a 'potential' slut...playing the Field.

We rave about how awesome museums are, how they are so0 cutting edge, how they house some of the world's most valuable stuff, and how they are sites for exploration and innovation.

Then we complain about the fight for funding and diversity, how there needs to be more community outreach and influence, how we need to create more interactive learning environments, how exhibits need to be more ground breaking, to consider the context of their environment - how there is a LOT to be done still...

Okay then, so what's going on?

"It's not about the museums, it's about the community, education, and how we are taught to interact and utilize museums," Marianna says. "It's the doldrums." She raises an interesting point.

The education system - it's policies, practices, classroom/school culture - everything, is generally set up to prepare us for mundane-passive-citizenship-factory life - from the ringing bell to the rows of desks; to be mechanical, orderly obedient participants in society. To not question, to not think critically or depict the realities of the world outside...we are shaped to teach, learn, participate in a very specific way, independent of the vastly different linguistic, cultural, familial, economic, political backgrounds we all come from. It's no surprise that most museums have similarly stagnant policies, expectations, and learning cultures that impact the values of those who influence the field - whether they are visitors or program developers or directors.

Yes, it's the system baby. So if I want to change the system. Where do I start?

As I'm looking into doctoral education programs, faculty, and their research, I'm delving into sociocultural theories that have been explored since the 60's. They explore inequalities in education and question the ongoing disparities between communities, YET that was then...and now, 50 years later, what has changed? What needs to be changed?

The tiny, tiny possibility of entering this field is helping me think about systems, the possibilities of transforming them, and what contributions have and need to be made in the field. Marianna often tells me that in order to change systems you have work with with them, "everyone keeps running away or fighting the unmovable system - sometimes you have to be friends with the enemy in order to do something." She also tells me that systems don't change.

SO why are we still so in love with museums, so much so we taking classes in them, dedicate whole summers for them - sometimes unpaid?

When extremely reluctant to end a relationship that was presently not a good fit YET had incredible potential, my friend said to me, "Joy, you can't date someone just for their potential."

Although I am not ready to break up with the museum world, with this profession that has led me to fight for social justice and community-based art initiatives, I am very much prepared to commit to it - solely for it's potential. So much so I may even enter another field in hopes of bettering it...is that cheating?

some babble on educational programming...

This weeks reading left me with a number of thoughts, so enough with the themes! Let's cut to the chase!

Different Foundations
In the context of romantic relationships, I've been thinking of the diverse foundations two people have that affect the choices, actions, re-actions, needs, and wants towards each other and the relationship itself. Similarly, In the relationship between Museums and their Visitors, or Audience and Artworks, whatever you have it, the visitor experience in the museum is shaped by the educational foundation of each person. "There is no single track that visitors muse follow to learn in museums, so educators should develop a variety of ways to engage those visitor" (Folk, p. 111). This also beings up the all-to-familiar, "learning styles" that we often use as an excuse for failing tests or ignoring the lecturer (okay, maybe just me). So yes, it is a bit of different "learning styles" but more so the multitude of experiences that an individual's educational foundation is built on should be recognized, challenged, explored and accommodated.

Museum programs should offer learning experiences for a cognitively diverse population (p. 111). This also leads to my next thought:

Immigrant Populations
Over 120 different languages are spoken in my cousin's hometown, Queens. Enough said, right?
Museums in the county cannot neglect that 7 out of 10 residents are immigrants or children of immigrants. These children are often times "a point of entry into the museum experience for their parents" (p. 114) and if family/public programming incorporates both generations for learning and engagement, the museum experience could be very very meaningful - not go mention strengthen intergenerational relationships among the families. The reality of the diverse communities shouldn't simply lead to a need for the overused said/used 'diverse programming,' it should be well embedded in the institution's philosophy, mission and goals. It's like if planners stated every single time, "This is groundbreaking: we should have elevators next to the stairs." It's a given. And diverse populations aren't crippled. Sorry.

Interactive Programming
This is talked about A LOT. Interactive spaces, technology, online guides, interactive activities, blah, blah, blah. BUT why are we still talking about it? Because we aren't doing it yet, we're doing it wrong, or we're jealous of institutions who do. The main thing is, it MUST allow/encourage human interactions as well, meaning, if it doesn't lead to social and physical interaction, than it's a bust. Why have a museum? Alls we need is a cool website, we can just learn, see, and discover with a laptop warming up our thighs. Mmmm. Cozy goodness.

Enough Said
There was a ton of stuff before and after this statement, but I dig it on it's own ;)
"...art education as a process..." (p. 113). So, there you have it, all that babble!

the fall of the expert curator, the rise of...

In the context of Obama's new health care reform, I have been thinking a lot about oppositional sides and varying perspectives. One side sees their privileges revoked and their choices stripped, fearing the fall of quality care amongst the rise of Socialism. Then the other side sees the detrimental and unfair insurance costs, desire a platform for social justice, and value basic human rights. The answer for the universal question, "How can we make it better, if this is what we have?" - depends greatly on values from both sides and where the side is viewing the issue/problem!

The museum world is not that much different. There are always and will always be opposing sides. Two main oppositions is the traditional role of the curator versus the push for public accessibility and influence. It's interesting because each side has their definition and standard of a museum and what and how it inhabits (the exhibition). The way it should be.
Like healthcare.
So there is tons of fear involved. One side fears that museums are turning into a messy public playground lacking in quality exhibitions and content. The other side fears that museums arn't evolving with the needs of society and are remaining as "elitist anachronisms" (p. 89).

"The historical circumstances surrounding curators'...challenge to their expertise have led to a collapse of the historical hierarchy within the museum, to renewed calls for general public access to exhibitions, and more broadly, to a reorientation of the museum's mission from objects to audiences" (Weil, 2003).

This is great. Why? Because low and behold, comes the rise of Education in the Art Museum! YAY!! Because no matter what side you're on, everyone needs us now! "As cultural institutions direct more attention to the needs of their audiences, art educators must address how and where subject expertise is valued" (p. 89).

This is great. Why? Because it enables educators to work with curatorial colleagues on a more significant level, shaping museum practice and bringing together the opposing sides. This also disseminates the hierarchical model of curators controlling and leading the intellectual language to the educators and than down the public. The new model enables the public to be part of the curatorial conversation, "opening up the exhibition to those outside the discipline of art history" (p. 91).

It can also be argued from the Traditionalists standpoint that the shift in the museum model is not necessarily good. However, "the most important factors in this reordering of priorities, though, were the economic pressures exerted on the art museum" (p. 93). A need and increase in government funding resulted in the need to serve the general public.

Curators can still continue with their expertise and engagement in art history and fancy collections, BUT "the skills involved in the reconfiguration of the museum in the 21st century - understanding and respecting the knowledge of the museum audience and collaboration - reside in the portfolio of the museum educator" (Zolberg, 1994).

But we already knew that ;)

finding balance in my world and the museum world

It's challenging for me to read and accept museum theory, case studies, and organizational models indicated or intended for for application. There is an incredible amount of diversity and complexity in every aspect of a museum's organization and culture. From departmental goals to sociopolitical/economic location, there are tons of factors associated with the 'hows' and 'whys' of a museum's approach to doing.

Therefore, I believe a museum organizational models can be similar and generalized, but for the most part, differ greatly dependent on the varying factors! Thus I am constantly trying to find a strong connection and balance between understanding the knowledge acquired academically and the real source of it's practical application.

In the same way, Charlie Walter describes similar challenges in balancing sustainability and accessibility at the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History in Fort Worth, Texas. A museum program's "viability depends on its ability to generate revenue" yet at the same time museum programs "must serve the entire community" (Lord, 2007, p. 162). So there you have it - sustainability and accessibility - now let those words soak in as you apply the measure and means of balance...survival and everyone, revenue and relationships, long-term and hopeful.

Before I regurgitate what I read, please place it in the context mentioned in the very beginning of this entry! I am hesitant to outline these strategies because I feel their application and implementation greatly depends on the dynamic of the museum and it's relationship to the community it's serving. So.. let's begin!

Walter describes key strategies in addressing this 'tug-a-war-balance' challenge by, "finding the right combination of revenue streams (program fees, private support, public support) that will keep programs sustainable and accessible to broad audiences..." (p. 162). Furthermore, departmental and programmatic planning and goals must be systematic and holistic in thinking. Meaning, program development must "range from the foundations of education theory that influence the program's design to the financial implications, marketing opportunities and development potential of the project" - and most importantly, in defining 'holistic', all elements of this process "are connected and aligned, moving int he same direction" (p. 162). This is great because all departments are fully engaged and more fully understand the challenges that face the museum, suggesting "an interrelated chain of areas of competence, rather than a heirarchy of reporting relationships" (p. 163). How awesome is that!!??

Here's some 'practical' ;) tips for planning and evaluating:

• Throughput (the amount of participants passing through the programs)
  is important
• Have a portfolio of offerings at a variety of prices
• Try something new each year
• Talk to your customers
  
• Fast, Cheap, High Quality - Pick and Two
  

museum schools.

Are very cool.
Michael L. Bentley in Lord's Manual of Museum Learning says there are 40 something museum schools in the United States. Sad, because the American Association of Museums (AAM) says there are currently around 17,500 museums in the states. Many, if not all these museums pride themselves as a space for learning. Wouldn't strong partnerships with schools be intrinsic and reflective in their initiatives?

Museum schools are either located at the museum or visit on a regular basis. One awesome school: The Community High School in Virgina has partnerships with 12 local institutions including a zoo, park, theater and ballet center! Educators from these cultural institutions participate in The Community Schools' dedication to "encourage students to engage in a broader cultural conversation, to understand Art as a means of inquiry."

It is easy to say - BRILLIANT and FanTasmic!! Museums, zoos, cultural institutions and libraries world wide should have schools! But 14 out of 17,500 introduces a more complicated discussion. To begin with, museums are defined as spaces for informal learning and transferring this kind of learning to a formal setting, all while maintaining informal learning's spontaneity and experimental learning is challenging. Not to mention, schools in the museum culture and context are often reduced to one-off experiences such as fieldtrip visits and maybe an afterschool program. Museums are higher institutions and schools house dirty little kids. Also, the spirit of collaboration and community is instilled in museum school concepts and that may be a bit too much for museums. Lord says it best,

"In this search for the best balance between formal and informal learning, the museum school is perhaps the most fascination - and most radical - partnerships between museums and traditional schools. In the museum school, a different mindset emerges in the classroom, with children utilizing museum processes of knowledge generation - the y become active rather than passive learners. Although museum schools are too new and the research too embryonic to draw definitive conclusions, these children are more likely to emerge as critical thinkers and problem solvers who will pursue life long learning, which is the ideal in a creative knowledge-based economy" (p. 96).

learning to look, learning to think

Today I asked my students to use the ‘principles of art’ to describe a tangerine. Talking about the tangerine, inside and out, they were great. From the peel’s smooth texture to the thin veins in each slice, every student had plenty to say. Then I put up a slide of an image from David Taylor’s, “Walking the line” exhibit. It was a simple landscape photograph, absent of anything too complex. I was gearing them up to see his show at the Joseph Gross Gallery on campus.

“Okay, what do you see here you guys?” The room was silent.

Abigail Housen explores how people experience art in, “Art Viewing and Aesthetic Development: Designing for the Viewer.” She addresses their reactions and skills towards art-viewing as aesthetic development – a term I first disdained, reminding me of when art education in the 1950s was meant to prepare students to be consumers of beautiful things.

However, Housen’s intention is based on the reasoning that creative and critical thinking is linked to aesthetic thought and development, that in the “processes of looking at and talking about art, the viewer is developing skills not ordinarily associated with art” (p. 172). She also mentions the viewers’ ability to interpret images evolves and progresses over time (given the viewer is exposed to a sequenced series of artwork).

Housen introduces 5 stages of aesthetic development based on patterns shown and processed through viewer understanding:

Stage 1: Accountive, viewers are listmakers and storyteller. They make simple, concrete observations: Lines, ovals, squares

Stage 2: Constructive, viewers set about building a framework for looking at art, using the most accessible tools at hand: their perceptions, their knowledge of the natural world, and the values of their social and moral world. Observations have a concrete known reference point.

Stage 3: Classifying, viewers adopt the analytical stance of the art historian. Studying the conventions and canons of art history, wanting to know all that can be known about the artists’s life and work, from when and where an artist lived to how the work is viewed in the panoply of artists. The chain of information becomes increasingly complex and multilayered.

Stage 4: Interpretive, viewers seek an interactive and spontaneous encounter with the work of art. They explore the artwork, letting the meaning of the work slowly unfold, appreciating formal subtleties. Viewers discover new themes in a familiar composition, and distinguishes comparisons and contradictions.

Stage 5: Re-Creative, viewers have established a long history of viewing and reflecting about art, and are now willing to suspend belief – seeing the object as semblant, real, and animated with a life of its own. The viewers begin an imaginative contemplation of the work, transcending prior knowledge and experience, giving permission to encounter the artwork with childlike openness. “A trained eye, critical stance, and responsive attitude are his lenses as the multifaceted experience of the artwork guides his viewing. A familiar painting is like an old friend, known intimately yet full of surprise…”

Housen’s stages are a wonderful backbone for developing effective programs, allowing us to select artworks based on our visitors’ needs and understanding, in hopes of fostering and facilitating aesthetic growth!

duality of mission

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!