When Art, Money and Ethics Collide
當藝術、金錢與道德衝突時
By Holland Cotter

For generations Americans tended to see art museums as alternatives to crass everyday life. Like libraries, they were for learning; like churches, for reflection.
幾個世代以來，美國人常將逛藝術博物館視為跳脫日常呆板生活的一種選擇。好比圖書館是用來學習，教堂是用來反省。

You went to them for a hit of Beauty and a lesson in “eternal values,” embodied in relics of the past donated by civic-minded angels.
你去那些博物館接受美的洗禮，上一門關於「永恆價值」的課，體現在由具公民意識的天使所捐贈、來自過去的古文物中。

You probably didn’t know – and most museums weren’t going to tell you – that many of those relics were stolen goods. Or that more than a few donor-angels were plutocrats trying to scrub their cash clean with art. Or that the values embodied in beautiful things were often, if closely examined, abhorrent.
你大概不知道－而且大多數博物館也不打算告訴你－那些古文物許多是偷來的。還有，頗多捐贈天使是試圖用藝術漂白手上現金的財閥。還有，假如仔細檢視，那些藏於美麗物品中的價值，其實令人反感。

Today, we’re more alert to these ethical flaws, as several recent protests against museums show, although we still have a habit of trusting our cultural institutions, museums and universities among them, to be basically right-thinking. At moments of political crisis and moral confusion we look to them to justify our trust.
今日，儘管我們仍然習慣性地相信文化機構基本上是正直的，包括博物館和大學，然而正如最近數起針對博物館而發動的抗議所顯示，我們對於前述道德瑕疵已更有警覺。在政治危機和道德混亂的時刻，我們期待這些機構證實自己無負於我們的信賴。

The 1960s was such a moment. At least early in that decade we had hopes that universities would take a principled stand on evils – war, racism – that were burning the country up. But when it became clear that our figurehead schools were, in fact, hard-wired into the machinery that fueled the conflict in Vietnam and perpetuated global apartheid, faith was shattered and has never really been restored.
1960年代正是這樣的時刻。至少在這10年間的初期，我們曾冀望各大學採取有原則的立場來面對邪惡－戰爭和種族歧視－那些正在摧毀這個國家的邪惡。但是當我們發現這些虛有其表的學校，事實上和激化越南衝突並使全球種族隔離永久化的體制有極深的關聯時，信念就此粉碎，而且從不曾真正恢復。

At present, we’re locked in another crisis, what might be called an internal American war – on the environment, on the poor, on difference, on truth. And it’s the turn of another cultural institution, the art museum, now popular in a way it has never been, to be the object of critical scrutiny.
現在，我們被卡在另一項危機中，或可稱為美國內部戰爭－關於環境、窮人、歧異和真相。這次輪到另一種文化機構，現正空前受歡迎的藝術博物館，成為嚴格檢視的目標。

Since early March, an activist collective called Decolonize This Place (DTP) has been bringing weekly protests to the Whitney Museum of American Art. Their immediate demand is the removal of a museum trustee, Warren Kanders, the owner of a company, Safariland, that produces military supplies, including a brand of tear gas that has reportedly been used at the U.S.-Mexico border.
自從三月初以來，稱作「將此地去殖民化」的社運團體每周都在惠特尼美國藝術博物館前抗議，他們的直接要求是將博物館董事華倫．坎德斯除名，他是沙法利蘭公司的老闆，這家公司製造軍用品，包括一個品牌的催淚瓦斯，據報導曾使用於美國和墨西哥邊界。

Another group, Prescription Addiction Intervention Now (PAIN), has, over the past year, staged disruptive events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, protesting the acceptance of gifts of art and money from branches of the Sackler family, longtime patrons who have been identified as producers of the addictive opioid OxyContin.
另一個團體「現在干預處方藥成癮」，過去一年來在大都會藝術博物館和所羅門．古根漢美術館舉行擾亂性活動，抗議館方接受來自賽克勒家族各分支機構的藝術品和金錢捐贈，這個長期贊助家族經查明為成癮性類鴉片止痛藥「疼始康定」的製造商。

Finally, long-existing art museum collections have been under a heightened ethical searchlight since the French president, Emmanuel Macron, proposed in 2018 that objects looted from Africa during an earlier colonial era be returned, on demand, to their places of origin – a project which, if ratified, could easily apply to a wide spectrum of Western and non-Western art.
最後，法國總統馬克宏2018年提議，將早期殖民時代自非洲掠奪的物品依要求歸還原屬地，從那一刻起，存在已久的藝術博物館館藏問題就處於更高度的道德檢視之下－這項計畫若能實現，將可輕易適用於許多西方與非西方的藝術品。

原文參照：
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/arts/design/museums-ethics.html

2019-06-02．聯合報．D4．紐約時報賞析．莊蕙嘉

說文解字看新聞 莊蕙嘉

本文從全球博物館的館藏爭議延伸，探討博物館的藝術品及運作經費來源可能產生的道德瑕疵。2010年，16個國家發表聯合聲明，要求掠奪或竊取文物的國家將之歸還，倫敦大英博物館是主要目標之一。

例如埃及和希臘分別要求歸還羅塞塔石碑（Rosetta Stone）和埃爾金石雕（Elgin Marbles），2018年則是智利要求歸還復活節島的摩埃（moai）石像。

博物館的道德爭議現今擴大到捐贈者背景，例如文中提到的沙法利蘭和賽克勒家族，分別以軍用品和類鴉片止痛藥致富，牽涉無證移民及藥物成癮問題。

他們捐贈的文物或金錢，可能是ill-gotten gains/unjust wealth（不義之財）。

類似的爭議也見於動物園道德問題（zoo ethics）。動物保護人士主張，動物園圈養動物是剝奪牠們的自由，僅為了娛樂人類。不過也有人認為，動物園模擬動物棲息環境，提供教育功能，更負起保育（conservation）大任，保護與繁殖瀕危物種。

Rooms With a View (and How Much You’ll Pay for Them)

有窗景的房（你會為此花多少錢）
By Caroline Biggs

Not all New York City views are created equal.
紐約市各種不同的景觀，並非生而平等。

Direct Central Park views may be the most valuable amenity in Manhattan real estate, but in a market filled with soaring new developments – some of which wind up blocking the views of other buildings – even a partial glimpse of a river, park or the city skyline can also command a hefty premium.
正對中央公園的景觀可能是曼哈坦房地產最有價值的設施，但是在不斷增高的新建案充斥的市場中－其中有些完工後遮住其他大樓的視野－即使只能瞥到河流、公園或城市天際線的一部分，也具有很高的附加價值。

To get a sense of how much people are willing to pay for the city’s most sought-after views, Jonathan Miller, president of the appraisal firm Miller Samuel, looked at several buildings that have stunning vistas and compared the sale prices of apartments with similar layouts in each building – those with views and those without.
為了了解人們願為這座城市最搶手的景觀花多少錢，鑑價公司「米勒．山謬」總裁強納森．米勒檢視數棟擁有極佳景觀的大樓，並將每棟大樓內有相似格局的公寓售價作比較－有景觀的和沒有景觀的。

New Yorkers, he discovered, are generally willing to pay 10 to 25% more for an apartment that allows them to wander over to the window and take in the sights – whether that’s a boat moving up the river or the rolling lawns of Central Park.
他發現，紐約客在買一戶公寓時，通常願意多付10％至25％，好讓他們可以閒晃到窗邊欣賞風景－不論是一艘小船溯河而上，或是中央公園內連綿的大草坪。

Miller calculated a rough percentage of an apartment’s value that could be attributed solely to the view by winnowing out the other surcharges that might affect a property’s value, like a floor-level premium, which Miller said ran “about 1% for every floor you go up.”
米勒濾除可能影響物件價值的其他附加費用，像是樓層加值，米勒說「每上升一層樓就增加約1%」，以此計算出一戶公寓純因景觀而增加的價值百分比。

He also found that two apartments of different sizes but with the same view command the same premium. “The dollar amount may differ, but the percentage of the property value associated with the view remains the same,” he said.
他也發現，兩戶面積不同但有相同景觀的公寓，增值程度相同。他說：「金額可能不同，但物件中有關景觀的價值百分比是一樣的。」

Miller’s research suggests that the most costly views are in buildings where there is no possibility of having those views obstructed – like a view of Central Park that can’t be lost because the building is right on the park. He also found that park-view premiums run higher than those for river views, but that expansive vistas of the city are valued just about the same as limited or narrow views of Central Park.
米勒的研究顯示，最昂貴的景觀宅大多數是視野不可能被遮蔽的大樓－像是中央公園的景觀不會不見，因為大樓就在公園旁。他也發現，公園景觀的加值效果比河流景觀要高，而若能以寬廣視野俯瞰這座城市，加值效果與有限或狹窄的公園景觀差不多。

“Even complete views above the 50th floor of a super-tall building are not guaranteed in this town, because the skyline is always changing,” Miller said. “Helicopter views can be partially interrupted by another super-tall building across the street.”
「即使是在一棟超高大樓的50樓以上擁有完整不受遮擋的景觀，在這座城市也沒人敢保證，因為天際線總是在改變。」米勒說。「鳥瞰景觀可能被另一棟對街的超高大樓遮去部分視野。」

原文參照：
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/realestate/rooms-with-a-view-and-how-much-youll-pay-for-them.html

2019-06-02．聯合報．D4．紐約時報賞析．莊蕙嘉