I can't say anything about this book because I haven't read it, but I
would like to give an opinion on "change"--in museums or anywhere. There
seems to be a sort of institutional prejudice against people who "really
don't want to change." To maintain perspective, don't forget that
"change" is not automatically good. There's something uncomfortably
Orwelleian about the implication that all change is good and must be
accepted.
     Much change is NOT good, such as the changes Hitler brought to
Germany; some changes are neither good nor bad, just different, and
sometimes a difference is a good idea, sometimes not (if it ain't broke,
don't fix it) and sometimes you can't tell until the smoke clears.
Sometimes the mechanism to accomplish a "good" change is badly
engineered. Anyway, I don't believe all change--in museums or anywhere--
must be embraced with alacrity. I hope museums and related institutions
take a critical and cautious attitude toward proposed changes in
missions, programs, administration, etc.--neither too quick nor too slow
to change things that need changing--but willing to debate and evaluate,
and have the wisdom not to change things that can't or shouldn't be
changed.
      Opposing change out of fusty rigidity is the problem people fret
about, but sometimes opposition to a proposed change on the grounds that
it's harmful is mistaken for rigidity by change enthusiasts unwilling to
let a conservative viewpoint upset some juggernaut of change. In the
area of historic architectural preservation, developers try to be agents
of change by demolishing historic structures, calling their opponents
old fuddy-duddies, out of tune with the times. It's ironic that people
who seek to perform a similar "conservative" function within their own
institutions sometimes get the "developer" response from their
colleagues.
     Sometimes change impacts negatively upon one's career, and it
should be obvious why such a change might be resisted (with good
reason); if you believe in what you're doing and you're told the coming
change means you can't do it any more, you may think the change is a
huge mistake). With the arrival of a new director at the Baltimore
Museum of Art, the abrupt dismissal of the head curator has stunned the
staff; the rationale for this change seems to be a change in mission.
When the human consequences of a change are so severe, it might be a
good idea to question the foundation of the change, as well as its
implementation.
      I don't mean to overreact to the mere mention of "change," but
change in museums is not automatically good, any more than it is in
other spheres of activity. As far as change being "traumatic" is
concerned, I suggest that the more ill-advised or unnecessary a change
is, the more trauma that may ensue. Guess I'd better read this book.
      --David Haberstich