To Display Money

In discussing the relationship between art and money, Thompson touches on some interesting points which lead me to wonder why it is that donors continue to donate artwork or even funding to museums. For instance, Thompson notes that despite being urged by officials to list the value of their entire collection (which includes the “locked-away” portion) on their accounting sheets, museum curators refuse to do so on the grounds that they believe “revealing the true value of the collection would signal to donors that the museum has no need of philanthropy; they could simply sell or lease art to finance new acquisitions (187).” Adding to that, Thompson goes on to highlight the case of Burton and Emily Tremaine, a couple who discovered that when they simply gave a work to a museum it usually was placed held in storage for an extensive amount of time. However, when they sold a work to a museum, the museum often displayed the piece as well as generated promotion for it. They came to the conclusion that “curators most appreciated items for which they had to give up a large part of their acquisition funds (188).” Keeping that in mind, why is it do you believe that donors continue to donate when museums are so guarded and standoffish when it comes to being open about their possessions and economic state, and when curators seemingly displays only those works they purchased? Furthermore, do you agree with Thompson when he states then when curators do so “purchase price is presented to museum patrons as equal to value (188)?”