The spectrum is extremely diverse. The are the large institutions, some of which keeping collections of national interest, and then there are the tiny local initiatives that are generally run by volunteers and enthusiast. And then there's everything in between.
There is a global non-governmental organisation that represents the museum domain and formally defines what a museum is: [1] [2]
> “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”
This definition is also found it's way in public governance when it comes to recognizing an entity that keeps a collection as a museum, and providing matching public funding.
Of course, the term "museum" isn't a protected label. And so, while you may see many scattered museums in a lot of places, that doesn't mean that they are publicly recognized as such nor adhere to the formal definition.
> In most cases, the collectors themselves take on the costs of general preservation (we have to sign a contract explicitly stating the cases where the institutions are responsible for damage, idk how it works with larger donors)
These are indemnity contracts. This is a common practice. Since museums aren't the owners of the objects, they will want to avoid liability. This is determined by the extent to which museums are able to insure themselves against damage, theft or loss when loaning an object.
Collectors who loan out objects aren't responsible for the day to day operations - such as 'general preservation - of a museum, nor are they held to fund those operations. However, loan contracts do contain assurances and describe formal conditions trying to ensure the protection of the object during transit and on location.
Since a loaning objects always constitutes a risk, a bond of trust between museums and collectors is paramount. This is crucial role played by curators. And it's another reason why networking events are important.
> my honest opinion is that most of these places spend far more on organizing the fundraisers rather than paying for artwork and preservation
But have you also verified your opinion and actually looked into the economics of running museums? Many large museums publish their finances in great detail since they also receive a public endowment, subsidy or funding.
For 2019, the Met did spend some 18 million $ on promotional and special events, whereas gifts and grants ran a total of 59 million $, and admissions accounted for another 55 million $ in revenue. (admissions being a hot and contested debate in this case [3])
> Collectors who loan out objects aren't responsible for the day to day operations - such as 'general preservation - of a museum, nor are they held to fund those operations. However, loan contracts do contain assurances and describe formal conditions trying to ensure the protection of the object during transit and on location.
I didn't mean to say "general preservation" of the museum, but rather the general preservation of the artwork, depending on its type and age. Different art, different costs, all handled at the collector's expense - museums don't have to pay for that, but only for specialized display casings and security systems, which are a fraction of the cost of the piece.
The Met is actually one of the better run places that I often hold up to as a benchmark. Not to mention, it's "classy" enough and was prudent enough to keep the young crowd in its sights. My qualms were against aged places, largely in Europe, who have to rely on government subsidy and if that isn't available, use their funds to fundraise more, while many a time their curators are paid a 6 figure income.
There is a global non-governmental organisation that represents the museum domain and formally defines what a museum is: [1] [2]
> “A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”
[1] https://icom.museum/en/ [2] https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum...
This definition is also found it's way in public governance when it comes to recognizing an entity that keeps a collection as a museum, and providing matching public funding.
Of course, the term "museum" isn't a protected label. And so, while you may see many scattered museums in a lot of places, that doesn't mean that they are publicly recognized as such nor adhere to the formal definition.
> In most cases, the collectors themselves take on the costs of general preservation (we have to sign a contract explicitly stating the cases where the institutions are responsible for damage, idk how it works with larger donors)
These are indemnity contracts. This is a common practice. Since museums aren't the owners of the objects, they will want to avoid liability. This is determined by the extent to which museums are able to insure themselves against damage, theft or loss when loaning an object.
Collectors who loan out objects aren't responsible for the day to day operations - such as 'general preservation - of a museum, nor are they held to fund those operations. However, loan contracts do contain assurances and describe formal conditions trying to ensure the protection of the object during transit and on location.
Since a loaning objects always constitutes a risk, a bond of trust between museums and collectors is paramount. This is crucial role played by curators. And it's another reason why networking events are important.
> my honest opinion is that most of these places spend far more on organizing the fundraisers rather than paying for artwork and preservation
But have you also verified your opinion and actually looked into the economics of running museums? Many large museums publish their finances in great detail since they also receive a public endowment, subsidy or funding.
The Met is a great example of that:
https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/policies-and-documen...
For 2019, the Met did spend some 18 million $ on promotional and special events, whereas gifts and grants ran a total of 59 million $, and admissions accounted for another 55 million $ in revenue. (admissions being a hot and contested debate in this case [3])
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/08/met-mus...