389 replies to this topic

[Jill]

Have you ever seen the parking lot full? I haven't.

 

I have.

[spanky123]

Hmmmm.  They average 149 visitors per day.

 

And they only get 6% of their revenue from admissions.  40% comes from grants.  

 

http://aggv.ca/sites...t_2014-2015.pdf

 

So that sounds like for every $13 admission, we are paying nearly $100 in taxes to subsidize that visit.  I know, that's simple math, but still...

 

What they should do is take 1/2 of the collection that sits in storage and never sees the light of day and sell it to another gallery. With the funds they can expand, set aside money for an endowment and still have art left over!

[LJ]

^Well you need artwork in storage so you can rotate your displays a bit. Otherwise nobody will come back more than once.

[spanky123]

^Well you need artwork in storage so you can rotate your displays a bit. Otherwise nobody will come back more than once.

 

True but not 90+%!

[VicHockeyFan]

^Well you need artwork in storage so you can rotate your displays a bit. Otherwise nobody will come back more than once.

 

That seems sound.  Right now they only have 5% on display.  Not sure what the percentage will go up to in the new building.

 

It just does not seem right for them to expand where they are.

 

They say land cost downtown is too expensive.  Is it, compared to what they can get for their existing land?  We still have lots of parking lots on waterfront downtown land.  

 

It just seems like the worst place to have a gallery.  The money they must have to expend on marketing just to let anyone know they are there.

 

I think it would be a good investment for the City to help with the building costs.  A highish-end draw is good for tourism.  That's the kind of spenders we want to attract.  And 2 or 3 hours spent at the gallery has excellent chances of getting visitors to stay that extra night I'm always talking about.   And again, they get 139 people per day.  RBCM gets 1,500.

[Bingo]

^Well you need artwork in storage so you can rotate your displays a bit. Otherwise nobody will come back more than once.

They will stay away in droves, the gallery will be bereft of visitors, and there is nothing that looks sadder than a lonely gift shop and a deprived parking lot.

[sebberry]

I think it would be a good investment for the City to help with the building costs.  

 

Combine the art gallery and new fire hall?  And throw in the Maritime Museum while they're at it.

[spanky123]

That seems sound.  Right now they only have 5% on display.  Not sure what the percentage will go up to in the new building.

 

It just does not seem right for them to expand where they are.

 

They say land cost downtown is too expensive.  Is it, compared to what they can get for their existing land?  We still have lots of parking lots on waterfront downtown land.  

 

It just seems like the worst place to have a gallery.  The money they must have to expend on marketing just to let anyone know they are there.

 

I think it would be a good investment for the City to help with the building costs.  A highish-end draw is good for tourism.  That's the kind of spenders we want to attract.  And 2 or 3 hours spent at the gallery has excellent chances of getting visitors to stay that extra night I'm always talking about.   And again, they get 139 people per day.  RBCM gets 1,500.

 

Not bad numbers for the RCBM when you consider that the ROM only gets 3,000 and Toronto has a much larger market.

 

Note though that about 1/2 of RCBM visits are to the IMAX.

Edited by spanky123, 08 July 2015 - 05:01 AM.

[Greg]

^Well you need artwork in storage so you can rotate your displays a bit. Otherwise nobody will come back more than once.

I think you are supposed to come back for the temporary exhibits which should always be fresh. I don't think storing most of your collection is the norm. I believe in most museums if you visit, the typical piece is either on display, or it is traveling as part of such an aforementioned temporary exhibit.

[jklymak]

I don;t think thats correct. An important (and under appreciated) role of museum and galleries is archival storage.  

[Greg]

I don;t think thats correct. An important (and under appreciated) role of museum and galleries is archival storage.  

Looks like you are right.

 

"The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, for example, owns two million objects and displays only tens of thousands at a time. At the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, 18,000 objects are on display at any one time, of 450,000 in inventory."

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

[lanforod]

Why though? I get they don't have the space to display it all, but why is it important? The items aren't dangerous, and once any history has been ascertained and recorded, items are basically useless when in storage. Perhaps there should be a massive warehouse museum somewhere that stores all the world museum archives in a way that also displays them. I get one major challenge is that a lot of it needs to be displayed properly, which is expensive, as exposure to light etc needs to be minimized etc.

 

Long term, I think much of it can just be digitized and museums of the future will be primarily a VR experience from your own home.

The only exception will be works from the greats (ie. Michaelangelo, Picasso), which won't be near as much stuff as currently out there. There is no need to keep everything else in storage where it isn't used. Recycle it or actually use it for decor.

[Nparker]

A "VR" facsimile is NOT the same as preserving the original. I can only hope that future archivists and historians don't think a copy is as good as the original.

[Greg]

Why though? I get they don't have the space to display it all, but why is it important? The items aren't dangerous, and once any history has been ascertained and recorded, items are basically useless when in storage.

I think it is typical to offer access to researchers and academics. Digging through the archives, that sort of thing. There seems to be wide variability in how available some stored collections are compared to others.

 

/I may have wasted an hour researching this topic, after jklymak pointed out that he that storing a large part of a collection was actually pretty standard.

[lanforod]

A "VR" facsimile is NOT the same as preserving the original. I can only hope that future archivists and historians don't think a copy is as good as the original.

 

It will probably be good enough for the public to enjoy the same way they do now. That would vastly cut down on the cost to run a museum.

 

For archivists and historians, researchers etc., sure they should have access to the original where it makes sense. Storage warehouses without a public display front.

[Nparker]

For archivists and historians, researchers etc., sure they should have access to the original where it makes sense. Storage warehouses without a public display front.

But these "storage warehouses" would still have to be built and maintained and funded by someone. Why not just have the storage as part of individual institutions? And personally I would MUCH rather view an original than some sort of VR copy projected in my home. The experience isn't even comparable. 

[amor de cosmos]

not sure if this is s good thread for this or if it should go in general discussion. vancouver's new art gallery building:
 


http://www.dezeen.co...n-boxes-canada/

Edited by amor de cosmos, 01 October 2015 - 06:05 PM.

[johnk]

Bamboo steamer baskets. Or popsicle-stick creation. Just a gut response to the image.

[Bingo]

Looks like it was designed with toys at the local pre-school, put hey maybe we are on to something.

[gumgum]

I think it looks really great. Although they're still not sure how they'll preserve all that wood.