So I was listening to this past weekend's podcast of Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and there was a passing reference to a 'dinosaur skull' for which Nicholas Cage outbid Leonardo DiCaprio. And this got me thinking about the strange double-standard in how we think about people who own artifacts versus people who own art.
The news of Mr Cage's dinosaur skull broke in 2009 in conjunction with stories about his troubles with the IRS. At the time it was presented as evidence of his out-of-control spending, and it's referenced in a number of pop-culture stories. That Nic Cage, he's so crazy! Except that if he had spent that $276,000 on a painting, or a sculpture, no one would think twice. He wouldn't be crazy, he'd be an art lover, which is much more acceptable.
 |
| "Beech Forest" by Gustav Klimt |
I have already revealed that I have a bias towards history museums, so I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that I would absolutely love to have my very own dinosaur skull. I actually cannot come up with adequate words to explain how much I would love that. But I don't think I would buy one, even if I had the money. I wouldn't buy a Klimt if I had the money, either, and not because I wouldn't love to have it on my wall. It's because (kind of unsurprisingly, given my museum background), I think things like fossils and paintings belong in the public realm. I think they should be stared at by school kids and studied by scientists and kept in the public domain as much as possible.
I don't think Nicholas Cage is crazy for buying a dinosaur skull--I think all the other rich people out there are crazy for NOT buying dinosaur skulls. All the same, I'm glad that more of them are ending up in public museums than private collections.
No comments:
Post a Comment