Head to head
Should we put a monetary value on collections?
Dave O’Brien is a lecturer at the Centre for Cultural Policy and Management at City University, London and Janet Ulph is professor of commercial law at the University of Leicester
Dear Janet:
Valuation in the cultural sector is controversial. However there are two pragmatic reasons for exploring financial valuations.
Firstly, they are the language of central government and allow us to compare and contrast policy options using a common metric. Secondly, they allow us to understand where there might be limits to financial valuations. It is important to know the circumstances where financial valuations can be useful and where they are inappropriate.
Without initial engagement with financial valuation it is difficult to really know the true benefits and limits of this approach.
Dave
Dear Dave:
I am against any publication of financial valuations of collections – with the possible exception of contemporary art – because it could encourage theft and looting overseas and it may also encourage thefts from museums here. However, it would be unrealistic to ignore the fact that museum objects have a financial value.
If the financial value of items in a collection is easily available what are the consequences? What would be the impact on the art market? Would it alter the public’s perception of individual museums? Insurers and the courts may need valuations in order to provide compensation, but these are for particular purposes.
Janet
Dear Janet:
You are right that the consequences of financial valuation have not been properly explored, partially because the research is difficult and expensive but also because there is an assumption that using financial valuations is either morally wrong or will have undesirable consequences.
It’s worth starting from the point of view that financial valuations can only ever be one aspect of our understanding of value.
However, I think we miss an important opportunity if we make assumptions about the consequences rather than understanding the limits and potential benefits of financial valuations by using them.
Dave
Dear Dave:
Financial valuation of cultural items may be the right thing to do in certain circumstances, but how do you come up with a financial valuation which takes account of cultural and aesthetic attributes? In an insurance situation, or court case, there will be a reference to auction prices, but the main guidance will be supplied by experts.
Who are these experts –museum curators and dealers? Could curators value their own museum’s collections? What if they are the only experts in that specialist field? If dealers are used instead, what impact will this have on the art market?
Janet
Dear Janet:
It is important to involve the public in valuation. Museums, particularly those in receipt of public funding, are public institutions and so should have a relationship with the various “publics” that they face.
No financial valuation is objective, so the more we open up discussions of how we value objects, including using financial metrics, the easier it becomes for us to see who has the power to denote what is valuable and what isn’t. Financial valuation should not be the only way we think about objects but it does offer one way to think about the relationship between the museum and people.
Dave
Dear Dave:
I like the idea of involving the public in financial valuations of contemporary art. It could encourage people to engage with the work. But the public may well defer to experts with anything other than contemporary art.
With antiquities it would be difficult for the public to distinguish between financial value and aesthetic value.
This is worrying because there is evidence that, where tombs and archaeological sites are looted, the thieves seek out the visually pleasing items, destroying other less attractive but culturally significant items in their wake. There are serious risks associated with publicly highlighting financial value.
Janet
Dear Janet:
Valuation in the cultural sector is controversial. However there are two pragmatic reasons for exploring financial valuations.
Firstly, they are the language of central government and allow us to compare and contrast policy options using a common metric. Secondly, they allow us to understand where there might be limits to financial valuations. It is important to know the circumstances where financial valuations can be useful and where they are inappropriate.
Without initial engagement with financial valuation it is difficult to really know the true benefits and limits of this approach.
Dave
Dear Dave:
I am against any publication of financial valuations of collections – with the possible exception of contemporary art – because it could encourage theft and looting overseas and it may also encourage thefts from museums here. However, it would be unrealistic to ignore the fact that museum objects have a financial value.
If the financial value of items in a collection is easily available what are the consequences? What would be the impact on the art market? Would it alter the public’s perception of individual museums? Insurers and the courts may need valuations in order to provide compensation, but these are for particular purposes.
Janet
Dear Janet:
You are right that the consequences of financial valuation have not been properly explored, partially because the research is difficult and expensive but also because there is an assumption that using financial valuations is either morally wrong or will have undesirable consequences.
It’s worth starting from the point of view that financial valuations can only ever be one aspect of our understanding of value.
However, I think we miss an important opportunity if we make assumptions about the consequences rather than understanding the limits and potential benefits of financial valuations by using them.
Dave
Dear Dave:
Financial valuation of cultural items may be the right thing to do in certain circumstances, but how do you come up with a financial valuation which takes account of cultural and aesthetic attributes? In an insurance situation, or court case, there will be a reference to auction prices, but the main guidance will be supplied by experts.
Who are these experts –museum curators and dealers? Could curators value their own museum’s collections? What if they are the only experts in that specialist field? If dealers are used instead, what impact will this have on the art market?
Janet
Dear Janet:
It is important to involve the public in valuation. Museums, particularly those in receipt of public funding, are public institutions and so should have a relationship with the various “publics” that they face.
No financial valuation is objective, so the more we open up discussions of how we value objects, including using financial metrics, the easier it becomes for us to see who has the power to denote what is valuable and what isn’t. Financial valuation should not be the only way we think about objects but it does offer one way to think about the relationship between the museum and people.
Dave
Dear Dave:
I like the idea of involving the public in financial valuations of contemporary art. It could encourage people to engage with the work. But the public may well defer to experts with anything other than contemporary art.
With antiquities it would be difficult for the public to distinguish between financial value and aesthetic value.
This is worrying because there is evidence that, where tombs and archaeological sites are looted, the thieves seek out the visually pleasing items, destroying other less attractive but culturally significant items in their wake. There are serious risks associated with publicly highlighting financial value.
Janet