In Museums We Trust

1
In Museums We Trust!

• Dr Elsa Vivant
• Urban Research Center
• London School of Economics
• 7th of June 2007

2
Context

• In France, most of studies on culture (and city)
  are focusing on public policies. A limited number
  are looking at underground cultures or
  subcultures. Almost nothing had been done about
  private cultural amenities and city development.
• Private investments into art and culture are
  rising, in both non profit and bankable cultural
  sectors. This is having an impact on city
  development, mostly by the creation (or
  extension) of cultural amenities. Moreover,
  cities are becoming a playground and a space for
  the power exhibition of cultural industries
  (Sassen, Roots, Hanningan 1998, Zukin, 1995)
• In 2005, François Pinault gave up the idea of
  placing his contemporary art foundation near
  Paris and moved it to Venice. This was very
  controversial. This example of a failure is very
  interesting because it leads to understand
  several issues about changes in the relationships
  between culture and cities.

3
Objectives of the research

• To understand why did the project fail? (in order
  to advise planner in the future)
• To analyse to what extent the private
  specificity of the project had an impact on the
  failure
• To reappraise the common expectation of the
  effect of art amenities in cities
• To enlarge the scope towards the understanding of
  the role of culture in contemporary society. For
  instance to parallel museums and cities
  development strategies
• To provide a wider understanding of the
  contemporary changes of the society through the
  analysis of the use of culture in city planning

4
Presentation outline

• The François Pinault Foundation case
• The making of a megacollector
• Few basics about the art world and megacollector
  power
• A private artistic place as a flagship for an
  urban project
• The project process
• Interpretations of a failure
• Epilogue
• Museums and culture as issues for strategic
  planning
• Changes in museums duties
• Museums as a tool for planning
• Changes in museums strategies

5
Who is François Pinault?

• Self-made businessman
• 3rd wealthiest in France and 34th in the world
  (Forbes, 2007)
• Worth 14.5billions (Forbes, 2007)
• Business based on
• Retailing (La Redoute, Fnac, Printemps)
• Luxury goods (Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent,
  wineries)
• Financial management (Artémis)
• medias (Le Point, le Monde)

6
Francois Pinault involvement in arts

• A genuine art lover
• His personal collection was started by his
  second wife. Then, it became his secret garden.
  First, he collected modern art, then contemporary
  art, especially abstraction.

7
Why do collectors collect?

• Look for social prestige and legitimacy
• Wish to join a happy few club. Because of prices,
  art market is a playground for the wealthiest
• Should love art and risk. Art could be a good
  investment, but it is generally not a speculative
  market (devaluation risk)
• Few mega collectors are very powerful on the
  market, due to the special relationships they
  have with galleries (objective collusion to rise
  up artists value by limiting the offer).

8
Francois Pinault involvement in arts

• Enlightened investor
• Owns Christies since 1998 (one of the two main
  auctions international firms)
• Has the best counsellors (first of all,
  Christies experts), ex minister of culture, ex
  directors of museums,.

9
The rise (or revival) of private involvement in
the art

• New legal and fiscal rules for private
  sponsorship and philanthropy
• artwork are not included in the tax base
• In 2003, new law to encourage the mecenat.
• simplify administration.
• 60 of tax cut
• New legal scheme for non profit foundation,
  especially the new corporate foundation
• 3 types of foundation. All need to be approved
  by the government. Not only about culture
• Corporate foundation should be financed by one
  firm and its employees. A way for firm to settle
  a real philanthropic policy and to communicate
  about it.
• Should implement a policy on a fix-term base

10
Francois Pinaults Foundation Project

• Wanted to show his collection (which used to be
  secret) throughout a large scale exhibition
  place.
• Planned to build a large scale museum in the
  frame of a large urban project

11
Boulogne Billancourt Urban Project

• more info on the citys website
  http//www.boulognebillancourt.fr and the
  planning authoritys website
• http//www.ileseguin-rivesdeseine.fr/

12
History of the place

• Since the late 19th century, Renaults factory
  plants, mostly on the island. Land is owned by
  Renault, which used to be a public company.
• Desindustrialised since 1992
• 74 ha of unused polluted land.
• In the richest Parisian suburb (near La Défense,
  Neuilly and the 16th district)
• Since 1992, the State and local authorities are
  seeking for a redevelopment project

13
Urban redevelopment project

• Mixed use planning ZAC (Comprehensive planning
  zone)
• housing (1/3 public housing), offices, public
  services, retailing, green spaces, public
  transport (tramway)
• Public private partnership SAEM (Société
  dAménagement déconomie mixte).
• Main stakeholders City of Boulogne Billancourt
  (64), Haut de Seine department council (10)
  Caisse des dépots et consignation (15), two
  private banks (5 each) Leaded by Jean Louis
  Subileau (Euralille)
• Costs 537millions euros
• planning costs new roads, depolution, new
  parks, public amenities, planning expertise, land
  purchase, new bridges)
• Benefits City of boulogne (131millions),
  developers participation (sale charge
  foncière)
• Time schedule end in 2015

14
The Seguin Island The Two Cultures Island

• Specific plan due to
• Location on the Seine River
• Historical symbol as a worker fortress
• Project
• Science University (NYU, AUP), Cancer national
  institute,
• Culture music centre, contemporary art centre
  (Fondation François Pinault, art galleries)

15
Francois Pinaults project

• 1/3 of the island
• 30 000m² building to host his collection
• (pseudo) architectural contest, awarded by Tadao
  Ando

16
Chronology
17
Projects specificities

• Project team
• Project manager no experience in large scale
  project management
• Communication Francois Pinaults personal
  assistant, no experience in this kind of project

18
Projects specificities

• Project team
• Advisors and counsellors
• Francois Pinault can afford the most affluent
  councillors, in both urban and art issues
  (Francois Barré, Jean-Jacques Aillagon, Philippe
  Vergne)
• Nevertheless, it seems he was surprised by the
  urban project process

19
Projects specificities

• Project team
• Advisors and counsellors
• Legal structure was never created
• The project was called the Francois Pinault
  Foundations Project, but the only structure
  that was planned was an association (but no
  created). Foundation rules were too constraining
  for him (should have a board of trustees). There
  are also constraints on art collections
  management
• The plan an association has to manage and to
  valorise Francois Pinaults collection. It should
  take place in a building owned by the Pinaults
  company (Artemis) (3 legal actors, but only 1man)

20
Projects specificities

• Project team
• Advisors and counsellors
• Legal structure was never created
• Estimated costs
• Construction 150 millions
• Management 5-6 millions /year
• The collection unknown

21
Projects specificities

• Project team
• Advisors and counsellors
• Legal structure was never created
• Estimated costs
• Fully funded by François Pinault himself almost
  no costs for the community

22
Expected impacts

• To attract other investors in the project, such
  as art galleries, 4 hotel
• It is considered as an engine and a catalyst for
  the project

23
Expected impacts

• To attract other investors in the project, such
  as art galleries, 4 hotel
• To be the symbol of urban renewal through
  architectural flagship

24
Expected impacts

• To attract other investors in the project, such
  as art galleries, 4 hotel
• To be the symbol of urban renewal through
  architectural flagship
• To attract visitors
• they expected around 1million/year

25
Expected impacts

• To attract other investors in the project, such
  as art galleries, 4 hotel
• To be the symbol of urban renewal through
  architectural flagship
• To attract visitors
• To support and to promote French artists

26
Expected impacts

• To attract other investors in the project, such
  as art galleries, 4 hotel
• To be the symbol of urban renewal through
  architectural flagship
• To attract visitors
• To support and to promote French artists
• To open up opportunities for new kind of
  public-private relationships in the art

27
Why he moved, he said

• 10th of May 2005 public letter in Le Monde Je
  renonce (www.lemonde.fr)
• Bureaucracy
• Unwillingness form the local (authorities,
  association)
• Time business mans schedule is not urban
  plannings schedule
• There is nothing nearby, my project is in a no
  mans land
• ? according to him, he is not responsible of the
  failure

28
Why he moved, others said

• Executive Life
• Councellors impact
• Heirs do not want to pay for their fathers
  mausoleum
• Frozen relationships between him and the mayor
• The French misunderstanding of private sector

29
Interpretations of a failure

• Do not believe on the excuse of time a building
  project in a polluted area where planning
  orientation are not yet defined should take time

30
Interpretations of a failure

• Weakness from the Francois Pinault Side
• No real legal structure, almost no team
• No museum or cultural project, only an
  architectural project, neither a list of the
  artworks
• Land was never purchased (only a promise) he
  always protect himself in order to escape the
  project, just before implementation!
• Weakness from the planners side
• A lot of expectations, but not safety net!
• No second scenario, in case of
• Weakness of a planner facing a private investor
  financing the whole non profit project, so
  potentially symbolic and attractive. Too
  conciliatory

31
Never trust a business man!

• Presented as a large scale non profit private
  project. Moreover, it was an individuals project
  
• one mans interests, one mans bank account,
  one mans decisions!
• Francois Pinault, even if he has the best
  advisors, does not listen to anyone. Only wants
  to follow his instinct and his vision as he used
  to do in business. But creating a new large scale
  art centre is not like attacking firms on the
  stock exchange!
• Has the best communication counsellor in Paris
  (Anne Méaux), and he is involved in medias. The
  city and the planner cannot compete in the
  communication war.
• Nobody had seen the collection before!

32
Trust as an inefficient project processing

• Everything based on trust
• Francois Pinaults willingness to realise his
  plans
• Planners skills and capacities to achieve the
  project.
• Thus, commitments were not strong enough. No
  control or regulation. In term of planning
  process lack of definitive involvements
  (possible because one mans interest). For
  instance, Francois Pinault has never buy any land
  (only a promise). When he changed his mind, no
  clear commitment that could be recover in a court
  (too uncertain).
• Above all
• Trust in museums impact on the urban project

33
Epilogue

• Did he really want to achieve it?
• It is impossible to say
• But just to compare, the size of the planned
  building is 30 000m², more or less as big as the
  Pompidou centre. Pinaults collection should not
  be more than 2000 piece of art, instead of the 60
  000 of the Pompidou centre. How could he occupied
  it?
• Moreover,

34
Whats happen to Francois Pinault

• Moved to Venice, Palazzo Grassi (2000m²).
• http//www.palazzograssi.it/
• He is fighting against Guggenheim Fondation to
  buy the Douane, in order to enlarge his museum

35
Whats happen to Francois Pinault

• Paid the cost of Boulogne Billancourt project by
  selling one piece of art to Moma (about 30
  million)
• Robert Rauschenberg, Rebus

36
Whats happen to Francois Pinault

• Was considered in 2006 as the most important
  actor in the art market (art review)
• To what extent did the Boulogne project, besides
  its failure, have an impact on his reputation?

37
Whats happen to the urban project?

• Stopped for a long while others investors
  hesitated or changed their mind
• In order to substitute the François Pinaults
  project, the State announced in 2005 the future
  opening of a Centre Européen de la Création
  Contemporaine
• Public investment instead of private
• Project was in stand by before election, but
  now, it will probably be implemented (due to its
  location in Sarkoland)
• What should be question now for whose sake
  this centre de creation contemporaine is going
  to be done?

38
Louis Vuittons project a response to Pinaults
given up

• For information about the project (and
  architectural project)
• http//www.lvmh.fr/magazine/pg_mag_contenu.asp?int
  _id497archive0rubriqueACTUALITEsrub0rubs
  tr_theme_id

39
A personal competition

• Who is Bernard Arnaud (head of LVMH)?
• 1st wealth in France, 7th in the world
• Polytechinicien, from a little bourgeoisie
  family
• As Francois Pinault, made a lot of money in the
  80s, during privatisation process
• Very attract by glamour and quickly moved to
  luxury goods (first Christian Dior). Then build
  the LVMH luxury empire. The Gucci affair started
  the war against François Pinault (even if it
  sounds anecdotic, this mythology of hate between
  the two is presented as something really
  important)
• Not an art lover (according to anyone in the art
  world), but he is becoming a megacollector in
  order to reinforce his social legitimacy and
  because his worst enemy is very important in the
  art world (François Pinault)
• One of the best friend of the newly elected
  president

40
Main specificities

• Corporate fondation (under creation)
• Architect Franck Gehry, without any competition,
  only because of his reputation
• Location the jardin dacclimatation, a part of
  the Bois de Boulogne those management is
  outsourced to Lvmh group.
• Land owned by the City of Paris, but leasehold
  to Lvmh
• The foundation will be leaded by Suzanne Pagé,
  former chief curator of the Pariss museum of
  modern art
• Size 5000m²

41
Changes in museums role

• Memory, conservation, heritage
• 19th century artists worked in museum
• visitors were allowed to come in only one or two
  days a week. Then the museum became a storage and
  conservation place and exhibition space
• Education
• Education became an important mission
• Cultural democratisation A goal for public
  policy
• But also a way to legitimize the increasings
  financial needs and to attract new fundraisors
• Urban amenity
• - urban attraction that should attract a large
  public
• - urban amenity that provide services
  catering, shops, .
• - social venue letting for private or
  corporate meeting, dating place

42
toward mass entertainment museums?
43
Museums as tool for planning

• To built or represent power (large scale
  exhibition, large bourgeoisies cultural spaces)
  (historically)
• To attract visitors (spend money, do not need
  many services)
• To impact on other economic sectors
• in the UK 1.5billion/year (taking account of
  estimated visitors expenditure) major museums
  employ 9000 people 42 millions visitor/years
• To change city image. (architecture radicalism as
  a brand logo and as way to play on international
  mental map)
• To offer good services (help to perform in
  international cities ranking)
• To increase local-pride
• To hide other local issues
• To encourage creative industries clustering

44
Risks and questions

• First-come effect Is it still relevant to use
  culture as a distinctive planning tool while
  every city has similar strategies?
• Is it possible to copy the same scheme in
  different contexts? (scheme of strategies that
  have been successful in one city). Could culture
  be the solution to every urban problem?
• Problem Non comment about failures, only about
  (few) success stories. Does not help to assess!
• Effects on land prices. May lead to
  gentrification (or is it one of the unsaid
  objective?)
• Pride It depends. Parisian examples Pompidou
  centre is still consider by some as a sin.
  National Library and Bastille opera general
  disagreement
• Do these strategies really support creation and
  artistic production or is it only consumption
  oriented?
• Museum, large amenities more visible than an
  local population oriented policy for education in
  art for example.
• Museum in planning project public good or money
  maker?

45
In Museums we trust!

• A reappraisal of museums effects on urban
  development has to be done. Indeed, the
  mediatisation of (very) few successful projects
  lead to spread
• a new interpretation of what is a museum and
  what are its objectives and purposes (from
  conservation to education from exhibition to
  consumption).
• a business-oriented development model of museum
  management (maximisation of collection by
  coproducing megacollection, fundraising,
  sponsorship, reorganisation of museums space
  toward more space for consuming activities)
• the use of museum for non-cultural purpose
  city-image making or individual representation,
  power legitimacy building.
• the consideration of museums as urban tools. For
  instance, the foundation Pinaults project was an
  engine for the Seguin Island urban project
  itself. Other stakeholders planned to come
  private art galleries, a 4stars hotel..
• The belief in museums magic power To what
  extend are there over-expectation on museums
  effect ? Indeed, museums should be an educator,
  a market place, an urban flagship and image, a
  fundraised machine, a diplomatic tool, .
• To what extend do these expectations lead to
  overpricing and over investment in large scale
  amenity?

46
Changes in museums strategies

• more market oriented and more business-model
  management strategy

47
Partnerships and coproduction

• The case of large touring mega exhibition
  coproduction (but also exchanges and loans)
• To share the cost of the exhibition. Several
  museums work together to create an large
  exhibition, share their resources (human, skills,
  space, and of course collection)
• To increase attractiveness of museum.
• To manage artworks storage issue
• Very large collections Louvre exhibit less than
  10 of its collection
• Specific conditions of the storage (temperature,
  humidity, size of the material, etc)
• Flood risk in Paris basement museums storage.
• To raise new incomes and new visitors

48
From the branded museum

• French museum toward public brands.
• The RNM (reunion des musees nationaux) was
  created to improve museums management and to
  organise common large scale exhibitions
• It is now developing branding strategies, for
  example by offering souvenirs or copies based on
  the RNM collections, with a common logo
• The same for Monum centre des monuments
  nationaux public joint management for several
  monuments
• http//www.museumbranding.co.uk
• to create an image by graphic design and
  storytelling
• The success of branding we dont see it anymore
  because they are everywhere!

49
To the franchised museum

• Guggenheim
• Several branches
• Spectacular architecture with worldwide famous
  signature
• Even some exhibitions are market-oriented
• Reaccessioning as a way of collection management

50
To the franchised museum

• Guggenheims
• 1959 New York (Franck Lloyd Wright)
• 1976 Venice (Peggy Guggenheim collection)
• 1992 Soho (closed in 2001)
• 1997 Bilbao (Franch Gehry)
• 1997 Berlin (joint venture with Deutche Bank)
• 2001 Las Vegas (Rem Khoolaas, in the Venetian
  Hotel, in partnership with Hermitage Museum)
• Soon Guadalajara (Mexico), Abu Dhabi (Emirates)
• Every city wants a Guggenheim!

51
Few facts about Guggenheim Bilbao

• The project
• Basque authorities project (not a foundations
  one)
• Part of a large regeneration project (with new
  transportation system, public space, ) those
  objectives are to switch from a decaying
  industrial economy to a post industrial economy
  where tourism and creative industry are driven
  the development. The museum supposed to attract
  visitors and change the citys image
• Construction costs supported by local authorities
  (almost 130millions )
• Basque government paid a 20years franchise use
  of the brand name, expertise (18millions)
• Not owned by the Guggenheim foundation
• 1/3 of the collection is own by the Guggenheim
  foundation, 2/3 was bought by local authorities
  (30millions)

52
Few facts about Guggenheim Bilbao

• The effects
• To change of city image yes. The image of the
  museum is used in advertising to symbolise
  modernity, challenging entrepreneurship,
  etc(what ever the product is (car, insurance))
• To attract visitors yes. The first year
  1.3millions visitors. Then around 700 000/year.
  The challenge to maintain this frequentation
• To develop tourism industries yes museums
  visitors stay overnight. The museum participates
  in job creation and economic development of the
  tourist sector.
• To generate income through taxes not as
  expected. According to local authorities, return
  on investment in 6 years (!) probably in 15
  years

53
Few facts about Guggenheim Bilbao

• Risks
• Lead to gentrification (through the rise of real
  estate prices)
• No real impact on the creation of an innovative
  milieu
• Who does really benefit of the public investment?
  Local inhabitants? Visitors? Basque region? Or
  the Guggenheim Foundation itself?
• It is copied worldwide without any reserve.
  Considered as a model and visited by many city
  planners and policy makers.
• Overestimation of number of visitors,
  overinvestment, negligectment of other part of
  the regeneration project, ...

54
French National museums franchises

• New French museums franchise strategies
  national and local government strategies, instead
  of museum strategies

Louvre-Lens
Pompidou Metz
55
Museums Island

• Objectives to face the petrol eras end,
  Emirates government is currently implementing
  anew strategic policy in order to transform the
  State economy to a tourism and leisure oriented
  economy
• He is building a wide urban project which
  consists in a new off shore island dedicated to
  arts, culture, tourism and leisure Saadiyat
  Island project (Island of happiness)
  www.saadiyat.ae or www.tdic.ae

56
Museums Island

• Several cultural institutions created by
  worldwide famous architects (objective 2018)
• Guggenheim (Franck Gehry)
• Louvre (Jean Nouvel)
• Maritime Museum (Tadao Ando)
• National Museum
• Performing art centre (Zaha Hadid)

57
Universal museum Louvre Abu Dhabi

• Agreement between Emirates and French governments
• www.culture.gouv.fr
• Involved all the musées de France collections
  and expertise that might be lease during the 30
  years contracts to the Abu Dhabi museum
• Universal museum mutual understanding between
  cultures
• 1 billiard euros over 30 years (not included
  construction costs)
• Objective 2012
• 24000m²
• Creation of the Agence internationale des
  musées de France (French public agency) that
  will provide museum expertise
• Over 10 first years of opening, Frances museums
  will loans artwork. At the same time, Agence
  provide expertise to Emirates to buy a create its
  own collection
• The largest cultural controversial of the year.
• But it should be also controversial on an urban
  point of view

58
Culture and museums as a branding tool

• More than a museums franchise strategy, the Abu
  Dhabi case reveals that museums are becoming a
  tool for national branding strategies it is a
  part of a new Frances branding strategy , mostly
  based on culture rapport Levy (As it used to be
  here, 10 years ago, when the UK was rebranding as
  Cool Britania)
• In Abu Dhabi, not only Louvre, but also Sorbonne
  (opened in 2006)
• It is also a part of a wider trade contract with
  Emirates.
• And a part of the diplomatic strategy in the
  middle east

59
What city for whose sake?

• Abu Dhabi projects effect people seem to
  realise what are the real purposes of the use of
  cultural amenities in urban project. By many
  critics, the Abu Dhabi Project, that the
  governemnt could probably not refuse, is
  considered as a prostitution of culture, as a
  non-return point of the consumerisation of
  culture.
• Culture alibi in order to avoid local
  resistance in urban regeneration processes.
• Culture a consensual function that stops local
  organisations reclaims. Uncontroversial, it
  legitimizes urban regeneration process, even if
  their social effects could be doubtful.
• The common interest for arts and culture of
  left-wings thinkers and urban activist as well,
  seems to blind them, to hide the dark side of the
  regeneration project, and to hind their
  opposition and reclaiming capacities.
• Even off cultural scene could be used by planners
  in order to make symbolic value of a place
• To what extend, on an urban planning point of
  view, cultural policies and the use of culture in
  urban regeneration project reveals the spread of
  the liberal thinking by attracting the wealthier
  people and by arguing that it would benefit to
  the whole community?

60
The limits of the leisure city

• Is it possible to plan a regeneration project
  without a cultural feature? Is there an
  alternative to culture ? Could planners imagine a
  no-culture urban project?
• this reveal the lack of imagination
• What are the effect of the marketing diktat in
  urban planning practices?
• Could a citys economic activity focus only on
  leisure?
• Is the entertainment city a sustainable city?
• If we consider that creativity matters, does
  large scale amenities really improve creative
  atmosphere and cultural production?
• Are these amenities efficient for cultural
  policies?
• What about cultural education ? Support to
  artists and cultural production ( intermittent
  du spectacle )

61
Is consumerisation of culture a no-return way?

• Does it mean we should not create cultural
  amenities any more?
• Does it mean that the embedment between culture
  and capital art and business is a non return
  process?
• NO
• We should just never forget that when planners
  and business are dealing with culture, this does
  not concert art and culture anymore.
• The use of culture in urban policies is changing
  it into a communication strategy of a settlement
  policy.
• Lets hope that political willingness still
  exist.
• Mac/Val in Vitry s/ Seine www.macval.fr
• Public
• Poor suburb
• Small scale (lower cost)
• Quite popular (local audience instead of Parisian
  one)
• Cultural democratisation (school group, low
  prices (while other Parisian contemporary museum
  are quite expensive)
• Not a planning tool. Even if we should not be
  genuine Vitry, as other suburb is changing (not
  really gentrifying)
• But mac val not easy access, not part of a
  planning project
• Political willingness of cultural democratisation
  and support to artist

62
References

• Baniotopoulou E. (2001) "Art for whose Sake?
  Modern Art Museums and their Role in Transforming
  Societies The Case of the Guggenheim Bilbao",
  Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies, n7,
  p.1-15.
• Dennison L. (2003) "From Museum to Museums The
  Evolution of the Guggenheim", Museum
  International, vol.55, n1, p.48-55.
• Hannigan J. (1998) Fantasy City Pleasure and
  Profit in the Postmodern Metropolis, London,
  Routledge.
• Keating M., de Frantz M. (2004) "Culture-led
  strategies for urban regeneration a comparative
  perspective on Bilbao", International Journal of
  Iberian Studies, vol.16, n3, p.187-194.
• Martel F. (2006) De la culture en Amérique,
  Gallimard, Paris.
• Moulin R. (1964) Un type de collectionneur le
  spéculateur, Revue Française de Sociologie, vol.
  5, n2, pp. 155-165.
• O'Hagan J., Harvey D. (2000) "Why Do Companies
  Sponsor Arts Events? Some Evidence and a Proposed
  Classification", Journal of Cultural Economics,
  vol.24, p.205-224.
• Plaza B. (2006) "The Return on Investment of the
  Guggenheim Museum Bilbao", International Journal
  of Urban and Regional Research, vol.30, n2,
  p.452-467.
• Poulot D. (2005) Musée et muséologie, Paris, La
  Découverte.
• Travers T. (2006) Museums and Galleries in
  Britain. Economics, social and creative impacts,
  London, LSE.
• Van Aalst I., Boogaarts I. (2002) "From Museum to
  Mass Entertainment The Evolution of the Role of
  Museums in Cities", European Urban and Regional
  Studies, vol.9, n3, p.195-209.
• Wu C.T. (2002) Privatising Culture. Corporate Art
  Intervention since the 1980s, London, Verso.
• Zukin S. (1991) Landscapes of Power. From Detroit
  to Disney World, Berkeley, University of
  California Press.