Do people think that museums should sell all their artwork to feed starving children?

Hello,

1) No; this art work is for all of us to treasure and enjoy. They keep it well preserved and insured as a heritage for our generation and many more to come.

2) Other means should be used to feed starving children from forced removal of governments who use food as a weapon through to proper management and distribution of food in the first place.

Cheers,

Michael Kelly

I'm not sure where the cost figure comes from, but the value would be the sale value in the open market? Who'd buy it? Another Archbishop who'd lost his? However, the point made is a valid one. But before pointing the figure at the Archbishop (who does not own his cloak to sell in the first place), presumably we could all sell lots of our possessions and give the money to good causes generally. But we don't. The Anglican church has a very extensive charitable arm and i know from my professional dealings with it it spends hundreds of thousands if not millions in the UK alone on charitable work in the widest sense. Would selling his cloak do any practical good? No. Might it be of symbolic value? yes. Edit: This is Yahoo Answers. I am not interested in a discussion via email, if I was; I'd be on a discussion forum. Nor is this a courtroom.

No. Western countries, or the "haves" are capable of giving everything sufficient to the "have nots", but once the aid is delivered, the recipients fight and kill one another for it, and there is very little that can get through the grasp and control of the corrupt Third World Governments, or military dictatorships.

Right, food and aid (schools, health, hospices etc.) are used as weapons, so that the corrupt leaders can skim millions before a pittance gets to the people. More money gives them more control.

There is no solution, except to have democracy everywhere. We can give, even though Muslims don't. They spend their energies on bullets and bombs instead.

We need a common belief system too, before anything works out. It's just going to keep on being a mess.

No, that is no way to feed the starving. That would just be destroying art and history. And no, that would not feed everyone. You can't just turn money into food. You have to grow, harvest, store, transport, and give the food to people. The problem of starving people is more complicated than that. The US gives away food to nations all the time, but war, corrupt governments, logistics, and crop failures prevent a lot of the food from getting to people. Throw in religion, social values, and overpopulation and it gets worse.

For example, Catholic charities does a lot to feed the starving, but do you think North Korea or any Muslim country would accept Catholic charities? No.

(((Cricket)))...long time no answer one of your questions LOL...

I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I think there is a significant difference between a museum or library and a church. At no time has the Smithsonian suggested or implied that its mission or purpose is to feed starving children. The basic purpose of a museum or library is to collect, preserve, and share the "artifacts" it collects with the public...items that were donated by people who chose to use their resources to support that purpose.

On the other hand, the Catholic church has expressly stated for centuries that feeding starving children is one of its primary missions. I'd even argue that Jesus made it clear that feeding starving children (or, more broadly, providing for the survival needs of "widows and orphans" and other "poor" people) should be the number one priority for "the church". In addition, I'm sure that a significant portion of the people who have donated their resources to the Catholic church at some point since it started accumulating wealth believed that their donation would be used to support the stated mission of feeding hungry children.

My grandmother was Catholic and one of the things she could never explain to my satisfaction was how the Catholic church (or the Pope himself) could reconcile Jesus' words in Matthew 6: 19-20 with the church's long-standing practice of storing up such vast amounts of earthly treasure...especially while there were still "starving children in Africa" (the phrase she used to encourage us kids to clean our plates).

Actually, I think it would be awesome if everyone...including museums and libraries...was willing to sell their "treasures" and feed all the starving children in the world. As the first answer noted, selling off the art would devalue it...but it everyone participated...museums, libraries, universities, government agencies, corporations, unions...and churches...and even every entrepreneur or laborer or mom or brother or friend or stranger...it would only require each group and individual to give up a small fraction of their "treasure" to feed all the hungry people in the world.

Thing is, in this particular case, I'm going to have to say that I don't think it is reasonable to expect a museum to sell all its treasures to feed hungry children...but I do think it is reasonable to expect a person...or a church...that claims to care about feeding hungry children to use every available resource to do so...especially if they are collecting resources from other people who intend them to be used for that purpose!

The real problem with feeding starving children has nothing to do with finding those who are willing to donate money to feed them. The real problem is the confiscation of donated funds by those who are in power in third world countries. The money is there. The willingness to allow it to get where the need is has been blocked by greed and politics. It really is a very sad situation.

Since the money would be coming from the wealthy, why not just skip the art sale and ask why the wealthy of the world don't do more to feed the hungry?

i know nothing about social art buisness, but i do know that its all our social responsiblity to take care of those who cant get to take care of themselves

i think we in soceity should find a balance between helping ourselves and helping others who need help

i dont agree with business or companys of any kind having money(or items worth lots) just sitting, same as i dont with lands just sitting where there are homeless peopel having to sleep on the street

but i dont think its the art or museums problem soley, its all our problem and responsiblity

cricket ;-)

Great art works if sold to feed the "children" would land in the hands of private collectors and would never been seen by the general public for future generations.

While we could feed the children - which will never end...priceless artwork would be lost forever never to be seen again.

You obviously don't know how the art business works...

If Museums decide to sell artwork to feed the hungry then the price for art goes WAY down... If Museums stop valuing art, then so will we.