British Museum takes on The Archers

Here's a couple of pieces about the new radio series featuring objects from the collection of the British Museum, apparently it's going to 'hit the G-spot of the radio 4 audience', which is just about the most distressing sentence I've read all year.

'British Museum and BBC reveal history of the world in 100 objects'

'Neil MacGregor lifts British Museum's ambitions to new heights'

Museum Freeconomics

A new book by Chris Anderson was published last month called 'Free', or in it's full unwieldy glory, Free: the future of a radical price: the economics of abundance and why zero pricing is changing the face of business. I read an article Anderson wrote on this subject last year (you can find it here, yes I've pilfered the picture) and thought it might offer some interesting ways to think about museum admission charges.

If I've followed Anderson's argument correctly, the gist is that the internet has driven down the cost of content like music and film so efficiently that it has effectively become free and this process is positive for business. Instead of relying on cross-subsidy (the museum shop, for example) the emphasis shifts to actively providing free digital content, while at the same time re-conceptualising the value of the physical/material/actual as a 'premium experience'. Anderson is primarily referring to live music and cinema-going, but it could equally apply to the museum. Another internet-influenced model is 'pay what you like', which to some extent already exists in the form of donation boxes. However, I think this could be re-framed for the museum. I seem to remember the Met providing recommended ticket prices, which was a great way to compel you to pay the full price anyway.

Oh what a lovely recession?

Imagine BBC1, Tuesday 10.35pm (past my bedtime, I'll have to catch it on iPlayer)

Blurb:

The Great Depression and the Second World War changed what was expected of the arts; Alan Yentob asks if this recession could see the next transformation.

Artist Chuck Close talks about the New Deal in America in the 30s, when the government paid artists to work, while actor Simon Callow tells how thrilled actors were to feel their work mattered.

And dealer Kenny Schachter explains how, in a perverse way, he feels this recession is the best thing that has happened to the art world in ten years.

Spot the difference

One is a schlocky sci-fi set, the other isn't. Well, it is a bit.

I really hope Anthony Gormley got a cut...

Too free or not too free?

Since this is the second (or is it even the third?) month in a row that the Museums Journal has featured a piece about the possibility of reintroducing admission charges, I thought it might be time to have a discussion about it.

The route that the Saatchi Gallery have taken is particularly interesting, the first incarnation at Boundary Road had a charge of £3 in the late 1980s and County Hall was, if I remember correctly, about £8. However, when the gallery moved to the Duke of York's HQ last year free entry was sponsored by Philips de pury & Company, who are prominently displayed as partners. I wonder if this might set a precedent?

Bansky and the Bristol Museum ?(sell out)?

In a belated response to Rebecca's comments on the Banksy Exhibition at Bristol Museum (have you seen it yet Rebecca?...what's it like?) I thought I'd add some further ingredients into the discussion. I noticed a report in The Art Newspaper on the exhibition (appropriately in the 'Art Market' sections), stating; 'all of the 100 works exhibited are for sale, and The Art Newspaper understands that a work showing a policeman on a child's rocking horse sold for £140,000.'.....

Kate Brindley, the museum's director, is reported to say that Bristol Museum would not get a cut of the proceeds, but "it was usual practice" for living artists (excuse the obviousness there) to sell work shown in public galleries. Did I miss something here? When did this become 'usual practice'? (Saatchi, perhaps, but you can't actually 'buy' the things off the wall at the Duke of York's Headquarters (can you?)...and I'm aware of 19th century precedents - I'm a museum historian! (of sorts...). It is clear that public museums play a significant, and synchronic, role in the art market - but surely Bristol Museum is not (should not be?) Gagosian?

Or is it another subtle subversive move by Banksy?
Mark