In my experience, different museums have very different ways of interacting with their constituencies, a sort of institutional personality for each. I never gave it too much thought before, but they are sometimes surprising.

For instance, the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (in Richmond) is rather large, and is a state agency. You might guess that it would be highly bureaucratic, as many state agencies are (and not just in Virginia). But the institutional culture of VMFA seems to be very public-oriented. The curators are helpful, generous with their time and expertise, and make themselves available to many individuals and groups. It's obvious when you deal with them that cultivating public good will has a very high priority. We might conclude that this is a simple consequence of their recognition that, as an agency of the government, they feed at the public trough (just like us professors at state universities) and it behooves them to retain public warm-and-fuzziness.

But every museum depends on public support, so the same rationale for the same behavior should be nearly universal. It isn't. Furthermore, the same rationale would dictate that every government agency be similarly mindful of the need for public approval. To say the least, most aren't.

So what do we make of this odd situation? How do we account for the institutional personality differing from one institution to another, even though all have more or less the same self-interests?

I think a lot of this comes from the leadership of the top people. This probably isn't exactly breaking news to anyone with management experience or training, but among the Head Honcho's important functions, all too often carried out unconsciously, is to establish the style and culture of the institution. That's the source of the staff's notions of who and what is important, who and what they serve.

Steve Price

p.s. No disrespect to your work is intended!

Now I'm more confused than I was before. It's my feeling, based on anecdote and not very systematic observation, that "institutional culture" in museums (and most other organizations; most of my experience is in universities) is essentially set by the leadership. Your post says in one sentence that it reflects the degree of "ivory-tower" mentality of the professional staff, in another sentence that it is the influence of the trustees. That is, the only ones who don't make much impact on the corporate culture are the people whose job it is to do so.

Since, if I understand what your professional position is, you are one of those people, do you find this odd? I do. Or, perhaps, are you expressing the frustration of being in a position of trying to lead the most difficult of all possible groups (professional staff in museums, faculty in universities) on one side and fending off the trustee resistance to risk of any sort on the other?

Regards,

Steve Price

Deeply entrenched staff, who are well respected by their peers and who have provided superb scholarship in their field, often have serious problems in dealing with this. They have never been asked to relate to broader audiences, they have always been praised for their efforts and then some on comes along and says we need to be more open. It can be a tough situation.

Greg

The general public (including me) assumes that museums exist to house objects for us, the general public, to view. We expect that research (books, papers, studies, surveys) and scholarship is done by independent scholars, using resources both in museums and unrelated to museums, with museums housing just a minute portion of items of scholarly interest. The feeling is that if scholars want to study something, they will find it "in the field", acquire it for the school they work for and study it there, not just go to a museum and study something that we assume has already been studied and then relegated to a museum.

They are Museums, not Mausoleums where everything would be kept in a dark box never to be seen again except for a chiseled title on the box.

We assume that the staff of the museum spends their time in deep thought trying to decide what valuable objects not available to the general public would be desirable to have in their museums, or what traveling exhibits to bring to their community so that the general public can go and look at them.

I guess we are all completely wrong. According to the comments I have been reading,museums are places for harried, underpaid, overworked staff to accumulate and warehouse items of cultural significance so scholars can research them (with serious access limitations) and to keep things soon to vanish from availablity out of harms way, with only a few select items to sometimes be allowed to be shown to the public - but only if they don't touch them and breathe on them and ruin them for the scholars and staff. In other words, the general public is little more than a necessary evil, an annoying, time consuming irritant, a pushy, inconsiderate mass of insolent rabble interfering with the staid and stately REAL business of the museum. (And that is only the rug lovers!)

Excuse me if this seems a bit harsh. I am just trying to identify and separate the three views of museums; the staff, the scholars, and the public. I believe that most museums do see their purpose as an opportunity to bring things of beauty and rarity to people who otherwise would never have a chance to see and appreciate not only the inherent beauty of the objects but also the context of their manufacture and the culture of their makers. I, for one, appreciate that our modern society has seen fit to set aside tranquil places for items of beauty, rarity and value to be appreciated rather than consumed and lost to future generations.

The question of "does leadership affect the attitude of the staff" is one that is taken for granted. The manager of the team is the first to go if the team does not perform well. Sometimes it takes a groundswell of public outrage for this to happen, though.

Thank you for you insights into the realm of museums from your perspective of decades of "public service".

Patrick Weiler

One of us has misinterpreted Greg Koos' remarks. My take is that he is expressing frustration at how difficult it is to lead his Merrie Bande into an attitude of public service and responsibility because of two factors:
1. The museum professional people (curators, etc.) have bigger fish to fry than messing around with the unwashed masses (just as many university faculty find students to be an intrusion into the time available to do the important part of the job), and
2. The trustees are lukewarm (or worse) in supporting the Head Man's efforts to get the institution to do anything it didn't do last year.

The pressures, I suspect, are not unlike those in a university setting. The faculty rewards are largely tied to their "scholarly contributions" (in a big university, that used to be measured as pages published last year, nowadays it's often measured as the number of federal grant dollar support the person has generated for the current year). So teaching (which is mostly what the public and some professors think universities are about) intrudes on the amount of time the faculty has available.

Museums (and universities) have professional personnel and leaders whose ranks include public servants and "public servants" (not to mention public serpents!). My initial assertion in this thread was that the leadership influences the attitude of the professional staff, hence, their behavior. Greg notes that this is not quite so, especially with an entrenched staff. I'm sure he's right, although I'm equally sure that a person who's been a Head Honcho at an institution for, say, 20 years will be the major factor in the institution's current culture, since the entrenched staff is likely to have gotten that way during his tenure. But it is a mistake to underestimate the inertia in a really large institution, where making real changes can be almost impossible.

Regards,

Steve Price

Patrick, please read my essay again to gain a better understanding of why we do what we do. If I was unclear on a point let me know - I will try to respond.
Thanks
Greg

I did reread the Salon. You say that the purpose of museums is the collection and preservation of items and education is a way they found that they can gain tax benefits. But, the people who amassed the collections that are the basis of the museum holdings didn't donate them to a museum just for them to be warehoused. They donated them so they would be preserved and shown. Granted, preservation must limit the exposure, but I go to a museum to see what is in it, not to rhapsodize about the unseen, but preserved, holdings not on display. The educational focus is almost a side issue that was seized upon by the museums as a way for them to survive. If it has somehow become the major focus of their purpose, this is contrary to the wishes of the founders. Steve has said that his collection would NOT go to just any old museum if it was to warehouse the collection, preserve and limit the accessibility of the items.
It seems that the objectives of museums no longer fulfill the intentions of the collectors that founded them.

OH NO! It is 2001 all over again! "Hal, is that you? Let me back in, Hal!"
(said the astronaut after the space ship computer subverted the mission from one of exploration to one of self-preservation)

I am sure it is not really this cut and dried, but my perception , and that of some others, is just that. We the public seems to be at cross-purposes with the museum objectives.

I guess I got off-topic here, since Steve started discussing the personality of each museum. I believe that each museum does have a personality and it is not just the building, but the staff and director together that determine it, along with the will of the public to some extent, but it seems more and more that the preservation/education factors consume much more energy than showing the collections.

Patrick Weiler

Preservation of collections is an imperative for a collecting museum. To characterize this concern as "warehousing" is not fair. Museums are attempting to preserve these objects as a common cultural patrimony for generations to come. We are quite serious about this.

Creating greater access through exhibitions is possible should the museum have the resources to expand their exhibition programs. Perhaps collection digitalization, holograms or other "virtual" exhibition techniques will allow greater access. We are about 10 to 15 years from that kind of broad effort. And of course electronic exhibits will never replace the real thing - unless conservators end up running the show.

Greg

You are absolutely right. There are conflicting agendas. I tried to put things into extremes for the sake of discussion and this tends to polarize the conflicts. In reality, there is a blend of various directions that museums must select from to stretch their limited resources. If the majority of the budget comes from the public, the donors will have more sway in the direction a museum goes. If the Director is strong, the museum will bend its personality to his will. The problem happens if the urge to conserve and protect the patrimony pushes aside the desire of the public to view and enjoy it. Another problem is the space available. If a museum displays everything it owns, interest will drop, so there must be some reserve for rotation and preservation.
The virtual exhibit idea is quite logical and most likely will happen more quickly than we think. One reason is that new technology is being used to record the objects, including digital photography. These photographs can readily be compiled into a "raw" database for perusal. I can envision an exhibit that would include a pair of those glasses you put on for virtual games but with the museum data base installed. Upon viewing an object in the museum, one could then "virtually" see related items from the data base. When can you start this project?

Hopefully yours,

Patrick Weiler

I guessing about 100k for start up and 10k a year for maintenance and up dating. When can I expect your check?

Greg

I visited a museum today. There was a John Singer Sargeant exhibit. I opted to try the audio device this time. When encountering a painting of interest, I entered the number posted by the painting and was treated to a sound bite or two about it. This is a start towards your "Be the Curator" program. I understand Bill Gates has video paintings at his home. This allows him to change the paintings at will. It seems that the future will be wonderful. When we get there.

Fascinatedly yours,

Patrick Weiler

P.S. The check is in the e-mail

No, thanks! I want the real things, just like real concerts will never be replace by recordings.

Regards, Yon

Regards, Yon