On sale, or better, to be insured?

VPj05zAYAkQMl3kWescSuAweC3xX5LzSV1oNwXTU5_M
photo by author

 

Between May 1 and June 8, Storefront for Art and Architecture puts itself on sale: this is of course part of an exhibition, which is about real and immaterial properties that are open to be purchased for monetary returns. It also offered the chance to Shut Up Storefront – literally, by purchasing the otherwise opening hours. 

This attempt reveals what is at play between higher financial players (private and institutional donors) and non-profit art/architecture institutions, but also the perceived added value of the institution itself (imagine a Storefront director’s chair being sold at USD 200, while the air in between panels at USD 1,000.)

Inspired by Storefront, here is another proposal for consideration: a non-profit institution is to offer the public shares of the insurance (be it for real property or fictional property) of the institution, i.e. the public is to donate (and potentially be the beneficiary of, if calculated out well,) the insurance of exhibition/office/public space/blogsphere/creativity/etc. to the institution.

One thought on “On sale, or better, to be insured?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s