Based on current discussions of blockbusters, I thought this may be of
interest.

Mark E. Speltz
Exhibit Researcher

*****************************************************************
These two paragraphs are from an article, "The State of the Art Museum,
Forever Changing" in the Sunday, January 10, 1999, New York Times (by Glenn D.
Lowry)

   "Blockbuster exhibitions have also helped to popularize museums. These
events have become so successful that they are now seen as potent economic
forces; indeed, cities without major museums vie to attract them with large
grants. While easy to disparage, blockbusters take an inordinate amount of
time and money to produce and often attract such large crowds that it becomes
nearly impossible for museumgoers to see the works of art clearly. Yet they
are popular precisely because they provide an opportunity for an eager public
to be in the presence of, and to look at, great works of art.
        The challenge for museums in the face of the reality of blockbusters is to
avoid the trap of constantly having to find new and more exciting shows in
order to sustain public interest. This is easier said than done, and the
seemingly endless number of exhibitions devoted to the work of Monet or
Picasso, not to mention van Gogh, reflects how shallow the base is for such
shows. No museum, however, can sustain its audience on blockbuster exhibitions
alone, and the most successful museums now and in the future will be the ones
that are able to establish carefully balanced programs that also explore the
work of less well-known artists or movements."