Disinterestedness in the Creative Economy: The Case of the MO Museum in Vilnius

Abstract

This article examines the idea of disinterestedness using the case of a private MO museum. The philosophical idea of disinterestedness and its reflections in the creative economy are presented. The idea of disinterestedness is explored as a factor of sustainability in economics. The paradoxes as follows related to disinterestedness in general and to the analyzed case in particular are examined. Although disinterestedness covers detachment from any theoretical concepts, it is also an aesthetic concept. Although this is a futile activity from an economic point of view, disinterestedness helps to remain independent from economic fluctuations. Although the founders of the MO Museum do not expect financial benefits, they are characterized by economic thinking in order to balance the museum’s finances. Disinterestedness, although detached from any interests, includes social responsibility for the state of the art, the desire to enrich and educate society, the development of social connections and personal relationships, and the need for interesting activities. Business management requires a broader intention, but art also requires flexible management. This study is important because of the interdisciplinary approach and the aspects of social responsibility and sustainability in business. In addition, this research opens up a new perspective in connecting the idea of disinterestedness not only with the patronage of art but also with the needs of the business itself. The methods used in this article are as follows: analysis of philosophical literature on the topic of disinterestedness and aspects of disinterestedness in the creative economy, a case study that includes interviews with experts (museum founders and director), and their analysis and summarization. The main finding is as follows: disinterestedness in art management and the creative economy is an aspect of economic sustainability that allows both to expand the economic approach and to show its limits.

1. Introduction: The Creative Economy, Disinterestedness, and Sustainability

Recently, researchers have focused on various aspects of the creative economy, including creative industries [1,2,3], the creative class [4,5,6], creative city [7,8], creative work [9,10,11], and cultural economy [12,13,14].

Economic researchers examine the contribution of the creative sector to the national economy [15], the character of creative contracts [16], and the contribution of creative activities to regional development [5].

The creative economy is defined in two ways. Some scholars [15] define it in terms of economic sectors that include creative activities such as architecture, publishing, fashion, cinema, theater, performance, television, radio, software, games, toys, etc., otherwise known as creative industries. In this case, the problem arises as to which and how many sectors are considered creative. For example, there are different lists of creative industries produced by both scholars [15] and governments [17,18]. Other researchers [5] define the creative economy in terms of the creative people who serve it. Creative workers make up the creative class. A problem arises here—how to define the creative class [11]? If we define it too narrowly, we underestimate its influence; if we define it too broadly, we erase its boundaries.

The important parts of the creative economy are the sectors of both museums and tourism. The scholars examine different aspects of museums including memory [19,20], the role of a national-level agency [19], national-centric and other narratives [19,21], education of young people [20,22], management of museums [23], cultural heritage [23], and art and social (public) changes in general [20,22,23].

The issues of tourism and museums are inseparable. The scholars examine the problems of industrial spaces’ transformation into tourist spaces with museums [24], the museum mobility and the aspects of “social tourism” [25], the problems of over-tourism [26], the increased role of museums in the development of cities [27], and the economic role of museums in the urban economy [28].

On the one hand, the creative economy is a part of the national economy and is subject to its development principles. On the other, the creative economy is characterized by specific patterns of development. For example, Caves [16] talks about six principles of the creative economy: (1) “no one knows”, (2) “art for art’s sake”, (3) “potpourri”, (4) “unlimited variety “, (5) “A and B lists”, (6) “wise time”. If the other five principles have analogues when talking about the economy in general, the principle “art for art’s sake” is unique and specific only to the creative economy. This principle means that artists in the narrow sense and creative workers in the broad sense care about the contribution to the development of art, although this forces them to ignore both the possible demand for the creative product, and their own material well-being, as well the desire to become famous and thus get on the list A (principle 5). Moreover, this principle, which is rooted in the idea of economic (and other) disinterestedness, is what seems to destroy the economic attitude, which focuses on the increase of both private capital and the public material well-being. On the one hand, disinterestedness forces one to invest in art, that is, in something that is useless, at the same time it collects the much-needed welfare funds for society. On the other hand, it directs a part of the society to economically futile activities. In other words, disinterestedness is counterproductive to economic development. How to reconcile the idea of economic disinterestedness with sustainable economic development?

With these contradictions in mind, the main research question of this article is about creative disinterestedness as a factor of economic sustainability. Other questions under consideration are about the motives of patronage in general and the establishment of the museum in particular. In order to develop these questions, I use the case study of a private MO museum.

The methods used in this article are as follows: analysis of philosophical literature on the topic of disinterestedness and aspects of disinterestedness in the creative economy, a case study that includes interviews with experts (museum founders and director), and their analysis and summarization.

First, I examine the philosophical idea of disinterestedness ((1) Philosophical idea of disinterestedness), then, disinterestedness in the creative economy ((2) Disinterestedness in the creative economy), and finally, the case of the MO museum in Vilnius (the case of the MO museum). I conclude the article with discussions and conclusions.

2. Philosophical Idea of Disinterestedness

2.1. The Origins of the Idea

The idea of disinterestedness was put forward in the 18th century in Great Britain. Shaftesbury places it at the border of ethics, aesthetics, and religion. In aesthetics, as in ethics, the action is motivated by itself, without desiring the object to achieve its goals and without seeking to profit from it, that is, distancing itself from its economic plane. Analogously, we love God. Moreover, disinterestedness marks the “Copernican revolution in aesthetics” [29], when the experience of the beholder becomes far more important than beauty in itself. Everything connected with physical, economic, or even emotional motives and private interests is put aside. We will see later how this relates to phenomenological bracketing. However, this does not mean that our aesthetic response is completely independent of practical or theoretical interests [30], although Francis Hutcheson sought to distance it from any knowledge of the object so that it does not serve private interests [31]. According to Edmund Burke, when perceiving a beautiful object, attention must be focused on the perception itself [29]. According to Alison, disinterestedness emerges as an aesthetic attitude, as a focus on an object when one distances oneself from what is useful, acceptable, appropriate, or convenient in objects [29]. Thus, the disinterestedness raised by the British philosophers is associated not so much with the object itself, but with its contemplation.

2.2. Kant’s Idea

However, the most influential concept of aesthetic disinterestedness is Kant’s, who further develops the idea of British philosophers that judgment is not about the object, but about the beholder’s response to the object [32]. According to him, aesthetic judgment is incompatible with any interest in the contemplated object. An aesthetic judgement should be disinterested, i.e., “devoid of all interest” [32]. In British aesthetics, a difficulty emerges sharply as follows: if aesthetic judgment is distanced from the object of beauty, how is it justified as universally valid? Kant’s aesthetics is an attempt to overcome this difficulty with the means of his philosophical system (a priori synthetic judgements). The point is that the argument of agreement does not apply here, because agreements can be made on the basis of various interests, including economic gain, which is contradicted by a disinterested aesthetic view. So what do beholders who share awareness of beauty in the presence of an art work have in common? It is the fundamental constitution of abilities and their interactions in aesthetic judgment [33]. In other words, the beholder’s response is not an empirical, private interest, but rather a fundamental thing that indicates the relationship between abilities in the Gemüt (experiencing) [34]. On the other hand, an aesthetic judgement, unlike a theoretical one, does not depend on any concepts. The paradox is that disinterestedness is also an aesthetic concept. However, it helps to explain why aesthetic theories and concepts always lag behind the development of art. Beauty is not understood, but experienced as surprising, shocking, and unique. The aspect of disinterestedness is the arbitrariness of beauty in relation to aesthetic concepts, when beholders agree on an aesthetic judgement. Disinterestedness can therefore be called a metaconcept, i.e., a concept about concepts that are suspended or bracketed in the presence of an art work. We will see how this relates to the phenomenological attitude. The universality of disinterestedness is not due to the universality of the concept, but to the experience beyond concepts. Instead of perceiving the concept of beauty, Kant puts forward a harmonious interaction in the free play of cognitive abilities, i.e., imagination [32]. The free play of our imagination in experiencing beauty corresponds to the mobility of beauty in the cultural environment changes. Although an outstanding art work emerges from its creative environment, the principle of disinterestedness means that it must distance itself from it in order to shock and surprise by being unique, that is, by representing beauty that emerges anew.

2.3. Disinterestedness in Phenomenology

Let us now examine the aspects of aesthetic disinterestedness in phenomenology, the most famous representatives of which are Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. In a letter to Hofmannsthal, Husserl defines the phenomenological attitude and compares it with the aesthetic attitude. Both of them break away from the “natural” stand and direct us towards the totality of the surrounding world. According to Husserl, an art work pushes us into a purely aesthetic state, which excludes any (intellectual, psychological, or volitional) stand [35]. Thus, Husserl contrasts aesthetic intuition with attitude of mind [36]. Moreover, it is compared to the phenomenological method, which requires the elimination of the existential stand. Later, it enables Heidegger [37] to distinguish between existentiell and existential approaches. According to Husserl, I am not aesthetically (and phenomenologically) interested in effective reality [38].

Heidegger, appealing to Nietzsche and his (mis)interpreters, claims that the absence of interest opens up an essential relationship with the thing that emerges in front of it as a pure object, and this appearance is beautiful. The word “beautiful” itself means the radiance emerging in front. According to Lories [36], disinterestedness is not to be confused with a lack of interest, on the contrary, it takes into account what ordinary interests tend to overlook, namely the way in which things manifest, the way of self-sharing.

Other phenomenologists developed these ideas. Having the phenomenological attitude, I do not economize my power when I have to bring firewood to the mountain hut instead of the ones I burned while warming myself at night [39]. In the same way, I do not economize my time listening to birds chirping or admiring the morning dew [40]. Although, from an economic point of view, these are futile activities that distract from business, it is this distraction or disinterest that helps me remain independent from both economic booms and crises, i.e., it gives me resistance. Not only that, but it also brings fulfillment to living in an environment that we share with others. In this way, a layer of sustainability or ecology opens up, as we live in a common house or a world of coexistence (Mitsein), oikos, where we share beauty like bread [39]. All this happens beyond any economic interest.

3. Disinterestedness in the Creative Economy

As mentioned, there is a principle in the creative economy that contradicts the laws of economics. It is the principle of “art for art’s sake” [16], which denies any economic interest in the creative field. According to Bourdieu [41], this practice means an inversion of the basic principles of ordinary economics by rejecting the imperatives of both business (no pursuit of profit and no guarantee of monetary return), power (condemnation of honor and temporary glory), and institutionalized cultural power (lack of academic education can be considered a virtue). By inverting the rules of ordinary economy, the cultural field functions according to special laws and gives birth to a “a particular form of capital”. Being autonomous in this sense, the art field demonstrates its disinterestedness in the external economy. It “functions somewhat like a prism which refracts every external determination’’ [42]. Scholars [43] associate artistic disinterestedness with their autonomous role, free from commerce and academism. Scholars speak of disinterestedness in institutional museums [44] or even prestige [43]. Paradoxically, this independence of artists becomes attractive in the binding world of economic laws, which, without the indulgence of crises, requires an overload. To use Bourdieu’s terms, artists create symbolic capital that acquires ever-increasing value in an inflationary world of fast consumption. Bourdieu calls art dealers “merchants in the temple” who deceive artists by profiting from their disinterestedness [41].

Table 1. Forms of interest in different capitals.

Type of Capital	Forms of Interest	Sources
Financial capital	Profit, return on investment	[45,46]
Social capital	Community, safety, sustainability	[47,48,49]
Cultural capital	Institutional recognition, academism, honor	[42]
Creative capital	Prestige in the sector, recognition of colleagues	[5]
Symbolic (art) capital	Originality, outstandingness	[16,41]

shows some types of capital and their forms of interest. For example, financial capital is interested in the highest possible profit and the fastest possible return on investment, social capital increases communality, safety, and social sustainability, cultural capital is inseparable from the strengthening of cultural institutions (museums, galleries, theaters), creative capital takes into account prestige in its sector and the recognition of colleagues, and symbolic or art capital appeals to originality and outstandingness.

Table 1 shows that each type of capital has its own forms of interest. If so, can we talk about disinterestedness at all? Suppose symbolic (art) capital is not interested in profit or institutional recognition. Creative capital often ignores communality and academism. Cultural capital ignores the return on investment (museums or concert halls do not pay off). Social capital often suppresses creativity while also ignoring profits. Conversely, financial capital is often not interested in increasing symbolic, creative, or cultural capital, while social capital is important to it to the extent that it increases the security of the economic environment. Here the question arises—if the above-mentioned types of capital are incommensurable, i.e., not interested in others, is it possible to circulate different types of capital? Scholars examine the incompatibility of certain types of capital. For example, social capital is opposed to creative capital [5] and does not necessarily ensure economic well-being [48], and the breakthrough of symbolic (art) capital is not necessarily guaranteed by cultural capital [42]. By restricting, say, the circulation of financial capital, will we achieve better creative or symbolic (art) capital? A more general question—does the economic well-being of society ensure artistic creativity? Does and how does financial capacity presuppose creativity, if the latter is associated with economic disinterestedness? How does disinterestedness relate to sustainability?

The paradoxical interaction of different types of capital—attraction and repulsion—is evidenced by artist districts in the city, such as Montmartre in Paris, Soho in London, and Užupis in Vilnius. Artists tend to move away from financial, social, and even cultural capital in search of a place beyond economic interest to create symbolic (artistic) or at least creative capital here. However, by clustering here, artists create their own community, like the Republic of Užupis in Vilnius, and thus social capital. In addition, symbolic, creative and social capitals, without avoiding mutual contradictions, together with new tourist routes create cultural capital, which is characteristic of any museum, including one in open air. Ultimately, all this increases the attractiveness of the place so much that financial capital flows in. “Prestigious” apartment buildings start to spring up in the district and “elite” with its own rules and regulations settles. Finally, this financial and modified social capital completely displaces creative and symbolic capital. Then, artists start looking for an alternative place beyond this confluence of financial, social, and cultural capitals. On the one hand, this place is becoming too expensive for them. On the other, they do not want to be associated with the economic “interests” of such places.

4. The Case of the MO Museum

4.1. General Notes

The MO Museum is not the only private museum in Vilnius. Nevertheless, it is one of the largest art museums, with a collection of over 5000 works of modern Lithuanian art. The building was designed by the world famous architect Daniel Libeskind. The architectural idea is a “gateway”, i.e., a stepped cavity that cuts through the middle of the building and leads up to the terrace of the amphitheater. This is an allusion to the historical Trakai Gate, which had been in the city wall across the street since the beginning of the 16th century until 1804. The MO Museum is a gateway to the world of modern art, which already has its own history in the world and in Lithuania. Ipso facto, they open a new page of patronage in the history of Lithuanian museums, after Viktor Butkus and Danguolė Butkienė donated a new museum to the society, which has been functioning since October 2008. Almost five years after the museum opened, the main challenge is to ensure that the museum is self-sustaining.

Prof. Dr. Viktoras Butkus is a biotechnological scientist and entrepreneur who won the Lithuanian Science Prize (1994). From 1995–2008, he managed the company “Fermentas”, which in 2010 was sold to the US biotechnology giant “Thermo Fisher Scientific”. Currently, the company “Thermo Fisher Scientific Baltics” is the largest company in the Baltic States, almost doubling trading company “Vilniaus prekyba” in the second place [50] in terms of earned profit (EUR 405 millions in 2021).

Viktoras and Danguolė decided to invest a part of the funds received for the sold shares in a modern art collection, and later in a newly created museum. Viktoras calls this “outvestment”, emphasizing that it does not increase, but decreases financial capital. However, in this way, financial capital is transformed into cultural and symbolic capital.

The founding of the MO Museum was accompanied by various peripeteia. After sharing their idea with government and municipal leaders, patrons received both support and disturbances. The government granted the project the status of national importance. Then, the Vilnius Municipality was able to allocate it in a public land by the Neris River, next to the National Art Gallery and the planned international Guggenheim Museum, designed by Zaha Hadid. An architectural competition was even organized, which was won by Lithuanian architects. However, the winners of the competition were heavily criticized and other obstacles were put in place, seeing the competition for the future Guggenheim Museum, which was patronized by the then mayor of Vilnius (Interview with Viktor and Danguolė). In the end, another plot on Pylimo Street was chosen from the two alternatives. This plot was private, and the modern architecture cinema “Lietuva” built in the Soviet time stood on it. This cinema was intended to be demolished by its owners and replaced with buildings that would yield the highest financial return—apartment buildings or office rental buildings. However, this was actively opposed by members of the public, who held protests and urged the municipality to buy the building and plot in order to preserve the cinema. Viktoras Butkus, together with the owner of the cinema and plot, Mindaugas Marcinkevičius, connected with the trading company, “Vilniaus prekyba”, and founded a company that intended to balance Butkus’s interest in the museum and Marcinkevičius’s interest in the greatest possible financial return. So, a building was planned that would accommodate both a museum and an office building under one roof. However, it turned out that these are incompatible interests for several reasons. First, flows of people with different intentions would have to share the same first floor (Interview with Viktor and Danguolė). Second, such a hybrid would hardly have reduced public protests. On the contrary, it might even have fueled conspiracy theories. Third, the financial return would be questionable considering the small plot and limited height. So the “either... or” question emerged. Realizing his mistake, Butkus offered his partner a divorce by buying out one or the other of the partner’s shares (Interview with Victor and Danguolė). Butkus’s interest prevailed, or rather his lack of interest in financial returns. Marcinkevičius’ attention to other matters, namely legal disputes with former partners in the company “Vilniaus prekyba” probably contributed to this.

4.2. MO Museum Case Study

Methodological notes. In my research, I follow the methodological guidelines of McCombes [51] and Yin [52]. According to Yin [52], case analysis involves an in-depth analysis of a separate holistic case. According to McCombes [51], a case study is a detailed analysis of a specific entity such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. In our case, it is the case of a private museum as a participant in the field of art and culture, which is inseparable from the economic sphere. In our case, we are dealing with an interdisciplinary study that includes sociology, philosophy, economics, and communication. The design of this case study includes interviews with experts and their analysis. This case study helps to describe, compare, evaluate, and understand the phenomenon of disinterestedness in art management. Studying the case of the MO museum in Vilnius aims to develop the research question about cultural disinterestedness as a factor of economic sustainability.

Data collection and participants. The data was collected from 3 experts: from the founders of the MO Museum Danguolė Butkienė (hereinafter—Danguolė) and Viktoras Butkus (hereinafter—Viktoras), and the director of the MO Museum Milda Ivanauskienė (hereinafter—Milda). Data on the participants are presented in

Table 2. Characterization of participants.

Position	Gender	Duration of the Interview	Type	Place	Time
Founder	female	1 h 30 min	face to face	MO Museum, founders’ office	17/03/2023
Founder	male	1 h 15 min	face to face	MO Museum, founders’ office	17/03/2023
Director	female	1 h 20 min	face to face	MO museum, reading room	21/03/2023

. Initially, it was intended to be limited to a conversation with the founders. However, when communicating with one of the founders (Viktor Butkus), he offered to interview the director of the museum instead of himself and his wife. As a result, an interview with the director was arranged. However, after that, I got the consent of the founders. All participants were interviewed openly, indicating the purpose of the interview (scientific article) and the topic of the article being written (disinterestedness).

Interview topics. The interview examined the circumstances of the establishment of the MO museum (all participants), the interest of the establishment (founders), the contents of the museum collection (director), the museum’s activities (director), aspects of sustainability (all participants), the museum’s goals and mission (all participants), the museum’s funding sources and financial balance (all participants), motives of artistic creation (director), etc.

Interview analysis. Although the main issue was disinterestedness in establishing a museum, in the interviews we examined other issues inseparable from it, including the circumstances of going out of business, intentions of establishing a museum, interests beyond business, scholar and collector activities, and art management issues. Below, I present the most important thoughts of the respondents, grouped according to the mentioned topics, their analysis, and generalization.

Disinterestedness. Viktoras emphasizes that “the museum is a completely non-commercial project for which money is not counted”. Danguolė remembers: “we naively jumped on this train without realizing all the difficulties of this process”. According to Danguolė, everything is “done for the benefit of the museum”, although “the museum seemed like a stupid thing”. Milda observes: “to survive is one of the museum’s challenges.” According to Milda, Viktoras and Danguolė “had the strength and motivation to start the whole thing and develop it.” The founders had no intentions of publicity. On the contrary, Butkus refused a filmed interview and agreed to be interviewed only after repeated requests. By the way, the founders allocate the necessary funds to supplement the collection every year without expecting any financial return. Thus, the founders did not seek financial returns from the museum from the very beginning. They call this activity naive and stupid, emphasizing their disinterestedness in financial gain, self-promotion, and “love of art.” However, the founders are characterized by economic thinking; they emphasize that the financial balance must be ensured, which means that the possible losses of the museum must be covered from other activities. Milda emphasizes the enthusiasm and charisma of the founders.

Going out of business. When asked if Viktoras does not regret the fact that he is no longer in the whirlwind of business events, he answered that not at all. He added: “If I hadn’t done what I did, it wouldn’t be this whirlwind of events; so I had to leave to bring great forces, great resources and great opportunities into that company.’’ His answer speaks to his attitude towards business; it is not only about starting a company and making it successful, it is also about finding investors and then going out of business. The going out is motivated not only by the benefit to the company, but also by the prospects for new activities.

Intentions of establishing the museum. According to Viktoras, “we started with a clear goal and program of what we want to do; it was not love of art.” Viktoras draws attention to the poor state of the art market in Lithuania before the museum was founded: “[during the Soviet time,] some of the art that did not conformed to the Soviet canon was put on the shelves, and there was no art market at all at that time; [after declaring the independence in 1990,] the system of support for the purchase of works completely collapsed”. Viktoras’ important intention is to “to see the originals in Lithuania in twenty years”. In a surprising way, business led him to an interest in art museums for two reasons. First, he was forced to travel a lot on business. Secondly, “after negotiations and a hard day’s work, it’s good to rest in modern art museums.” Viktoras asked himself: “why can’t this be the case in Lithuania?” According to Viktoras, “a good museum must show that there is a lot of good art in the country”. Also, an important founding intention was the desire to “do something” after leaving the business and “have a joint activity so that [we, husbands] can maintain a relationship” (Viktoras). Danguolė also talks about the desire to “do something”. Otherwise, Viktoras calls it a desire to “fill that huge gaping hole.” Danguolė also mentions the image of the hole, mentioning that Lithuanian modern art was not exhibited. In addition, an important intention is “interesting activities” and meetings with “interesting people” (Viktoras). Danguolė speaks similarly: “interest, new experiences and new opportunities” forced them to do it. Milda equally states that “everything is interesting to me”. For Danguolė, it is also important that “ordinary people approach art, that there is a lower barrier, that the relationship is more democratic.” According to Danguolė, “we tried to make it possible for everyone not to be afraid to come to the museum”. Milda bases her motives for getting involved in the activities of the museum on the fact that “something new and interesting is being created”. In addition, she also mentions the importance of “dialogue with society, a way for all of us together to know, reflect and grow with society, from children to adults.” Paradoxically, the difficulties in establishing a museum forced to “fight for our affair” (Viktoras). Milda mentions that the founders wanted to “give back something to society after they successfully sold the business”. According to her, “it is important to nurture the community so that the museum becomes a rallying and gathering place.” Milda emphasizes the “cooperation between culture and education”, the development of “democratic culture”, the museum’s “role in our social life”, so that it becomes a “place of reflection”. Milda emphasizes the authority of the founders, their suggestive vision and inspirational mission. One of the reasons for establishing the museum is to build a home for the collection that “didn’t fit anywhere anymore” (Viktoras). In summary, the founders appeal to social responsibility for the state of art, the desire to give something to society, the development of social ties, personal mutual relations, and the need for interesting activities. Milda also mentions social and communicative needs and educational motives.

Interest beyond business. Viktoras talks about the uncertainty; he says that he did not really understand what was coming. Danguolė defines the interest of the founders as “curiosity and self-expression”. Viktoras confesses that he was involved in the community of artists, after the founders started visiting them. He expresses his satisfaction with this activity. Milda talks about a meaningful purpose. According to Milda, “education and democracy are impossible without a certain culture and the ability to discuss, enter into dialogue; we must nurture the polyphony of opinions, together with the integration of minorities and different opinions”. Interest beyond business thus includes two aspects. On the one hand, this is the wide horizon of an entrepreneur and his interest in art. This not only did not hinder the development of the business, but gave him the ambition to internationalize the business. Paradoxically, interest outside the business is useful for the business itself. On the other hand, this is the perspective of a new activity that paved the way for the establishment of the museum. At the same time, the entrepreneur’s broad interests include social areas such as education, better communication through the arts, and the development of democracy.

Science. The topic of science emerges in two ways. On the one hand, it was mentioned as an important activity of Viktoras, in which scientific and business interests were intertwined. On the other, science was mentioned as an (disinterested) activity analogous to art, the motives of which are not so much money, but the recognition of colleagues or benefit to society. According to Viktoras, “prestige is important in science”, as evidenced by articles in significant scientific journals. Viktoras says: “we have discovered interesting things in science”. Thus, curiosity and social engagement are what unites science and art management. Paradoxically, scientific interests were the source and driving force of Viktoras’ business.

Collection. This is an important topic because collecting works of art is the origin of the museum. When asked if the founders intended to resell the purchased works of art, Viktoras categorically denied it (“there was not even a thought”). According to Danguolė, “we started buying because it is beautiful, interesting”. In addition, it was a kind of support for artists who “were unhappy <...> and angry about <...> small money”. Danguolė assigns a “global, strategic” dimension to the collection to “do something together”. From the conversation with the founders, it became clear that at first it was intended to collect a complete collection and hand it over to the museum, but later it was decided to fill it continuously, awarding the necessary funds every year. When asked about the content of the collection, Danguolė answers: “we found such a theoretical basis that it is the period of life of those, like us, born after the war.” According to Milda, “the mission is to accumulate our heritage”. Thus, the topic of the collection again raises the need for broader (not only narrow economic) thinking and social activity (doing together). It also includes the need to support a special social group (artists).

Art management. Viktoras describes his activity as art management. According to him, “if there is no good management, there is no good art”. According to Danguolė, Viktoras looks at life as a management project. In addition, Danguolė emphasizes Viktoras’ courage. We also talked about courage with the director, who exchanged her career as a lawyer for activities in the field of art management. This topic paradoxically covers two things. First, it is management’s broader intentions, describing it as both art management and life management. Second, good art requires good management. The latter is associated not only with flexible (not strong) control, but also with support for artists. In addition, an important management principle is courage, which guarantees both a broader approach and flexibility in changing activities.

5. Discussions

Placement of research among other researches. This study develops the relevant issues of museum and tourism studies, such as the aspects of memory and national narratives [19,20], the role of cultural institutions [19], education of young people [20,22], management of museums [23], urban and social changes in general [20,22,23,27], transformation of urban places [24], and sustainable aspects of museums [53]. However, this research combines the mentioned issues with the idea of disinterestedness that is not exclusively theoretical and philosophical. By the way, this idea was not only developed, but also criticized as an aesthetic dogma [54]. However, the idea has an applied aspect. Based on this idea, scholars have sought to explain various artistic phenomena, including artists’ low interest in earning and publicity in the United States [43]. Based on this idea, scientists [55] have addressed difficult ethical and ecological issues when the interests of conservation and recreation collide. This research opens up a new perspective in connecting the idea of disinterestedness not only with the patronage of art, but also with the needs of the business itself.

Limitations of the study. A single case study always has limitations, as other cases can be found that illustrate opposing concepts. Moreover, disinterestedness is rather an exception in a modern society permeated by economic interests. Disinterestedness is an important aspect of patronage, but it can also be motivated by economic interest, for example, to build reputation or gain publicity.

Further research. Further research can be developed in two directions. First, other cases or aspects can be considered to illustrate the idea of disinterestedness. Secondly, it is possible to examine various cases illustrating the social development of a region (Eastern and Central Europe) or a city (Vilnius), including the establishment of art museums. I would prefer the latter direction to study the most diverse phenomena in a quickly changing region.

6. Conclusions

The idea of disinterestedness reveals several paradoxes. This idea, raised in the 18th century, describes an action that is motivated without seeking to profit from it, that is, distancing itself from its economic plane. The disinterestedness of the British philosophers refers not so much to the work of art as to its contemplation. According to Kant, an aesthetic judgment has no interest. An aesthetic, unlike theoretical, solution does not depend on any concepts. The first paradox is that disinterestedness is also an aesthetic concept. The aspect of disinterestedness is the arbitrariness of beauty in relation to aesthetic concepts, with beholders agreeing on an aesthetic decision. Disinterestedness can be called a metaconcept, or a concept about concepts that are suspended in the presence of art work. Husserl opposes aesthetic intuition to attitude of mind and associates it with imagination. According to Heidegger, the absence of interest opens up an essential relationship with the thing that emerges in front of it as a pure object, and this appearance is beautiful. The second paradox is as follows. Although from an economic point of view this is a futile activity, it is disinterestedness that helps to remain independent from economic fluctuations. In the creative economy, the principle of “art for art’s sake” negates any economic interest in the field of creativity. According to Bourdieu, by inverting the rules of the ordinary economy, the cultural field functions according to special laws and gives birth to “a particular form of capital”. Scientists attribute artists’ disinterestedness to their autonomous role, free from commercialism and academicism. The third paradox is as follows. This independence of artists becomes attractive in the binding world of economic laws, which requires overload. Artists tend to avoid financial, social, and even cultural capital in search of a place beyond economic interest to create symbolic (artistic) or at least creative capital here. The idea of disinterestedness is illustrated by the case of the MO Museum in Vilnius. Its founders did not seek financial returns from the museum from the very beginning. They reject both financial gain, self-promotion, and “love of art.” The fourth paradox is as follows. The founders are characterized by economic thinking; they emphasize that the financial balance must be ensured, which means that the possible losses of the museum must be covered from other activities. The fifth paradox is as follows. The museum’s founder’s broad approach led to both the success of his business and going out from the business. The sixth paradox is as follows. Disinterestedness includes social responsibility for the state of art, the desire to give something to society and educate it, the development of social ties and personal relationships, and the need for interesting activities. According to the seventh paradox, interest beyond the business is beneficial to the business itself. Finally, we can talk about the eighth paradox of management. Business management needs a broader intention, but art also needs flexible management. Thus, disinterest in art management and creative economy is an aspect of economic sustainability that allows both to expand the economic approach and to show its limits. This study has some international implications. On the one hand, the project of the MO museum was impossible without the global business that bought a national company and the biggest collection of national modern art being attractive to foreign tourists. On the other hand, the research develops issues relevant to museum and tourism studies by combining them with the idea of disinterestedness. This approach opens the perspective of both responsible business and art philanthropy.