Barbara Franco addresses the inevitable change of museums. From policy to education, she highlights the current trend in public service and the shift from expertise to communication and exploration. However, it is noted that amongst this social relevance and responsiveness to community needs and visitor participation, there still remains a worthwhile definition: Museums both preserve and transmit culture, thus also setting and maintaining cultural standards. Museum policy and mission statements often, "reflect similar tensions that are expressed in variety of juxtapositions" (Franco, p. 9). She further describes it as, "inside versus outside; warehouse of valuable objects versus educational institution; professionalism versus community involvement; formal versus informal; expert role versus public service."
With the significant yet authoritative history of museums and their role in society, I am fully aware of this duality and it's challenges. However, why does one 'side' have to be so distinct from the other? Formal versus informal - the polarity she describes seems constructed and imposing. For instance, how and why would community involvement be in opposition to professionalism? It seems rather condescending. This approach defines museums as the colonizer, with the notion that differences continue to exists and communities can conform to such policies. The non-museum-going-public is treated and marginalized as "the other." "Outside, inside" she says! I'm thinking, oh, come on!
Museum policy needs to under go more than just programmatic additions, inclusive verbatim in their mission statement, and diversifying visitorship. They need complete redefinition and reformation. There shouldn't be competing goals and their shouldn't be any duality in a museum or program's mission (such juxtaposition would contradict and limit the museums goals!)Change the system or everything else is just useless sprinkles of water. Among "a warehouse of valuable objects" there is community-based exhibit here, an outreach project there, a bilingual signage here. Yes those are a great start but those are little tidbits of water - Nothing will grow. Especially in this sonoran desert heat!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Discussion: Museum Ettiquette #@^%!
In class today there was a dialogue about the museum environment and the excessive rules that often make us feel uncomfortable and even irritated at times, bringing to light issues of exclusivity/exclusivity and the #@^%! characteristics of elite institutions.
Stories were flooding the room:
"At the Louvre I couldn't even sketch with a pencil!"
"I was trying to text my friend, and the guard was yelling at me!"
"The exorbitant entry prices are ridiculous"
As each person shared, the layer of museum-stigma grew. The first thing that came to mind was shit. Yes, just plain, brown shit. While working for a children's museum in SF, a child shat on one of our exhibits. I'm not shitting you. Seriously.
So I raised the point that although feeling uncomfortable is not a good thing, the responsibility of museum etiquette and values lies in both the institution and the public. It's up to the educators, parents, and chaperones to communicate the value and preservation efforts of museum objects. It is a privilege to experience an artifact that is thousands of years old! Similiar to the social etiquette we expect in restaurants, the same should be for museums. We spend hours aesthetically perfecting our Pez Collection exhibit, and get annoyed when someone messes with it, why wouldn't it make sense not to mess with someone else's exhibition?
Corianna responded saying that it was an unfair analogy, that restaurants are private institutions and museums should be public ones.
She brought up a great point. Her response reminded me that we are not a socialist society and it is the systems and policies above that need more questions. YES museums should be public institutions, but they are not. We DO rely on private funders, we DO have to wine and dine them, we DO have to sell the value of public institutions...
Furthermore, Matt raised a good point about how objects in museum are often assumed to be priceless, such that a painting could be millions of dollars, a value that the general audience is not able to empathize or interpret in relationship to the value of objects in their own lives!
Respecting and understanding the value of an object - (someone else's object?) is a whole other discussion about personal and social values.
But not to forget, knowledge and discourse surrounding these issues are pertinent to our roles in the field, equipping us to work towards changing policies, diversifying the museum audience and maybe, just possibly, getting rid of #@^%!
Stories were flooding the room:
"At the Louvre I couldn't even sketch with a pencil!"
"I was trying to text my friend, and the guard was yelling at me!"
"The exorbitant entry prices are ridiculous"
As each person shared, the layer of museum-stigma grew. The first thing that came to mind was shit. Yes, just plain, brown shit. While working for a children's museum in SF, a child shat on one of our exhibits. I'm not shitting you. Seriously.
So I raised the point that although feeling uncomfortable is not a good thing, the responsibility of museum etiquette and values lies in both the institution and the public. It's up to the educators, parents, and chaperones to communicate the value and preservation efforts of museum objects. It is a privilege to experience an artifact that is thousands of years old! Similiar to the social etiquette we expect in restaurants, the same should be for museums. We spend hours aesthetically perfecting our Pez Collection exhibit, and get annoyed when someone messes with it, why wouldn't it make sense not to mess with someone else's exhibition?
Corianna responded saying that it was an unfair analogy, that restaurants are private institutions and museums should be public ones.
She brought up a great point. Her response reminded me that we are not a socialist society and it is the systems and policies above that need more questions. YES museums should be public institutions, but they are not. We DO rely on private funders, we DO have to wine and dine them, we DO have to sell the value of public institutions...
Furthermore, Matt raised a good point about how objects in museum are often assumed to be priceless, such that a painting could be millions of dollars, a value that the general audience is not able to empathize or interpret in relationship to the value of objects in their own lives!
Respecting and understanding the value of an object - (someone else's object?) is a whole other discussion about personal and social values.
But not to forget, knowledge and discourse surrounding these issues are pertinent to our roles in the field, equipping us to work towards changing policies, diversifying the museum audience and maybe, just possibly, getting rid of #@^%!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
the creative-culture-knowledge divide
The creative economy refers to the fields that hold 25-30% of employment in highly developed nations. It refers to the industries ranging from publishing and engineering to research and development. What they all have in common is they are driven by ideas and creativity. Even a dude as well as another dude wrote a whole book about it. Now what's the big deal?
Well, they are pretty posh jobs for pretty posh people attracted to pretty posh cities. In Lord's The Manual of Museum Learning, museums can be seen "as a talent magnet for the creative economy" and attract audiences/visitors from that similar pool. After reading that, I kinda wanted to barf. I had a horrible flashback of a guard yelling at me because I thought Maya Lin's Systematic Landscapes was interactive. But sticking to my new years resolution of not barfing (okay, it was more about being patient) I continued reading and was delighted with this:
Cheesy, I know, but relevant to this discussion! We are so quick to be aware and adamant against the 'technological divide' we forget that there's an even greater disconnect - a creative-culture-knowledge divide between generations, communities, and social groups as museum experiences continue to target specific audiences and remain in cities that cost a million dollars to live in. Even the very people (community of origin; Lord, p. 15) that the museum artifacts come from, people directly related to the objects on display are rarely included in the creative, decision-making process. I as well am part of that divide - there were plenty of times when I had no connection or understanding of an Asian-American art exhibition I visited!
Sure, the viewer takes away what they want to learn and there is equal responsibility in the museum-based learning process, however, how can we better bridge this process? What changes need to be made? And as Lord asks, What and how can we learn from objects? (p. 17)
AND as the links to the right show, museums are evolving and progressing and redefining their roles in contemporary society and potential and possibilities are sprouting like sprouts! So with this in mind, I hope further reading and discussion will help answer the following:
Well, they are pretty posh jobs for pretty posh people attracted to pretty posh cities. In Lord's The Manual of Museum Learning, museums can be seen "as a talent magnet for the creative economy" and attract audiences/visitors from that similar pool. After reading that, I kinda wanted to barf. I had a horrible flashback of a guard yelling at me because I thought Maya Lin's Systematic Landscapes was interactive. But sticking to my new years resolution of not barfing (okay, it was more about being patient) I continued reading and was delighted with this:
"Some people think that this notion of the creative economy applies only to a small percentage of the population...therefore, a museum's decision to change in the direction of openness, dialogue, and interdisciplinary activity impacts only an elite group. That would miss a very important point: all human beings are creative - whether or not they work in or earn their living through the creative economy. Lifelong learning is thus for everyone - and museums, because they are open to all, no matter what their level of academic or economic achievement, can be places of lifelong learning for everyone" (p. 8).
Cheesy, I know, but relevant to this discussion! We are so quick to be aware and adamant against the 'technological divide' we forget that there's an even greater disconnect - a creative-culture-knowledge divide between generations, communities, and social groups as museum experiences continue to target specific audiences and remain in cities that cost a million dollars to live in. Even the very people (community of origin; Lord, p. 15) that the museum artifacts come from, people directly related to the objects on display are rarely included in the creative, decision-making process. I as well am part of that divide - there were plenty of times when I had no connection or understanding of an Asian-American art exhibition I visited!
Sure, the viewer takes away what they want to learn and there is equal responsibility in the museum-based learning process, however, how can we better bridge this process? What changes need to be made? And as Lord asks, What and how can we learn from objects? (p. 17)
AND as the links to the right show, museums are evolving and progressing and redefining their roles in contemporary society and potential and possibilities are sprouting like sprouts! So with this in mind, I hope further reading and discussion will help answer the following:
- How do cultural institutions provide the most effective means of creating a society in which people work together to solve problems and create knowledge?
- How do museums occupy a central role in civil society as a real place that can influence meaningful change to an even greater depth in the creative economy of the future? (Lord, p. 9)
- And how do we prevent the creative-culture-knowledge divide (I know I made it up and it sounds funny, but you get my point!!!)?
in pursuit of great smelling&tasting museumness
Welcome to my online journal. Here I will record inspirational findings, reflections from readings, and all the blah blah jazz blah with the hope of sparking a rich dialogue about the philosophy, practice, and possibilities of successful, transformative, and culturally/socially relevant museums, exhibitions, and public programming. Here's to joyeumism!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)