Cambridge gallery lends art to students 'with none damaged' in 60 years

UC Berkeley also has a similar program, FYI

I think it has to do with reputation and the cost of entry.

I use to play on a minecraft server that had a griefer trap right at spawn. The server automatically monitored any attempts to grief and auto banned griefers while sending a server wide announcement.

When the server was wide open and anyone could join, the ban notice would spill out so fast we had to get an admin to silence it.

When we swapped to a whitelist that required a person to submit an application and wait to be approved, messages were rare. Only one or two a week.

When we swapped to invite only, we never had the message go off. Not once from what I remember.

As we swapped between the three states (in an attempt to maintain a certain server population level), the pattern was kept up.

The lower the cost to get in, the more people who violated trust. The higher the price, the less people who violated trust. When personal reputation was on the line, no one violated trust.

Our library in does the same. The Graphotek only charges a small fee of €2.50 per painting. http://www1.stuttgart.de/stadtbibliothek/bvs/actions/profile...

It is clearly the qualities of the participants that allows this to work out at such a wild unsecured risk. The group and individual personal characteristics of the participant cohort make up the dark matter of why this system can function without disaster.

I know that goes against what people want to believe that we are all the same, but fact of the matter is that most people are in fact not at all the same outside of a confirmation bias bubble that people often are not even aware they are in. Exhibit A are the several liberals that have been slaughtered while proving that muslims are not violent by hitchhiking or hiking through muslim lands.

It is easy enough of a thing to test and prove, even without putting the actual art at risk. You could just reproduce fake art and provide it to various different groups of people, including at various costs, to see what happens. It would surely show either that we are actually all the same, or that we are not all the same. Cue the subsequent rationalization and excuse making when the results contradict the cult doctrine.

I find that an extremely interesting study. The more screaming and preemptive hedging and excuse making you encounter, the more you know you will find heretical results.

I find this position rather irreconcilable. If you don't want the collectors not to hoard your poop, then don't produce it and especially don't sell it to them.

Why would you have this mentality?

If you don't want people to support your work with their patronage and appreciate your work as the "hoard" it on display in their house, why sell it at all and not just donate it and produce it for free?

No one is stopping you from creating art for these types of programs to rent out art. Why not start a public version of that and stock it up so that everyone can just get low cost art for their homes that you produce for free … of course to avoid people from hoarding it.