2010/11/8 Tom Chance <t...@acrewoods.net>: > I can accept that MOMA in New York, the National Gallery in London, the > Reina Sofia in Madrid and the Louvre in Paris might be considered museums > with permanent exhibitions of art.
fine, then we agree, I didn't have this impression so far. > I agree that places whose primary purpose is to sell prints, paintings by > local artists and framing services should be marked as shop=art. Thin ice IMHO. You are saying that original art by "local artists" is on the same level then "framing services" and "prints" ? I don't agree (or only on an individual basis which makes it hard to give a good undisputed and unambiguous definition. > But there are many tens of thousands of art galleries that fit neither > definition. They exhibit contemporary art in temporary exhibitions, much of > which may be for sale but they are also for the exhibition of works of art. > Selling the art is NOT their primary purpose. OK, it might be true (or not) that selling is not their "primary purpose" (this is a philosophic discussion and AFAIK they are all businesses), and we might discuss this for ages without a conclusion. I can accept that there is a "thing" between a museum and an art shop, which we might call gallery and which sells all/most of the exposed works, but has x times more visitors not interested and/or capable of buying who come for personal interest in the art and see it as an exposition rather then a shop), but this distinction is not done by the name the location gives itself (there are museums that call themselfs "gallery" but will be culture=museum in OSM). We would be moving on thin ice anyway, see above. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
