had fallen into foreign private hands and the owners would not sell, I could imagine justifying less than noble means to obtain it for the American public. But this is precisely how some foreign countries view important elements of their culture that were removed or even stolen from them before controls were established.
Hoving is an exhibitionist without remorse, exposing his moral delicts with apparently no understanding that what he did was wrong. Even if one were to grant that creating a great museum would justify such moral failings--and this would be a dubious enterprise at best--a great museum, although not as great as the existing Met, could have been created honestly.
In less auspicious circumstances, absent the protection of the New York elite, Hoving might have been regarded as a confidence man. Although his patrons may not have been
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
