Bayla wrote:
 
>I have been to EPCOT and other Florida Disney attractions, and I
>have nothing but praise for their intellectual content and
>impressive presentation.
 
        Which is very true. It is also true that current admission for
EPCOT is $27.55 for a Florida resident and a family of four from
out-of-state can plan on spending between $150 and $200 just for
admissions. Compare that with an adult admission of $6 to $8 for the
average science museum and $2 to $6 for a history museum. Another factor to
consider is that, even though Disney/Epcot attract (by their figures)
around 20,000,000 persons a year, non-commerical museums attract far more
persons. I will also bet that the minority and low income audiences go to
nonprofit museums with more regularity than to Disney or EPCOT (U.S.
citizens, not overseas visitors).
 
        This all raises a series of questions: (1) if we cannot compete
with Disney/EPCOT and they are going to do educational programs big time,
is the way of the future privatization? And (2) does that argue, as some
have lately suggested, that there is no need for museum core curricula or
museum degrees,  - just a few consulting firms that can "curate" shows with
huge retinues of minimum wage trogledytes (sp?) carrying out their
directions while a cadre of Gucci-suited businessmen and bean counters
watch the books? (3) What happens to history or art in Stoney Rear, Montana
or Devil's Anvil, Arizona? The "markets" are not large enough to support a
commercial operation - so do we write off the culture and history in those
areas? The for-profits certainly would. (4) What happens to research and
preservation programs that are not "sexy" enough? Do we concentrate on
Dinosaurs because they draw crowds, but write off early mamammals because
no one really finds them sexy?
 
        I think we are seeing the beginnings of much of this. Former
government underwriters are urging museums to make more earned income, even
if development people outnumber curators and educators. Attendance, NOT
educational programming, service or accessibility to disadvantaged
audiences, become the prime directive. Students in art, anthropology,
history and natural science have to search very hard to find out about core
museum curricula - even though committees have put in hours considering it.
As Eric Segal noted, there are often hundreds of applicants for curatorial
jobs paying in the $20ks - below what many secretaries make - and salaries
stay down because, as many have noted in this forum, 85% or better of the
applicants do not have a good mix of "book larnin," experience and a
rounded exposure.  However, Directors (now frequently Presidents) often
earn less than development heads earn.  Museums in rural areas are closed
because of "low attendance" and because the preservation of heritage is
viewed as a cherry on the sundae in difficult economic times, despite the
fact that their budgets are miniscule.
 
        With this new administration in Congress the lines have been drawn.
Let's hope we can reach some sort of accomodation between for profit and
non-profit operations (edutainment aside) before we have to learn how to
sing "Who's the Mouse . . ." I admire the technology Disney has pioneered,
its the application that often falls short. Distinctions have to be made,
because we cannot compete with their megabucks. And the failure rate for
small undercapitalized businesses in the country is about 90%.
 
_________________________
Byron A. Johnson
[log in to unmask]
Tampa Bay History Center
Tampa, Florida