[Tagging] I started a draft on a new "main" key culture
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Nov 8 10:53:05 GMT 2010
2010/11/8 Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>:
> I can accept that MOMA in New York, the National Gallery in London, the
> Reina Sofia in Madrid and the Louvre in Paris might be considered museums
> with permanent exhibitions of art.
fine, then we agree, I didn't have this impression so far.
> I agree that places whose primary purpose is to sell prints, paintings by
> local artists and framing services should be marked as shop=art.
Thin ice IMHO. You are saying that original art by "local artists" is
on the same level then "framing services" and "prints" ? I don't agree
(or only on an individual basis which makes it hard to give a good
undisputed and unambiguous definition.
> But there are many tens of thousands of art galleries that fit neither
> definition. They exhibit contemporary art in temporary exhibitions, much of
> which may be for sale but they are also for the exhibition of works of art.
> Selling the art is NOT their primary purpose.
OK, it might be true (or not) that selling is not their "primary
purpose" (this is a philosophic discussion and AFAIK they are all
businesses), and we might discuss this for ages without a conclusion.
I can accept that there is a "thing" between a museum and an art shop,
which we might call gallery and which sells all/most of the exposed
works, but has x times more visitors not interested and/or capable of
buying who come for personal interest in the art and see it as an
exposition rather then a shop), but this distinction is not done by
the name the location gives itself (there are museums that call
themselfs "gallery" but will be culture=museum in OSM). We would be
moving on thin ice anyway, see above.
More information about the Tagging