Pinacoteca increases its exhibition space, paying no attention to criticism

[Синица]

Сообщение от LCR

In my opinion, not quite.

Not really, of course.
Rather, it is not the same thing.
But - the same external financing.

Added after 3 minutes

Сообщение от LCR

a few commercial approach to art, aggressive marketing, for the French - the predominance of "procurement" and political correctness in modern art, institutional rigidity, arrogance and disregard for the public ...

Oh I do not know ... For me it's better inattention than trading approach and aggressive marketing in the museum. The museum should still be a measure of the quality of art, not the quality of marketing.

[LCR]

Сообщение от Tit

But - the same external funding.

But the museums without external funding does not happen - by definition.

Сообщение от Tit

Oh I do not know ... For me it's better inattention than trading approach and aggressive marketing in the museum. The museum should still be a measure of the quality of art, not the quality of marketing.

As I wrote in a recent policy of the state museums are increasingly mimics private. This is expressed, inter alia, that the artists, untwisted omnipotent private galleries, in gosmuzeyah satisfied apotheosis (Koons in Versailles, Fabre at the Louvre - I put materials on both exhibitions). The difference is one - private museum "doing" successful artists, and government come to shaposhnomu examination (a bit like your Russian Ministry of Culture has announced its intention to buy a Hirst work, just as he had no one else need ).

That is arrogance and neglect, which I wrote, cause that gosmuzei not opened a single artist, following the lead of private collectors and galleries - the private sector over the initiative and go on more risk when making decisions.

[Синица]

Сообщение от LCR

The difference is one - private museum "make" successful artists, and government come to shaposhnomu indiscriminately

This is certainly so. If, firstly, we are talking about contemporary art, and, secondly, to state the sad reality.
Still, I would like, so, ideally, museums do not "make" a successful artist, and shows good.
In this sense, the museum (the public) really hard to compete with the private sector in the field of contemporary art. Since most of the "made" artists (including Vamiperechislennye) - a phenomenon conceptually. And they worthy of attention precisely because, and after being "done".

Added after 12 minutes
And Hirst - the same example. They made some crap fashion designer. Good work, unable to stand. Fashion passed, no one needs. It would be a good artist - would always be needed.
And the phenomenon of "Hurst" left. And people are interested. People want to see.
The museum captures the phenomenon in the history of modern painting. Come - see - see. (Although all the same - a strange solution to our Ministry of Culture )