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 ofthe institution leads one to assume that collections are compiled on what might be called «public principles.» Thus the selection process is sup­ posed to be «objective,» while also being guided by «good taste.»

The expectation of objectivity stems from In this article, I hope to shed light on the public art collection's role as a custo­ the compilation of a public art collection dian of the nation's memory. There is a from three different angles. I will analyse, desire to read history - in the present firstly, the special character of art within instance, art history - as one monolithic the field of collecting; secondly, the truth, not as an illustrated narrative recor­ demarcation of boundaries between the ding personal choices made by individu­ public art collection and the private col­ als. I would contend, however, that the lection; and thirdly, the classification of public institution and the private collec­ different types of collection. The classifi­ tion cannot be compared as such, because cation I propose is based on Finnish art a public institution is not analogous to an museums and their institutional history. individual agent. The content of every public art collecti­ MEANINGFUL DISTINCTIONS: on has its roots in privacy and private ART COLLECTING AS A FIELD choices. Every art museum in Finland has a thin public facade, beneath which we The private collector can only survive this coopera­ discover the private taste of one or several tion [between the museum and the private collec­ individuals. 1 In other words, the compila­ tor] if the museum refrains from devouring the pri­ tion of a public art collection can only be vate collection by incorporating it into itself. discussed in relation to individual decisi­ Where the private collection is thus incorporated, ons. My argument partly disagrees with the private collection simultaneously perishes, inso­ views put forward in collection studies far as its most important distinguishing element is concerning private and public collecting. 2 precisely the subject collecting and controlling it. SUSANNA PET TE R SSON

68 Conremporary incarnations of Benjamin's collector boundaries - whether collectors like it or as positive anti-type can only survive as long as they not. keep their distance from the museum. The death of Poyhtari's outlook is collector-centred. such a type is, however, unlikely in the extreme: no Susan M. Pearce, on the other hand, has museum has the imagination or the resources to approached the field of potentially collec­ cover all the forms of collecting that private indivi­ tible objects from a market perspective. duals have embraced over and over again.3 She illustrates the relation between object valuation and market exchange by divi­ These are the words of the Finnish scholar ding the field into four sectors. The high­ Ari Poyhtii.ri, whose study of collecting, est level is intellectual material - a-market. published two years ago, explored sociolo­ The second level is art - art market, the gical and philosophical perspectives. third is Mdinmy shopping and the fourth is Poyhtari's discussion of private collecting the spurious collecting market. The oppo­ rests on the assumption that the museum site poles of the qualitative continuum are as public collector and the individual as «the museum» and «rubbish.» 5 Actors in private collector are, by definition, polar the field, whether they represent themsel­ opposites. ves or an institution, navigate within this Poyhtari juxtaposes the institution (an market, making choices. «The museum» is inactive subject) with the individual (an an institution that finally houses the items active subject). He uses the image of an chosen by the actors. «unimaginative institution» as a foil, so as Thus the art collector and the object to valorise private collectors. However, the collector operate in markets that are quite comparison is unsound: private collectors different. When it comes to art, there are have their counterpart, not in the institu­ no «general stores» where a collector tion itself, but in the individual collectors might find collectibles that no one else within it. had thought of. There are simply two Poyhtari's examples are mainly drawn types of work: those that belong within from object collections in museums and in and those that belong outside the art insti­ private hands, and his arguments, such as tution. Regardless of their quality, all the the following, are not directly applicable works inside the art world are art, whereas to the art world: the works that are left outside belong to the world of objects.6 The museum lacks the power, peculiar to the priva­ The art market also comprises several te collector, of finding meaning in what most peo­ different sectors. In the model I have out­ ple regard as mere junk.' lined, the higher category of so-called institutional art falls into three parts: (I) museum art, (2) trend art, and (3) debu­ In the art world, the field of collecting is tante or «newcomer» art. Collectors who circumscribed (and curtailed) differently confine themselves to this higher sector compared with the world of objects. Not are on safe ground. The artists in question everything is possible in the art world, have either already made a «name» for because the art institution draws its own themselves or are about to do so, and all P UB LI C AN D PRIVA TE - ART CO LL ECT I ON I N FI N L AND

the collector has to do is to sift the strong­ In the art world, the ability to make 69 er works from the less strong. The lower meaningful distinctions entails an ability to category includes (4) marginal art (risks, evaluate, trust in one's judgement, an abi­ borderline cases, anti-art), (5) commerci­ lity to react, and sheer daring. In the last al/popular art, and (6) non-art. With the two areas, the private collector is often exception of the last heading, these lower more agile compared with the representa­ forms of art also belong to the art world, tive acting on behalf of a public collec­ although the artists and works in question tion. Private collectors also have the right are not «endorsed» by the art world. freely to delimit the range of object(s) in Members of the art world are interested the collection, and they enjoy free discre­ not just in institutional art but also in the tion to alter their acquisition policy. margins: collectors can enhance their own Collectors working for a public institution standing by discovering or raising the sta­ face a different situation: they operate be­ tus of a new artist or work of art. In other tween the current market and the existing words, the market is open to control and collection, which is of a permanent nature manipulation: the representatives of art - what is already there cannot be altered. museums and galleries can alter the classi­ Nevertheless, in both cases, the choice of fication of risky or borderline cases and works to be acquired is a personal one. even elevate them to the highest status.

6.NQN-flflT

The art market comprises several different sectors. SU SAN N A PETT E R SS ON

70 THE PUBLIC ART COLLECTION: before the nineteenth century that it has MAIN TYPES ACCORDING TO not been possible to establish numerous CONTENT comprehensive collections of old art. The nineteenth-century collections also often The public art collection is always and include foreign works, sometimes from without exception the sum of individual earlier centuries. choices. Finnish art museums are closely General collections such as the Finnish bound up with private collecting: it is to National Gallery cover all the above-men­ private collectors that we owe the number tioned areas, from old art to modern and and quality of the country's art museums. contemporary art. Other combinations are Accordingly, the «public» nature of the also possible - in fact, they are very com­ collections can be seen as a thin facade; mon. Thus the average type in Finland is the term mainly refers to the manner in a twentieth-century collection with an which the collections are funded and dis­ emphasis on contemporary art, possibly played. including a few historical sample works. To penetrate beneath this facade, public Such collections come under the category collections can be divided into main types «various combinations.» according to content and origin. Why is it that mixed collections domi­ Collections can be divided into five nate the art museum field in Finland? The main categories on the basis of content: main reason is that even today, acquisition - collections of contemporary art policy is rarely subjected to open definition - collections of modern art and analysis. 8 There is a sense that demar­ - collections of old art cating specific boundaries would obstruct - general art collections creative thought and intuitive action. The and people in charge claim an indispensable - various combinations of the above. right to freedom and refuse to spell out the motives for their acquisitions. In the Contemporary art collections focus on the long term, however, a loose acquisition art of the present day, and mainly acquire policy leads to a situation where the col­ current Finnish and foreign art. However, lection piles up aimlessly, instead of in time, contemporary art settles into the expanding coherendy. 9 Where this hap­ historical context provided by the collec­ pens, the collector has in effect relinquish­ tion.7 ed responsibility for the task at hand. In Finland, modern art collections focus There is a wish to keep public collections on the art of the first half of the present open to strong works in any category. century (1900-1960), illustrating the Donations often include works that lie developments of Finnish art, often inter­ outside the chosen museum's purview, but spersed with sample works by major fore­ in order to secure an attractive contribu­ ign artists. tion, the museum will accept the donation Finnish collections of old art are mainly as it stands. 10 The process escalates when devoted to the nineteenth century. In the collection becomes self-generating: the Finland, there were so few active artists new departures occasioned by donations Akseli Gallen-Kallela: Portmit ofDr 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 PETTER SSO N

72 in turn motivate future acquisitions outsi­ THE PUBLIC ART COLLECTION de the museum's main field. MAIN TYPES ACCORDING Upon receiving a donation, a private TO ORIGIN collector would be entitled to sell, donate or exchange uninteresting individual When a collection is strictly defined as works, whereas a public collection is focusing on either old, modern or con­ almost invariably saddled with the whole temporary art, or simply devoted to a donation. Given that all donations con­ single artist, the above-described funda­ tain some «dross,» the inviolability of the mental problems should not arise. The donated collections causes a major pro­ definition automatically pinpoints the blem: over the years, museums accumulate strengths and opportunities offered by the a sizeable number of sub-standard works. 11 collection, as well as its origin. In other A third reason why mixed collections words, origin and content also interact dominate in Finland is that museums fail and mutually influence one another. to improve their profile through «brand con­ sciousness.» There is no desire to create a Public collections can be divided m distinctive profile based on the strengths three main categories according to origin. of the collection, or consciously to mani­ - Several donations, of different sizes, pulate the public image or «brand name» from different sources. The museum inde­ of the collection. Where a distinctive pro­ pendently purchases works of art, expan­ file is created, it is not an active choice on ding its collection. Donations received can the part of the museum, but the work of be (or are) taken into account in the the museum audience and the media. acquisition policy. Acquisitions are made The lack of «brand consciousness» by representatives of the institution. represents a failure · to analyse the (Example: The Finnish National Gallery.) strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and - One major donation forms the core of threats pertaining to a particular collec­ the collection. The collection is later tion. Museums thus lose an opportunity expanded on the basis of the core collec­ to analyse their profile in relation to their tion and its profile. Acquisitions are made counterparts in the field - that is, in rela­ by representatives of the institution. tion to their competitors. A content analy­ (Example: The Sara Hilden Art Museum sis would enable the museum institution in Tampere.) to spell out an acquisition policy as well as - One major donation plus an acquisi­ a basic philosophy that would provide a tion fund, on which the donor (or trustees distinctive profile for the collection. For nominated by the donor) draws to extend the reasons described above, such analyses the collection further. The representatives are rare. 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 - ART C OLLE C TIO N IN FINLAND

The first and most general of the above cate­ hands of independent trustees, who use an 73 gories aspires towards universality. As a annual grant from the donor to make result, the collection is difficult to control: regular acquisitions, so as to expand the the area to be covered is enormous, and collection indefinitely. acquisitions can never fully cover past and For example, the Jenny and Antti present developments in art. The collec­ Wihuri Collection, donated to Rovaniemi tion succumbs to a vicious circle: there are Art Museum, is accompanied by an annu­ always «gaps» to be filled. The museum al grant which in fact exceeds the must consciously decide to take control of Museum's own acquisition budget. The the future of its collection, instead of grant is controlled by two art experts acting as an inert repository for the bur­ nominated by the Jenny and Antti Wihuri den of history. Otherwise the compilers of Foundation: it is they who choose the the collection find themselves merely pon­ acqu1s1t1ons. Rovaniemi Art Museum dering the order in which to fill in the focuses on local art, and does not compete gaps. with the donated collection, which is A sizeable museum provides the most dedicated mainly to contemporary Finnish fertile soil for privately donated art collec­ art. The situation is problematic for the tions. A large collection can accommodate local art community, which would like to large entities, including unfocused private see local artists benefit from the Jenny and collections. 12 Antti Wihuri Foundation. The hopes and The second category is typical of the expectations of the local art community twentieth century, during which several conflict with the aims of the Foundation Finnish art museums have been founded and its representatives. 13 around a single private collection. Their focus is clearly defined and the acquisition As the above example illustrates, the local policy is designed to complement the ori­ art community and «tax-payers» can seek ginal donation, giving priority to the same to interfere with the public collection's artists. The donor may also have voiced an manner of recording our cultural heritage. opinion regarding the future development Evidently, the illusion persists that ·the of the collection, but decisions are made public collection is «objective» - that it by representatives of the museum. In comprises a neutral narrative that anyone other words, the donor has delegated to can help to shape. the institution the responsibility for In such cases, the local art community making acquisitions in his or her name. implicitly denies the museum representati­ This category also includes museums ves the right to exercise personal taste in a devoted to a single artist. public context. The public and the private The third category represents the most merge under a single identity. Against this modern (and perhaps the most inconsis­ background, it is easy to credit the claim tent) model for merging a public institu­ that a private collection donated to a tion and a private collection. The respon­ museum can only survive if it is not sub­ sibility for expanding the collection dona­ sumed and devoured by the museum's ted to the museum lies entirely in the own collection. SUSANNA PETT E R SSO N

74 In other words, blurring the distinction private collection has been enshrined in a between the concept of the private collec­ purpose-built museum - a monument tion and the concept of the public collec­ maintained by public funds. The most tion is just as ill-advised as setting up a famous examples are the Sara Hilden Art sharp contrast between the two. To avoid Museum in Tampere, Pori Art Museum in such conceptual confusion, in order to see Pori (Maire Gullichsen Collection), Aine the field clearly, we need precise models of Art Museum in Tornio (Veli Aine classification. The central question con­ Collection), the City Art Museum of Hel­ cerns the relationship between private and sinki (Leonard Backsbacka Collection), public, and our perception of it. Rovaniemi Art Museum (Jenny and Antti The psychological models employed in Wihuri Foundation Collection), and most collection studies suggest that almost all recently, Hameenlinna Art Museum, whe­ private collectors have at least some desire re a new building was inaugurated in the to publicise or exhibit their collection. By autumn of 1997, to house a modern art parading their treasures, collectors satisfy collection deposited for fifteen years by their narc1ss1st1c and exhibitionistic Henna and Pertti Niemisto. needs. 14 The craving for publicity culmi­ nates when the collection is sold to an PRIVATE OR PUBLIC institution, or when it is donated or bequeathed. Museums overarch the system of collections; they Collectors feel strongly drawn towards are the final, eternal resting-places of the collected the museum institution, whose approval objects which are deemed to be paradigms of their can lend them the art world's official kind within the framework of value, as this is crea­ stamp of approval, recognising their ted through the dynamic of making meanings. The labours and endorsing their taste. Even museum as institution is both at the apex of the the most astringent critics of the art system and its crux because museums and their museum institution have taken this path: material provide the point of reference against a recent example in Finland is the artist which the rest of the collecting system can opera­ ]an-0/of Ma!!ander, who violently critici­ te.16 sed the personnel appointed to head the new Museum of Contemporary Art in Public art collections are often dubbed Helsinki, rubbishing the institution itself objective, faceless, colourless, and imper­ and lamenting the «squandered future.» sonal. In collection studies, the public col­ Around the same time, he himself benefi­ lection is denigrated as a castrated form of ted from the art museum institution, sel­ collecting. This general preconception has ling his private art collection to the City largely shaped the concept of the public Art Museum of Helsinki. 15 collection, in Finland and elsewhere. The private collector's urge for publicity As my classification by origin suggests, not only complements and nourishes exis­ an objective, faceless collection cannot ting museums, but also spawns new ones. even exist. Every public collection is a The institutional history of the Finnish mosaic of personal tastes, whether of pri­ art museum is a catalogue of cases where a vate collectors whose collections have been PU BL I C AN D PRI VATE - AR T COL LE CT I ON I N FI N LA ND

annexed by the museum, or of the muse­ red with its international equivalent; a 75 um's own representatives. This raises cer­ collection of old foreign art will be exami­ tain questions concerning the concept and ned against its counterparts elsewhere in definition of collecting. For instance, why the world. do theories of collecting falter when the Merging the identities of a private and a private meets the public under a single public collection gives rise to hopes and rubric, i.e. in the context of a public col­ anxieties on both sides. The private collec­ lection? tor surrenders his or her «collector's iden­ The present discussion is an outline tity» to the public collection. Conversely, towards a systematic understanding of the by accepting a donation in the name of distinction between public and private their institution, the representatives of the collecting, which I intend to develop fur­ public collection underwrite the choices ther in future research. The present article made by a private collector. explores two angles: the identity ofprivate collecting and the identity of public collec­ Private Collection: ting. - the hope that the collection will be Let us begin with the hypothesis that accepted by the museum every private collection has an identity - the hope that the collection will receive similar to that of its collector. The collec­ the attention it deserves in the art world tion is a reflection of the collector's pas­ - the hope that the collector will attain sions, desires, and tastes, as well as a record «prestige» status as a collector of thwarted hopes and compromise. The - the hope that the value of the collection identity of the collection comprises the will increase (the collection remains intact reputation of the collector, the works in and on display, and bears the collector's the collection and the collection's status name) in the art world. 17 The collection lives and - the fear that the institution will devour changes with its compiler; new works are the collection added and others are sold or exchanged. - the fear that the collection will lose its Private collections in a given field compe­ identity te for status in the art world. - the fear that the name and identity of The identity of a public collection, on the collector will be lost the other hand, consists of a variety of fac­ - the fear that the value of the collection tors, including: the quality of the works, will diminish donated collections, collecting policy, the - the fear that the collection or individual collection's national and international works in the collection will not be promi­ standing in the art world, the status of the nently displayed. institution, the public image of the collec­ tion, and public opinion. The identity of Public Collection: the collection will be examined below in - the hope that the profile of the relation to the category according to con­ museums's collection will be strengthened tent. A collection of modern art or by the incorporation of the private collec­ Finnish contemporary art will be compa- tion SUSANNA PETTERS SON

76 - the hope that the collection will receive lections of paintings and calligraphy befo­ increased attention in the art world re they died (preventing others from profi­ - the hope that the status of the museum's ting from the works); yet others release collection will be enhanced their collection back into circulation (sha­ - the fear that the museum's «own acqui­ ring the enjoyment). Many collectors sim­ sitions» will be eclipsed by the private col­ ply seek alternatives to the museum insti­ lection tution, which they find distant and fri­ - the fear that the identity of the collec­ gid.19 tion will be fragmented, forming «sub­ The history of the museum institution identities» hinges on a symbiotic relationship with - the fear that the public image of the private collectors, and public collections museum will be fractured continue to be willing to embrace private - the fear that the value of the collection collectors. From the point of view of the will diminish custodian of a public collection, donated - the fear that the museum will be forced private collections are both warmly welco­ to accept sub-standard «compromise» med - and awkward to receive. works. There are three types of potential dona­ tion: wholly desirable, partially desirable Since museums are the overarching community and undesirable. The first and last cases manifestation of the sacred set-aside, an emotional are clear-cut. Unfortunately, the majority response which we all attribute to our individual of donations belong to the problematic collections, it follows that deposition in a museum, middle category. through which sacredness and significance are gua­ From the point of view of the public ranteed, is the goal to which many collectors aspire collection, it is problematic that most pri­ for their material. As we have seen, museums offer vate collectors are unwilling to permit the individuals the hope of recognition and a kind of representatives of the museum to select immortality: it is the individual's chance to join the individual works from their collection. As great game. With this, however, goes a kind of a result, second-rate works appended to ambivalence. Those who seek acceptance also court high-quality works must also be incorpo­ refusal, and the consequent strain fo sters a certain rated into the public collection. Further­ love/hare relationship between established museums more, the public collection is forced to and private collectors, which finds expression in a give an irrevocable commitment to the wide variety of particular arrangements and rela­ donor, undertaking never to sell individu­ tionships. 18 al works from the collection. 20 There have been many attempts to solve Of course, not every collector is thus this dilemma. For example, in the United drawn towards the public collection. The States, museums offer expert advice and history of private collecting is varied: an training to private collectors, thereby pre­ Egyptian pharaoh would order himself to emptively assimilating them. 21 Apprentice be buried with his collections (eternal collectors are, as it were, indoctrinated in ownership); Chinese and Japanese collec­ museum policy. The aim is to shift the tors are known to have burned their col- 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 ofone ofthe galleries. Photograph: Central Art Archives, Helsinki. SU SAN N A P ETTER SS ON

78 second category (partially desirable) to the SUMMARY first (wholly desirable). The strategy pre­ supposes a coherent acquisition policy and I rest my analysis on the hypothesis that a planned and determined approach on the compilation of a public art collection the behalf of the museum. This encoura­ can only be studied in relation to private ges private collectors to adapt the identity collecting and the personal decisions of of their collections to the identity of the individuals. The «institution» does not museum collection. constitute an objective operator in the The above phenomenon concretely field; how could it, when it lacks the exemplifies the way in which theories of knowledge, skill and heart for evaluating collecting falter when the private meets art? And yet, especially in the context of the public in the context of a public col­ collection studies, the institution is rou­ lection. When the identity of the public tinely set up as the polar opposite of the collection meets the identity of the soon­ private collector, as though the two were to-be-annexed private collection, they commensurable entities. should merge into a single whole, under Research which valorises the private col­ the general rubric provided by the identity lector fails to see beneath the public faca­ of the public collection. The identity of de of the museum institution. By contrast, the public collection is in any case the in-depth analysis of the structure of the sum of its constituent collections, each public collection always reveals either one with its respective identity: the annexation or several private tastes. Tastes are develo­ of a new private collection does not repre­ ped by private collectors, who become sent a substantial philosophical or structu­ drawn into the orbit of the institution, ral change.22 and by the museum representatives entrus­ The private collection, on the other ted with the right to make acquisitions and hand, instinctively clings to its right to a to accept donations. separate identity so as to avoid the percep­ The interplay between public and priva­ tion that it has been simply absorbed into te is a source of confusion in collection a larger whole. Paradoxically, private col­ studies. When the identity of the public lectors also expressly yearn to attach their collection meets the identity of a private collections to a large museum, which in a collection in the context of annexation, sense entails surrendering their identities the two are supposed to merge under a as collectors along with the identity of the single identity, namely, that of the public collection. This inevitably means a change collection. According to most authors in in the identity of the private collection. collection studies, this is tantamount to However, that identity need not be lost the destruction of the identities of private altogether. collector and private collection alike. Such solicitude on behalf of the private collector is to be expected, given that pri­ vate collecting has been subjected to more research than has public collecting. We lack the concepts to analyse the latter; its PUBLIC AND PRIVATE - ART COLLECTION IN FINLAND

inner workings are unknown. The ques­ SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 tion is: how to define the process by which a public art collection is compiled? Baekeland, Frederick 1994. «Psychological Aspects Should we, for example, analyse public of Art Collecting,» Interpreting Objects and collecting as a form of private collecting Collections. Ed. Susan M. Pearce. London: which takes place on a public stage? Routledge 1994, 205-219. To sketch a possible answer, I have Baudrillard, Jean 1994. «The System of begun by identifying the main types of Collecting,» The Cultures of Collecting. Ed. John public art collection in Finland, both by Elsner & Roger Cardinal. Cambridge, content and by origin. The categories are Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1994. not analogous, because they are based on Originally published in Le Systeme des objets different parameters: content reflects (1968). acquisition policy, while origin reflects the Bennett, Tony 1995. The Birth ofthe Mweum: structure of different museum collections. History, Theo1y, Politics. London: Routledge However, the two categories are mutually 1995. dependent: the origin of a collection lar­ Crimp, Douglas 1995. On the Mweum sRuins. gely determines its future content, and the Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 1995. existing content dictates how the collec­ Duncan, Carol 1994. «Art Museums and The tion can expand. Ritual of Citizenship,» Interpreting Objects and In future, I intend to discuss the compi­ Collections. Ed. Susan M. Pearce. London: lation of the public art collection in rela­ Routledge 1994, 279-286. tion to (1) the museum institution and Duncan, Carol 1995. Civilizing Rituals inside power, (2) desire and motives and (3) tas­ Public Art Museums. London: Routledge 1995. te. My aim is to unearth the concepts per­ Elsner, John & Cardinal, Roger (ed.) 1994. The taining to public collecting, and to inves­ Cultures of Collecting. Cambridge, Massachusetts: tigate how these concepts are formed and Harvard University Press 1994. where they stem from. Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean 1992. Museums and the Shaping ofKnowledge. London: Routledge 1992. Laitala, Susanna 1992. The Finnish National Translated by Philip Landon. 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. SUSANNA PETTERSSON

80 Ojanpera, Riitta (ed.) 1997. Henna and Pertti the Wihuri Foundation Collection.» Rovaniemi Niemisto Collection of Contemporaiy Art. Art Muse11111, jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation Hii111ee11li11na Art M11se11111. Forssa: Hameenlinna Collection 1993-1996. Ed. Susanna Pettersson. Art Museum 1997. Espoo: Rovaniemi Art Museum 1996, 14-17. Ojanpera, Riitta 1997. «The Art Collection of Pomian, Krzysztof 1994. «The Collection: Between Henna and Pertti Niemisto,» Henna and Pertti The Visible and The Invisible,» Interpreting Niemisto Collection of Contemporary Art. Objects and Collections. Ed. Susan M . Pearce. Hiimeenlinna Art Museum. Ed. Riina Ojanpera. London: Roucledge 1994, 160-174. Forssa: Hameenlinna Art Museum 1997, 12-22. Pomian, Krzysztof 1995. «L'arr vivant, les collec­ Paloposki, Hanna-Leena 1993. «The Early Years of tionneurs et les musees,» Passions Privees. The Finnish Art Society's Collection - Collections partimlieres d'art moderne et contempo­ Competing with The Lottery,» Ateneurn, The rain en France. Ed. Annie Perez. Paris: Paris­ Finnish National Gallery B11lletin 1993. Ed. Musees 1995, 31-38. Susanna Lairala. Helsinki: The Finnish National Poyhtari, Ari 1996. Keriiilystii kokoelmaan. Gallery 1993, 44-65. Sosiologisia ja filosojisia niikokulmia keriiilyyn. Pearce, Susan M. 1992. Museums, Objects and (From Collecting to Collection: Sociological and Collectiom. A C1dtu'.·al Study. Leicester: Leicester Philosophical Perspectives.) SoPhi. University Press 1992. Yhteiskuntatieteiden, valtio-opin ja filosojian jul­ Pearce, Susan M. (ed.) 1994. Interpreting Objects kaisuja 8. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla and Collections. London: Roucledge 1994. 1996. Pearce, Susan M . 1994. «Collecting reconsidered,» Rasanen, Desiree (ed.) 1986. Rovaniemen taidemu­ Interpreting Objects and Collections. Ed. Susan M. seo, Rovaniemi Art Museum. jenny ja Antti Pearce. London: Roucledge 1994, 193-204. Wihurin rahaston kokoelma, jenny and Antti Pearce, Susan M . 1995. On Collecting: An Wih11ri Foundation Collection 1986. Helsinki: Investigation into Collecting in the European Rovaniemi Art Museum. Tradition. London: Roucledge 1995. Sandstrom, Sven (ed.) 1970. Konsten i samhiil!et Peltola, Leena (ed.) 1992. Rovaniemen taidemuseo, (Art in Society). Lund: Sven Sandstrom och Rovaniemi Art Museum. jenny ja Antti Wihurin CWK Gleerups forlag 1970. rahaston kokoelma, jenny and Antti Wihuri Sariola, Helmiriitra (ed.) 1996. Uutta Atene11111issa Foundation Collection 1986-1992. Vantaa: 1993-1995, Nytt i Ateneum 1993-1995. Museet Rovaniemi Art Museum. forfinliindsk konst; nyforviirv och donationer 1993- Pettersson, Susanna 1991. «The History of the 1995 (New at the Ateneum 1993-1995. The Collections,» Ateneum. Ed. Marjatta Levan to. Museum of Finnish Art; Recent Acquisitions Espoo: The Finnish National Gallery I 991, 128- 1993-1995). Helsinki: Museet for finlandsk 132. konst Ateneum, Museum of Finnish Art, Pettersson, Susanna (ed .) 1996. Rovaniemen taide­ Ateneum 1996. museo, Rovaniemi Art Museum. jenny ja Antti Schulz, Eva 1994. «Notes on the history of collec­ Wihurin rahaston kokoelma, jenny and Antti ting and of museums,» Interpreting Objects and Wihuri Foundation Collection 1993-1996. Espoo: Collections. Ed. Susan M. Pearce. London: Rovaniemi Art Museum. Roucledge 1994, 175-187. Pettersson, Susanna 1996. «Art's North Star - The Sinisalo, Soili (ed.) 1993. Uutta Ateneumissa, Nytt i Public Image of the Rovaniemi Art Museum and Ateneum, New at the Atene11111 1991-1992. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE - ART COLLECTION IN FINLAND

Turku: The Museum of Finnish Art, Ateneum of Contemporary Art was placed at 1960. At the 81 1992. same time, it was argued that it should be possi­ Stewart, Susan 1994. «Objects of Desire,» ble to move the date forward as the need arose. Interpreting Objects and Collections. Ed. Susan M . This would mean transferring the older portions Pearce. London: Routledge 1994, 254-257. of the collection to the Museum of Finnish Art. Vehmas, Einari 1980. «Sara Hilden - A Collector 8. Recurring phrases about «filling in the gaps» and of International Modern Art,» Sara Hilden Art «major contemporary works» do not represent an A1weum. Ed. Timo Vuorikoski. Tampere: Sara adequate definition of acquisition policy. Hilden Art Museum 1980, 1-5. 9. See Poyhtari 1996, pp. 17-18. «A definition of Vuorikoski, Timo 1980. «Sara Hilden Art 'collecting' only has meaning if it facilitates a dis­ Museum,» Sara Hilden Art Museum. Ed. Timo tinction (even in specialist literature) against Vuorikoski. Tampere: Sara Hilden Art Museum stockpiling and hoarding - borderline phenome­ 1980, 9-20. na with which collecting is often confused.» Wittlin, Alma S. 1970. «Museet» (The Museum), 10. Numerous examples could be cited. For exam­ Komten i samhiillet (Art in Society). Ed. Sven ple, in 1993, the Museum of Finnish Art accep­ Sandstrom. Lund: Sven Sandstrom och CWK ted the so-called Eila Walli bequest, a collection Gleerups forlag 1970, 43-115. 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 poss­ ible future donors. After all, collectors identify NOTES strongly with their collections. See, for example, Baekeland 1994. I. Private taste falls into rwo distinct categories: (I) 12. Some donations do not even constitute collec­ the taste of the private collector, and (2) the per­ tions in the strict sense - the works may have sonal taste of a museum functionary or member simply accumulated instead of being deliberately of an acquisition committee. collected. In museological research, it is impor­ 2. See, for example, Poyhtari 1996, p. 100; Crimp tant to distinguish between purposely compiled 1995. Both these authors work from a so-called collections and other donations. Benjaminian premise. 13. See also Pettersson 1996. 3. Poyhtari 1996, p. 100. 14. See Baekeland 1994. 4. Poyhtari 1996, p. 97. 15. The museum acquired the collection on 11 5. Pearce 1995, p. 375. May 1990. The Museum of Contemporary Art 6. In this context, it would be interesting to analyse was founded in the autumn of the same year. «haymarket art» in relation to popular culture 16. Pearce 1995, p. 387. (e.g. Richard Shustermann and David Novitz). 17. If the collector wants to remain anonymous, 7. For example, when the collections of the keeping his collection out of view, the public Foundation of the Fine Arts Academy of Finland identity of the collection will not take form befo­ were nationalised in 1990, the works were divi­ re the collection comes into the public domain. ded between three museums. The chronological 18. Pearce 1995, p. 390. starting-point for the collection of the Museum 19. Baekeland 1994, p. 217. 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 col­ lection. 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 ofthe Finnish National Galle1y. She is preparing a postgraduate thesis at the University ofHelsin ki 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: [email protected]