When art is placed in a museum it means the piece has been given a stamp of approval. It also means it is ok for us the viewers to look at it, study it, and judge it. I also believe that the artist is given a certain amount of respect for having a piece displayed, kind of like becoming a professional. In order for a piece to be selected it has to have some appeal, once it gains this appeal it becomes a commodity for museums to display. If an artist is already established and has a following it is going to benefit the museum by displaying this persons work, because it will attract more viewers. I think some works of art belong in a institution and nothing is gained or lost by displaying it in this why. On the other hand, some works can be enhanced and looked at in a completely different light when placed in a institution. For example, graffiti can be looked at as defacing personal property, a thug's way of gaining popularity, and just all types of negative perceptions. Now if you where to take that same graffiti piece off of that subway train and put it on a canvas frame it and display it in a institution it will be looked at in a completely different light. People who normally frown upon this type of art will be forced to look at it for what it is and not what they think it signifies. Graffiti being put in a museum is only something that would happen in the modern era. Museums today have a larger selection of art work; this is different from the museums in the past. Earlier museum tend to display all of the same types of art work. I think contemporary art in our museums should take things from our natural surrounds and implement them in the showcase. For example, a girl in my SA128 class did a painting of acorns with some text and hung it outside under a acorn tree. The whole time I was thinking her piece would be really interesting in a museum. Like if the tree was brought inside and it just hung from it.