I was fortunate enough to visit The Kirkland Museum in Denver over the holidays, yet the experience has left me with a few nagging questions.

The salon-style Kirkland contains impressive collections of both fine art and decorative art.

Of course, I’m assuming, the fine art pieces are all one-of-a-kind originals.

The decorative art works, however, include mass produced furniture and other household items, which has left me wondering why they qualify for museum status.

They’re all what we laypeople would term mid-century modern, which may be reason enough to revere such items as gaudy telephones and awkward furniture.

I realize many of the pieces were created by artists, designers, and architects, and that in itself gives them a certain credibility.

However, I’m still left wondering why some mass produced items are deemed worthy of being exhibited, while others aren’t considered good enough to hang in my humble home.

If I go to anyone of the local art festivals we have here in Rochester, and bought an original piece by an artist of some talent, that would be acceptable among those in the know.

If, however, I had a copy of the Mona Lisa over the mantle, my friends would consider that kitsch. If I shelled out real money for a good copy of said masterpiece, they’d think me pretentious.

So I ask, why can’t we have copies of art in our lives?

My friends and family all expect me to have copies of Shakespeare in my personal library. They think nothing of my owning copies of The Beatles, Balanchine, and George Lucas.

Yet, if I have copies of Currier & Ives, Norman Rockwell, and Thomas Kincaid–and display them as art–that would be considered tacky.

So, again, I wonder why we can’t seriously own copies of painted, drawn, and sculpted art.

I’ve got a few theories, but I’ll leave them for now.

Happy Collecting, Everyone, whatever it is you enjoy.

Patti
The Committed Collector

© 2020 The Collectors of Western New York. Inc.
All rights reserved.