Warning: Lengthy rumination ahead.

In a message dated 01-09-22 11:10:12 EDT, Lori Allen wrote:

<< I had a very good marketing prof in undergrad who once said that "sales was
 convincing people to buy what you have to offer, marketing was finding out
 what people want and then letting them know you can provide it".  For a long
 time, museums sold what they had (elitism) and as a result, we have a bad
 rep to certain segments of the society.  Now we have found out what the
 community wants and we have to let them know we can provide it.  I am not
 talking about taking the Picassos and Pollocks down and hanging kitch.
 People don't want kitsch in their museums.  >>

I have to question some of these assumptions because I think they're
self-contradictory.  I've talked to a few people who DO want kitsch in their
museums.  In any event, the concept of "kitsch" is as valid a topic for a
museum collection and/or exhibition as many others.  Also, not everyone
agrees on what is kitsch (one person's treasure could be another's kitsch).
Some of the most popular items on display in my museum are things that I
might consider kitsch or verging on kitsch (indeed, there's an inherent
contradiction here, since "appealing to popular taste" is one definition of
kitsch).  And consider the possibility that calling anything kitsch--a
pejorative term--in itself demonstrates that elitism is alive and well.  I
hope that appropriate museums are collecting what they consider kitsch,
because one generation's kitsch sometimes is rediscovered, reinterpreted, and
reevaluated by a succeeding generation.  In any event, a comparison of what
is considered significant vs. kitsch within any cultural milieu is a valid
and provocative subject of study.

BTW, my museum currently has an exhibit on "Paint by Numbers," a phenomenon
which many consider the height of kitschiness.  The decision to do the show
clearly was based, in part, on the the assumption that the subject would be
popular.

I'm also skeptical about the assumptions that many museum people have about
their ability to determine what their publics or communities want.  Often
this is overconfidence and even arrogance.  I haven't conducted any
"scientific" or statistical studies of my own, but I have plenty of anecdotal
evidence to tell me that museum visitors are not always as satisfied with
what they see on exhibit as the curators and designers like to think.  The
reason, as I and others on this list have mentioned from time to time, is
that the museum-going public is not monolithic in its tastes and interests.
It's composed of individuals.  Not everything interests everyone, no matter
how you present it.

I was struck by several previous posts on the "Top Ten Challenges" theme
which talked about achieving certain kinds of "diversity" in museums'
staffing and audiences.  But one issue which I seldom see addressed is that
of the diverse interests of the public.  In our zeal to promote exhibitions
which will be crowd-pleasers or blockbusters, I don't see much attention
devoted to reaching audiences with specialized interests, and I find this
ironic.  While we fret over the challenge of producing popular shows about
ethnic minorities--a laudable goal--we often ignore audiences who want to see
their specialized interests represented.  Just this weekend I learned about a
proposed exhibition which has been cancelled due to fears that its subject
wouldn't be popular enough to attract crowds.  Maybe I'm in a minority, but I
think that's a terrible reason to cancel a show, which in this case happens
to interest me, and which has great potential for informing, educating, and
increasing interest in a heretofore seemingly obscure area.  Isn't that one
thing museums should be doing?  I think it not only shortchanges the public,
but it's extremely myopic (and potentially boring) to confine an exhibition
schedule to only shows which museums think will increase the body count in an
endless cycle of pandering to assumed popular taste in order to justify
demands for more funding in order to be able to afford to do even bigger and
more expensive "popular" exhibitions.  If museums seek to be "educational,"
shouldn't they be exploring new areas and reviving interest in the obscure
and forgotten, rather than merely re-interpreting subjects which are already
popular?  I think that's a challenge which is often ignored.

This mentality manifests itself in administrators who threaten to close
exhibits whose visitor traffic doesn't match that of more popular exhibits,
regardless of their significance or quality.  It even short-circuits the
careers of curators who are trying to make contributions to fields which
someone decides aren't sufficiently popular with the general public, whoever
they are.

I find this mentality strangely at odds with the philosophy which prevails
at, say, the National Endowment for the Arts, where funding is devoted, in
part, to areas which aren't "popular" enough to pay their own way but which
are deemed to deserve support as part of our heritage.  Shouldn't museums
share some of the same concerns?

I am not opposed to popular, even blockbuster exhibitions and crowd-pleasing
projects in museums, but I think we're missing the boat if we exclude
exhibition ideas and particular themes and kinds of objects which we think
are too specialized or limited in appeal.  In so doing, we're
disenfranchising--or ignoring--a different set of people.  Many museums are
virtually hiding from the public whole categories of objects in their
collections which don't seem to fit their current eloquent mission
statements, deciding that the segment of the public which has an interest in
those fields or particular kinds of objects doesn't matter any more.

I think one of the greatest challenges for museums is reaching diverse
audiences.  Audience diversity is not measured just in terms of ethnicity,
but also in terms of personal interests.  For example, an African American
friend told me that her mother isn't interested in seeing more exhibits on
black history--she "knows all that stuff" and prefers to look at our European
ceramics displays.  When the ceramics hall is closed, she probably won't come
back.  Is it really necessary to exclude the interest group that she
represents?  I find it ironic that we would consider excluding her because
she has an interest in a subject which some find either inherently "elitist"
or insufficiently popular, depending on what kind of spin you put on it.

With all this talk about "sales" and marketing in connection with what
museums present to their audiences, I'm amazed that we forget the
significance of what are called "niche" markets.  Clever entrepreneurs know
that money can be made in providing goods and services for specialized
markets, and that they can succeed by swimming against the tide of popular
interest.  In the museum world, I think appealing to "niche markets" can pay
dividends not only in good will but in creating an atmosphere conducive to
the preservation of a heritage which need not be restricted to
contemporary--and temporary--popularity, fad and fashion.

Last week the chairman of my museum's board stated that we had to reach the
goal of getting 10 million visitors into our museum next year, and I ask why?
 Why should that be our chief goal and challenge?  Aside from the fact that
our restroom facilities probably can't accommodate such a crowd, I think we
run the risk of becoming so popular that (as Yogi Berra said of restaurants)
no one will come any more.  (Maybe it's just me, but when I'm visiting a
crowded museum, I gravitate to the less popular, less traveled areas, seeking
space for breathing and contemplation.)  Is pandering to popular taste what
museums are all about?

Call me an elitist,
David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).