I've watched this thread with interest over a rainy but cozy Presidents Day
weekend and would have jumped in except for my two small daughter's amazing
ability to allow their parents no more than ten minutes peace at a time.

Now everything has been well said by others -- but there is one notion I
will offer:

If a museum elects to produce an exhibition that involves controversy or
rigorous scholarship and thereby appeals to only, say, ten percent of its
potential audience, has it served the public?  (for whom we do our work?)

Wrong question, I think.  In a pluralistic society the concept of "the
public" as some homogeneous entity shouldn't exist.  Such a concept really
refers to the "majority of the public," which is a good way to elect
politicians but not a good measure of quality.  The public is a teeming,
amorphous, collection of ideas, values, opinions, and needs.  The minority
is no less "the public" than is the majority.  When we cite public
response, in sheer numbers of attendance or positive feedback, as the
criterea by which museums guage their success as cultural institutions, we
engage in a kind of TV ratings mentality that really tells us nothing but
looks impressive.

Of course there are lots of different kinds of museums with different
missions, but I suspect that when their appeal to the public is paramount
in a museum's rhetoric, the less visible politics of funding are at work.
Museums should struggle to implement their missions successfully, but
forget about working for "the public."  There is no such thing.


Stephen Nowlin, VP, Director, Alyce de Roulet Williamson Gallery
Art Center College of Design
1700 Lida Street
Pasadena, California 91103  USA (818)396-2397vox (818)405-9104fax