NORDISK MUSEOLOGI
1998•1,
S . 67-82
PUBLIC AND PRIVAT-E:
THE MAIN CATEGORIES OF
ART COLLECTION IN FINLAND
Susanna Pettersson
The following article addresses a paradox that lies at the heart ofevery public art
collection. The public nature of the institution leads one to assume that collections are
compiled on what might be called «public principles.» Thus the selection process is supposed to be «objective,» while also being guided by «good taste.»
The expectation of objectivity stems from
the public art collection's role as a custodian of the nation's memory. There is a
desire to read history - in the present
instance, art history - as one monolithic
truth, not as an illustrated narrative recording personal choices made by individuals. I would contend, however, that the
public institution and the private collection cannot be compared as such, because
a public institution is not analogous to an
individual agent.
The content of every public art collection has its roots in privacy and private
choices. Every art museum in Finland has
a thin public facade, beneath which we
discover the private taste of one or several
individuals. 1 In other words, the compilation of a public art collection can only be
discussed in relation to individual decisions. My argument partly disagrees with
views put forward in collection studies
concerning private and public collecting. 2
In this article, I hope to shed light on
the compilation of a public art collection
from three different angles. I will analyse,
firstly, the special character of art within
the field of collecting; secondly, the
demarcation of boundaries between the
public art collection and the private collection; and thirdly, the classification of
different types of collection. The classification I propose is based on Finnish art
museums and their institutional history.
MEANINGFUL DISTINCTIONS:
ART COLLECTING AS A FIELD
The private collector can only survive this cooperation [between the museum and the private collector] if the museum refrains from devouring the pri vate collection by incorporating it into itself.
Where the private collection is thus incorporated,
the private collection simultaneously perishes, insofar as its most important distinguishing element is
precisely the subject collecting and controlling it.
SUSANNA PET TE R SSON
68
Conremporary incarn ations of Benjamin's collector
as positive anti-type ca n only survive as long as they
keep their distance from the museum. The death of
such a type is, however, unlikely in the extreme: no
museum has the imagination or the resources to
cover all the forms of collecting that private individuals have embraced over and over again .3
These are the words of the Finnish scholar
Ari Poyhtii.ri, whose study of collecting,
published two years ago, explored sociological and philosophical perspectives.
Poyhtari's discussion of private collecting
rests on the assumption that the museum
as public collector and the individual as
private collector are, by definition, polar
opposites.
Poyhtari juxtaposes the institution (an
inactive subject) with the individual (an
active subject). He uses the image of an
«unimaginative institution» as a foil, so as
to valorise private collectors. However, the
comparison is unsound: private collectors
have their counterpart, not in the institution itself, but in the individual collectors
within it.
Poyhtari's examples are mainly drawn
from object collections in museums and in
private hands, and his arguments, such as
the following, are not directly applicable
to the art world:
The museum lacks the power, peculiar to the pri vate collector, of finding mea ning in what most people regard as mere junk.'
In the art world, the field of collecting is
circumscribed (and curtailed) differently
compared with the world of objects. Not
everything is possible in the art world,
because the art institution draws its own
boundaries - whether collectors like it or
not.
Poyhtari's outlook is collector-centred.
Susan M. Pearce, on the other hand, has
approached the field of potentially collectible objects from a market perspective.
She illustrates the relation between object
valuation and market exchange by dividing the field into four sectors. The highest level is intellectual material - a-market.
The second level is art - art market, the
third is Mdinmy shopping and the fourth is
the spurious collecting market. The opposite poles of the qualitative continuum are
«the museum» and «rubbish.» 5 Actors in
the field, whether they represent themselves or an institution, navigate within this
market, making choices . «The museum» is
an institution that finally houses the items
chosen by the actors.
Thus the art collector and the object
collector operate in markets that are quite
different. When it comes to art, there are
no «general stores» where a collector
might find collectibles that no one else
had thought of. There are simply two
types of work: those that belong within
and those that belong outside the art institution. Regardless of their quality, all the
works inside the art world are art, whereas
the works that are left outside belong to
the world of objects.6
The art market also comprises several
different sectors. In the model I have outlined, the higher category of so-called
institutional art falls into three parts: (I)
museum art, (2) trend art, and (3) debutante or «newcomer» art. Collectors who
confine themselves to this higher sector
are on safe ground. The artists in question
have either already made a «name» for
themselves or are about to do so, and all
P UB LI C AN D
PRIVA TE -
the collector has to do is to sift the stronger works from the less strong. The lower
category includes (4) marginal art (risks,
borderline cases, anti-art), (5) commercial/popular art, and (6) non-art. With the
exception of the last heading, these lower
forms of art also belong to the art world,
although the artists and works in question
are not «endorsed» by the art world.
Members of the art world are interested
not just in institutional art but also in the
margins: collectors can enhance their own
standing by discovering or raising the status of a new artist or work of art. In other
words, the market is open to control and
manipulation: the representatives of art
museums and galleries can alter the classification of risky or borderline cases and
even elevate them to the highest status.
6.NQN-flflT
The art market comprises several different sectors.
ART CO LL ECT I ON
IN
FI N L AND
In the art world, the ability to make
meaningful distinctions entails an ability to
evaluate, trust in one's judgement, an ability to react, and sheer daring. In the last
two areas, the private collector is often
more agile compared with the representative acting on behalf of a public collection. Private collectors also have the right
freely to delimit the range of object(s) in
the collection, and they enjoy free discretion to alter their acquisition policy.
Collectors working for a public institution
face a different situation: they operate between the current market and the existing
collection, which is of a permanent nature
- what is already there cannot be altered.
Nevertheless, in both cases, the choice of
works to be acquired is a personal one.
69
SU S AN N A PETT E R SS ON
70
THE PUBLIC ART COLLECTION:
MAIN TYPES ACCORDING TO
CONTENT
The public art collection is always and
without exception the sum of individual
choices . Finnish art museums are closely
bound up with private collecting: it is to
private collectors that we owe the number
and quality of the country's art museums.
Accordingly, the «public» nature of the
collections can be seen as a thin facade;
the term mainly refers to the manner in
which the collections are funded and displayed.
To penetrate beneath this facade, public
collections can be divided into main types
according to content and origin.
Collections can be divided into five
main categories on the basis of content:
- collections of contemporary art
- collections of modern art
- collections of old art
- general art collections
and
- various combinations of the above.
Contemporary art collections focus on the
art of the present day, and mainly acquire
current Finnish and foreign art. However,
in time, contemporary art settles into the
historical context provided by the collection.7
In Finland, modern art collections focus
on the art of the first half of the present
century (1900-1960), illustrating the
developments of Finnish art, often interspersed with sample works by major foreign artists.
Finnish collections of old art are mainly
devoted to the nineteenth century. In
Finland, there were so few active artists
before the nineteenth century that it has
not been possible to establish numerous
comprehensive collections of old art. The
nineteenth-century collections also often
include foreign works, sometimes from
earlier centuries.
General collections such as the Finnish
National Gallery cover all the above-mentioned areas, from old art to modern and
contemporary art. Other combinations are
also possible - in fact, they are very common. Thus the average type in Finland is
a twentieth-century collection with an
emphasis on contemporary art, possibly
including a few historical sample works.
Such collections come under the category
«various combinations.»
Why is it that mixed collections dominate the art museum field in Finland? The
main reason is that even today, acquisition
policy is rarely subjected to open definition
and analysis. 8 There is a sense that demarcating specific boundaries would obstruct
creative thought and intuitive action. The
people in charge claim an indispensable
right to freedom and refuse to spell out
the motives for their acquisitions. In the
long term, however, a loose acquisition
policy leads to a situation where the collection piles up aimlessly, instead of
expanding coherendy. 9 Where this happens, the collector has in effect relinquished responsibility for the task at hand.
There is a wish to keep public collections
open to strong works in any category.
Donations often include works that lie
outside the chosen museum's purview, but
in order to secure an attractive contribution, the museum will accept the donation
as it stands. 10 The process escalates when
the collection becomes self-generating: the
new departures occasioned by donations
Akseli Gallen-Kallela: Portmit of Dr H. F. Antell, 1886. The Museum ofFinnish Art, Ateneum.
H. F. Antell, one ofthe most important collectors ofhis day, bequeathed his art collection «to the people of
Finland.» ft included 44 paintings, 28 sculptures and I 0 dmwings and prints, and 11 substantial fimd, which
allowed the Ateneum as custodian to extend the collection over the years. Photogmph: Centml Art Archives,
Helsinki.
SUSANNA
72
PETTER SSO N
in turn motivate future acquisitions outside the museum's main field.
Upon receiving a donation, a private
collector would be entitled to sell, donate
or exchange uninteresting individual
works, whereas a public collection is
almost invariably saddled with the whole
donation. Given that all donations contain some «dross, » the inviolability of the
donated collections causes a major problem: over the years, museums accumulate
a sizeable number of sub-standard works. 11
A third reason why mixed collections
dominate in Finland is that museums fail
to improve their profile through «brand consciousness.» There is no desire to create a
distinctive profile based on the strengths
of the collection, or consciously to manipulate the public image or «brand name»
of the collection. Where a distinctive profile is created, it is not an active choice on
the part of the museum, but the work of
the museum audience and the media.
The lack of «brand consciousness»
represents a failure · to analyse the
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats pertaining to a particular collection. Museums thus lose an opportunity
to analyse their profile in relation to their
counterparts in the field - that is, in relation to their competitors. A content analysis would enable the museum institution
to spell out an acquisition policy as well as
a basic philosophy that would provide a
distinctive profile for the collection. For
the reasons described above, such analyses
are rare.
THE PUBLIC ART COLLECTION
MAIN TYPES ACCORDING
TO ORIGIN
When a collection is strictly defined as
focusing on either old, modern or contemporary art, or simply devoted to a
single artist, the above-described fundamental problems should not arise. The
definition automatically pinpoints the
strengths and opportunities offered by the
collection, as well as its origin. In other
words, origin and content also interact
and mutually influence one another.
Public collections can be divided m
three main categories according to origin.
- Several donations , of different sizes,
from different sources. The museum independently purchases works of art, expanding its collection. Donations received can
be (or are) taken into account in the
acquisition policy. Acquisitions are made
by representatives of the institution.
(Example: The Finnish National Gallery.)
- One major donation forms the core of
the collection. The collection is later
expanded on the basis of the core collection and its profile. Acquisitions are made
by representatives of the institution.
(Example: The Sara Hilden Art Museum
in Tampere.)
- One major donation plus an acquisition fund, on which the donor (or trustees
nominated by the donor) draws to extend
the collection further. The representatives
of the institution pursue an independent
acquisition policy from a separate fund .
(Example: The Jenny and Antti Wihuri
Foundation Collection and Rovaniemi Art
Museum in Rovaniemi.)
PUBLI C AND
PRIVATE -
The first and most general of the above categories aspires towards universality. As a
result, the collection is difficult to control:
the area to be covered is enormous, and
acquisitions can never fully cover past and
present developments in art. The collection succumbs to a vicious circle: there are
always «gaps» to be filled. The museum
must consciously decide to take control of
the future of its collection, instead of
acting as an inert repository for the burden of history. Otherwise the compilers of
the collection find themselves merely pondering the order in which to fill in the
gaps.
A sizeable museum provides the most
fertile soil for privately donated art collections. A large collection can accommodate
large entities, including unfocused private
collections. 12
The second category is typical of the
twentieth century, during which several
Finnish art museums have been founded
around a single private collection. Their
focus is clearly defined and the acquisition
policy is designed to complement the original donation, giving priority to the same
artists. The donor may also have voiced an
opinion regarding the future development
of the collection, but decisions are made
by representatives of the museum. In
other words, the donor has delegated to
the institution the responsibility for
making acquisitions in his or her name.
This category also includes museums
devoted to a single artist.
The third category represents the most
modern (and perhaps the most inconsistent) model for merging a public institution and a private collection. The responsibility for expanding the collection donated to the museum lies entirely in the
ART C OLLE C TIO N
IN
FINLAND
hands of independent trustees, who use an
annual grant from the donor to make
regular acquisitions, so as to expand the
collection indefinitely.
For example, the Jenny and Antti
Wihuri Collection, donated to Rovaniemi
Art Museum, is accompanied by an annual grant which in fact exceeds the
Museum's own acquisition budget. The
grant is controlled by two art experts
nominated by the Jenny and Antti Wihuri
Foundation: it is they who choose the
acqu1s1t1ons. Rovaniemi Art Museum
focuses on local art, and does not compete
with the donated collection, which is
dedicated mainly to contemporary Finnish
art. The situation is problematic for the
local art community, which would like to
see local artists benefit from the Jenny and
Antti Wihuri Foundation. The hopes and
expectations of the local art community
conflict with the aims of the Foundation
and its representatives. 13
As the above example illustrates, the local
art community and «tax-payers» can seek
to interfere with the public collection's
manner of recording our cultural heritage.
Evidently, the illusion persists that ·the
public collection is «objective» - that it
comprises a neutral narrative that anyone
can help to shape.
In such cases, the local art community
implicitly denies the museum representatives the right to exercise personal taste in a
public context. The public and the private
merge under a single identity. Against this
background, it is easy to credit the claim
that a private collection donated to a
museum can only survive if it is not subsumed and devoured by the museum's
own collection.
73
SUSANNA PETT E R SSO N
74
In other words, blurring the distinction
between the concept of the private collection and the concept of the public collection is just as ill-advised as setting up a
sharp contrast between the two. To avoid
such conceptual confusion, in order to see
the field clearly, we need precise models of
classification. The central question concerns the relationship between private and
public, and our perception of it.
The psychological models employed in
collection studies suggest that almost all
private collectors have at least some desire
to publicise or exhibit their collection. By
parading their treasures, collectors satisfy
their narc1ss1st1c and exhibitionistic
needs. 14 The craving for publicity culminates when the collection is sold to an
institution, or when it is donated or
bequeathed.
Collectors feel strongly drawn towards
the museum institution, whose approval
can lend them the art world's official
stamp of approval, recognising their
labours and endorsing their taste. Even
the most astringent critics of the art
museum institution have taken this path:
a recent example in Finland is the artist
]an-0/of Ma!!ander, who violently criticised the personnel appointed to head the
new Museum of Contemporary Art in
Helsinki, rubbishing the institution itself
and lamenting the «squandered future.»
Around the same time, he himself benefited from the art museum institution, selling his private art collection to the City
Art Museum of Helsinki. 15
The private collector's urge for publicity
not only complements and nourishes existing museums, but also spawns new ones.
The institutional history of the Finnish
art museum is a catalogue of cases where a
private collection has been enshrined in a
purpose-built museum - a monument
maintained by public funds. The most
famous examples are the Sara Hilden Art
Museum in Tampere, Pori Art Museum in
Pori (Maire Gullichsen Collection), Aine
Art Museum in Tornio (Veli Aine
Collection), the City Art Museum of Helsinki (Leonard Backsbacka Collection),
Rovaniemi Art Museum (Jenny and Antti
Wihuri Foundation Collection), and most
recently, Hameenlinna Art Museum, where a new building was inaugurated in the
autumn of 1997, to house a modern art
collection deposited for fifteen years by
Henna and Pertti Niemisto.
PRIVATE OR PUBLIC
Museums overarch the system of collections; they
are the final, eternal resting-places of the collected
objects which are deemed to be paradigms of their
kind within the framework of value, as this is created through the dynamic of making meanings. The
museum as institution is both at the apex of the
system and its crux because museums and their
material provide the point of reference against
which the rest of the collecting system can operate.16
Public art collections are often dubbed
objective, faceless, colourless, and impersonal. In collection studies, the public collection is denigrated as a castrated form of
collecting. This general preconception has
largely shaped the concept of the public
collection, in Finland and elsewhere.
As my classification by origin suggests,
an objective, faceless collection cannot
even exist. Every public collection is a
mosaic of personal tastes, whether of private collectors whose collections have been
PU BL I C AN D
PRI VATE -
annexed by the museum, or of the museum's own representatives. This raises certain questions concerning the concept and
definition of collecting. For instance, why
do theories of collecting falter when the
private meets the public under a single
rubric, i.e. in the context of a public collection?
The present discussion is an outline
towards a systematic understanding of the
distinction between public and private
collecting, which I intend to develop further in future research. The present article
explores two angles: the identity ofprivate
collecting and the identity of public collecting.
Let us begin with the hypothesis that
every private collection has an identity
similar to that of its collector. The collection is a reflection of the collector's passions, desires, and tastes, as well as a record
of thwarted hopes and compromise. The
identity of the collection comprises the
reputation of the collector, the works in
the collection and the collection's status
in the art world. 17 The collection lives and
changes with its compiler; new works are
added and others are sold or exchanged.
Private collections in a given field compete for status in the art world.
The identity of a public collection, on
the other hand, consists of a variety of factors , including: the quality of the works,
donated collections, collecting policy, the
collection's national and international
standing in the art world, the status of the
institution, the public image of the collection, and public opinion. The identity of
the collection will be examined below in
relation to the category according to content. A collection of modern art or
Finnish contemporary art will be compa-
AR T
COL LE CT I ON
IN
FI N LA ND
red with its international equivalent; a
collection of old foreign art will be examined against its counterparts elsewhere in
the world.
Merging the identities of a private and a
public collection gives rise to hopes and
anxieties on both sides. The private collector surrenders his or her «collector's identity» to the public collection. Conversely,
by accepting a donation in the name of
their institution, the representatives of the
public collection underwrite the choices
made by a private collector.
Private Collection:
- the hope that the collection will be
accepted by the museum
- the hope that the collection will receive
the attention it deserves in the art world
- the hope that the collector will attain
«prestige» status as a collector
- the hope that the value of the collection
will increase (the collection remains intact
and on display, and bears the collector's
name)
- the fear that the institution will devour
the collection
- the fear that the collection will lose its
identity
- the fear that the name and identity of
the collector will be lost
- the fear that the value of the collection
will diminish
- the fear that the collection or individual
works in the collection will not be prominently displayed.
Public Collection:
- the hope that the profile of the
museums's collection will be strengthened
by the incorporation of the private collection
75
SUSANNA
76
PETTERS SON
- the hope that the collection will receive
increased attention in the art world
- the hope that the status of the museum's
collection will be enhanced
- the fear that the museum's «own acquisitions» will be eclipsed by the private collection
- the fear that the identity of the collection will be fragmented, forming «subidentities»
- the fear that the public image of the
museum will be fractured
- the fear that the value of the collection
will diminish
- the fear that the museum will be forced
to accept sub-standard «compromise»
works.
Since museums are the overarching community
manifestation of the sacred set-aside, an emotional
response which we all attribute to our individual
collections, it follows that deposition in a museum,
through which sacredness and significance are guaranteed, is the goal to which many collectors aspire
for their material. As we have seen, museums offer
individuals the hope of recognition and a kind of
immortality: it is the individual's chance to join the
great game. With this, however, goes a kind of
ambivalence. Those who seek acceptance also court
refusal, and the consequent strain fo ste rs a certain
love/hare relationship between established museums
and private collectors, which finds expression in a
wide variety of particular arrangements and relationships. 18
Of course, not every collector is thus
drawn towards the public collection. The
history of private collecting is varied: an
Egyptian pharaoh would order himself to
be buried with his collections (eternal
ownership); Chinese and Japanese collectors are known to have burned their col-
lections of paintings and calligraphy before they died (preventing others from profiting from the works); yet others release
their collection back into circulation (sharing the enjoyment). Many collectors simply seek alternatives to the museum institution, which they find distant and frigid.19
The history of the museum institution
hinges on a symbiotic relationship with
private collectors, and public collections
continue to be willing to embrace private
collectors. From the point of view of the
custodian of a public collection, donated
private collections are both warmly welcomed - and awkward to receive.
There are three types of potential donation: wholly desirable, partially desirable
and undesirable. The first and last cases
are clear-cut. Unfortunately, the majority
of donations belong to the problematic
middle category.
From the point of view of the public
collection, it is problematic that most private collectors are unwilling to permit the
representatives of the museum to select
individual works from their collection. As
a result, second-rate works appended to
high-quality works must also be incorporated into the public collection. Furthermore, the public collection is forced to
give an irrevocable commitment to the
donor, undertaking never to sell individual works from the collection. 20
There have been many attempts to solve
this dilemma. For example, in the United
States, museums offer expert advice and
training to private collectors, thereby preemptively assimilating them.21 Apprentice
collectors are, as it were, indoctrinated in
museum policy. The aim is to shift the
content of potential donations from the
PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE -
ART COLLECTION
I N
FINLAND
The earliest public art collection in Finland was founded by the Finnish Art Society. ft was first permanently
opened to the public in 1863 and transferred to the Ateneum in 1888, upon the completion ofthe Ate11e11111
building. An ear61 photograph of one of the galleries. Photograph: Central Art Archives, Helsinki.
SU S AN N A P E TTER SS ON
78
second category (partially desirable) to the
first (wholly desirable) . The strategy presupposes a coherent acquisition policy and
a planned and determined approach on
the behalf of the museum. This encourages private collectors to adapt the identity
of their collections to the identity of the
museum collection.
The above phenomenon concretely
exemplifies the way in which theories of
collecting falter when the private meets
the public in the context of a public collection. When the identity of the public
collection meets the identity of the soonto-be-annexed private collection, they
should merge into a single whole, under
the general rubric provided by the identity
of the public collection. The identity of
the public collection is in any case the
sum of its constituent collections, each
with its respective identity: the annexation
of a new private collection does not represent a substantial philosophical or structural change.22
The private collection, on the other
hand, instinctively clings to its right to a
separate identity so as to avoid the perception that it has been simply absorbed into
a larger whole. Paradoxically, private collectors also expressly yearn to attach their
collections to a large museum, which in a
sense entails surrendering their identities
as collectors along with the identity of the
collection. This inevitably means a change
in the identity of the private collection.
However, that identity need not be lost
altogether.
SUMMARY
I rest my analysis on the hypothesis that
the compilation of a public art collection
can only be studied in relation to private
collecting and the personal decisions of
individuals. The «institution» does not
constitute an objective operator in the
field; how could it, when it lacks the
knowledge, skill and heart for evaluating
art? And yet, especially in the context of
collection studies, the institution is routinely set up as the polar opposite of the
private collector, as though the two were
commensurable entities.
Research which valorises the private collector fails to see beneath the public facade of the museum institution. By contrast,
in-depth analysis of the structure of the
public collection always reveals either one
or several private tastes. Tastes are developed by private collectors, who become
drawn into the orbit of the institution,
and by the museum representatives entrusted with the right to make acquisitions and
to accept donations.
The interplay between public and private is a source of confusion in collection
studies. When the identity of the public
collection meets the identity of a private
collection in the context of annexation,
the two are supposed to merge under a
single identity, namely, that of the public
collection. According to most authors in
collection studies, this is tantamount to
the destruction of the identities of private
collector and private collection alike.
Such solicitude on behalf of the private
collector is to be expected, given that private collecting has been subjected to more
research than has public collecting. We
lack the concepts to analyse the latter; its
PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE -
inner workings are unknown. The question is: how to define the process by
which a public art collection is compiled?
Should we, for example, analyse public
collecting as a form of private collecting
which takes place on a public stage?
To sketch a possible answer, I have
begun by identifying the main types of
public art collection in Finland, both by
content and by origin. The categories are
not analogous, because they are based on
different parameters: content reflects
acquisition policy, while origin reflects the
structure of different museum collections.
However, the two categories are mutually
dependent: the origin of a collection largely determines its future content, and the
existing content dictates how the collection can expand.
In future, I intend to discuss the compilation of the public art collection in relation to (1) the museum institution and
power, (2) desire and motives and (3) taste. My aim is to unearth the concepts pertaining to public collecting, and to investigate how these concepts are formed and
where they stem from.
Translated by Philip Landon.
ART COLLECTION IN FINLAND
79
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baekeland, Frederick 1994. «Psychological Aspects
of Art Collecting,» Interpreting Objects and
Collections. Ed. Susan M. Pearce. London:
Routledge 1994, 205-219 .
Baudrillard, Jean 1994. «The System of
Collecting,» The Cultures of Collecting. Ed . John
Elsner & Roger Cardinal . Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1994.
Originally published in Le Systeme des objets
(1968).
Bennett, Tony 1995 . The Birth of the Mweum:
History, Theo1y, Politics. London: Routledge
1995.
Crimp, Douglas 1995. On the Mweum Ruins.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1995.
Duncan, Carol 1994. «Art Museums and The
Ritual of Citizenship,» Interpreting Objects and
Collections. Ed. Susan M. Pearce. London :
Routledge 1994, 279-286.
Duncan, Carol 1995. Civilizing Rituals inside
Public Art Museums. London : Routledge 1995 .
Elsner, John & Cardinal, Roger (ed.) 1994. The
Cultures of Collecting. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press 1994.
Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean 1992. Museums and the
Shaping ofKnowledge. London: Routledge 1992.
Laitala, Susanna 1992. The Finnish National
Galle1y. Ed. Marjatta Levanto & Susanna Laitala.
Rauma: The Finnish National Gallery 1992.
Laitala, Susanna 1993. «Directors, The Acquisitions
Commission, and Acquisitions - How the
Collection of the Ateneum Grew from 1919 to
1969,» Ateneum, The Finnish National Galle1y
Bulletin 1993. Ed. Susanna Laitala. Helsinki:
The Finnish National Gallery 1993, 108-128 .
Levanto, Marjatta (ed.) 1991. Ateneum. Espoo: The
Finnish National Gallery 1991.
Muenstenberger, Werner 1994. Collecting: An
Unruly Passion. Psychological Perspectives. San
Diego, New York: Harvest 1994.
s
SUSANNA
80
PETTERSSON
Ojanpera, Riitta (ed.) 1997. Henna and Pertti
Niemisto Collection of Contemporaiy Art.
Hii111ee11li11na Art M11se11111. Forssa: Hameenlinna
Art Museum 1997.
Ojanpera, Riitta 1997. «The Art Collection of
Henna and Pertti Niemisto,» Henna and Pertti
Niemisto Collection of Contemporary Art.
Hiimeenlinna Art Museum. Ed. Riina Ojanpera.
Forssa: Hameenlinna Art Museum 1997, 12-22.
Paloposki, Hanna-Leena 1993. «The Early Years of
The Finnish Art Society's Collection Competing with The Lottery,» Ateneurn, The
Finnish National Gallery B11lletin 1993. Ed.
Susanna Lairala. Helsinki: The Finnish National
Gallery 1993, 44-65.
Pearce, Susan M. 1992. Museums, Objects and
Collectiom. A C1dtu'.·al Study. Leicester: Leicester
University Press 1992.
Pearce, Susan M. (ed.) 1994. Interpreting Objects
and Collections. London: Roucledge 1994.
Pearce, Susan M . 1994. «Collecting reconsidered,»
Interpreting Objects and Collections. Ed. Susan M.
Pearce. London: Roucledge 1994, 193-204.
Pearce, Susan M . 1995. On Collecting: An
Investigation into Collecting in the European
Tradition. London: Roucledge 1995.
Peltola, Leena (ed.) 1992. Rovaniemen taidemuseo,
Rovaniemi Art Museum. jenny ja Antti Wihurin
rahaston kokoelma, jenny and Antti Wihuri
Foundation Collection 1986-1992. Vantaa:
Rovaniemi Art Museum.
Pettersson, Susanna 1991. «The History of the
Collections,» Ateneum. Ed. Marjatta Levan to.
Espoo: The Finnish National Gallery I 991, 128132.
Pettersson, Susanna (ed .) 1996. Rovaniemen taidemuseo, Rovaniemi Art Museum. jenny ja Antti
Wihurin rahaston kokoelma, jenny and Antti
Wihuri Foundation Collection 1993-1996. Espoo:
Rovaniemi Art Museum.
Pettersson, Susanna 1996. «Art's North Star - The
Public Image of the Rovaniemi Art Museum and
the Wihuri Foundation Collection .» Rovaniemi
Art Muse11111, jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation
Collection 1993-1996. Ed. Susanna Pettersson.
Espoo: Rovaniemi Art Museum 1996, 14- 17.
Pomian, Krzysztof 1994. «The Collection: Between
The Visible and The Invisible,» Interpreting
Objects and Collections. Ed. Susan M . Pearce.
London: Roucledge 1994, 160-174.
Pomian, Krzysztof 1995. «L'arr vivant, les collectionneurs et les musees,» Passions Privees.
Collections partimlieres d'art moderne et contemporain en France. Ed. Annie Perez. Paris: ParisMusees 1995, 31-38.
Poyhtari, Ari 1996. Keriiilystii kokoelmaan.
Sosiologisia ja filosojisia niikokulmia keriiilyyn.
(From Collecting to Collection: Sociological and
Philosophical Perspectives.) SoPhi.
Yhteiskuntatieteiden, valtio-opin ja filosojian julkaisuja 8. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla
1996.
Rasanen, Desiree (ed.) 1986. Rovaniemen taidemuseo, Rovaniemi Art Museum. jenny ja Antti
Wihurin rahaston kokoelma, jenny and Antti
Wih11ri Foundation Collection 1986. Helsinki:
Rovaniemi Art Museum.
Sandstrom, Sven (ed .) 1970. Konsten i samhiil!et
(Art in Society). Lund : Sven Sandstrom och
CWK Gleerups forlag 1970.
Sariola, Helmiriitra (ed.) 1996. Uutta Atene11111issa
1993-1995, Nytt i Ateneum 1993-1995. Museet
forfinliindsk konst; nyforviirv och donationer 19931995 (New at the Ateneum 1993-1995 . The
Museum of Finnish Art; Recent Acquisitions
1993-1995). Helsinki : Museet for finlandsk
konst Ateneum, Museum of Finnish Art,
Ateneum 1996.
Schulz, Eva 1994. «Notes on the history of collecting and of museums,» Interpreting Objects and
Collections. Ed. Susan M. Pearce. London:
Roucledge 1994, 175-187.
Sinisalo, Soili (ed.) 1993. Uutta Ateneumissa, Nytt i
Ateneum, New at the Atene11111 1991-1992.
PUBLIC AND
Turku: The Museum of Finnish Art, Ateneum
1992.
Stewart, Susan 1994. «Objects of Desire,»
Interpreting Objects and Collections. Ed. Susan M .
Pearce. London: Routledge 1994, 254-257.
Vehmas, Einari 1980. «Sara Hilden - A Collector
of International Modern Art,» Sara Hilden Art
A1weum. Ed. Timo Vuorikoski . Tampere: Sara
Hilden Art Museum 1980, 1-5.
Vuorikoski, Timo 1980. «Sara Hilden Art
Museum, » Sara Hilden Art Museum. Ed. Timo
Vuorikoski. Tampere: Sara Hilden Art Museum
1980, 9-20.
Wittlin, Alma S. 1970. «Museet» (The Museum),
Komten i samhiillet (Art in Society). Ed. Sven
Sandstrom. Lund: Sven Sandstrom och CWK
Gleerups forlag 1970, 43-115.
NOTES
I. Private taste falls into rwo distinct categories: (I)
the taste of the private collector, and (2) the personal taste of a museum functionary or member
of an acquisition committee.
2. See, for example, Poyhtari 1996, p. 100; Crimp
1995. Both these authors work from a so-called
Benjaminian premise.
3. Poyhtari 1996, p. 100.
4. Poyhtari 1996, p. 97.
5. Pearce 1995, p. 375.
6. In this context, it would be interesting to analyse
«haymarket art» in relation to popular culture
(e.g. Richard Shustermann and David Novitz).
7. For example, when the collections of the
Foundation of the Fine Arts Academy of Finland
were nationalised in 1990, the works were divided between three museums. The chronological
starting-point for the collection of the Museum
PRIVATE -
ART COLLECTION
IN FINLAND
of Contemporary Art was placed at 1960. At the
same time, it was argued that it should be possible to move the date forward as the need arose.
This would mean transferring the older portions
of the collection to the Museum of Finnish Art.
8. Recurring phrases about «filling in the gaps» and
«major contemporary works» do not represent an
adequate definition of acquisition policy.
9. See Poyhtari 1996, pp. 17-18. «A definition of
'collecting' only has meaning if it facilitates a distinction (even in specialist literature) against
stockpiling and hoarding - borderline phenomena with which collecting is often confused.»
10. Numerous examples could be cited. For example, in 1993, the Museum of Finnish Art accepted the so-called Eila Walli bequest, a collection
which includes both major Finnish art and works
by unidentified foreign artists. See Sariola 1996,
p. 46.
11 . Selling the works is out of the question because
it would alienate the private donor as well as possible future donors. After all, collectors identify
strongly with their collections. See, for example,
Baekeland 1994.
12. Some donations do not even constitute collections in the strict sense - the works may have
simply accumulated instead of being deliberately
collected. In museological research, it is important to distinguish between purposely compiled
collections and other donations.
13. See also Pettersson 1996.
14. See Baekeland 1994.
15. The museum acquired the collection on 11
May 1990. The Museum of Contemporary Art
was founded in the autumn of the same year.
16. Pearce 1995, p. 387.
17. If the collector wants to remain anonymous,
keeping his collection out of view, the public
identity of the collection will not take form before the collection comes into the public domain.
18. Pearce 1995, p. 390.
19. Baekeland 1994, p. 217.
81
SUSANNA PETTER SSON
82
20. This rule applies to Finnish art museums
almost without exception. It bolsters the image of
the museum as a secure, permanent institution
promising eternal life to all the works in its collection .
21. For example, the Guggenheim Museum, the
Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Museum
of American Art and the Brooklyn Museum all
maintain a carefully built network of potential
donors.
22. Assuming that the content and quality of the
private collection are up to standard.
Susanna Pettersson is an art historian based in
Helsinki, rnrrently on leave from her post as Chief
Curator in the Education Department of the Finnish
National Galle1y. She is preparing a postgraduate
thesis at the University of Helsinki on the subject of
«The Compilation of the Public Art Collection: The
Concept of Collecting.»
Adr: Fiinrik Stals gatan 3 A 15,
FIN-00100 Helsingfors
Fax +358-9-45410600
email: Susanna.Pettersson@fag.fi