Museums are covered often enough in the form of exhibit reviews, but
otherwise the coverage IN THE GENERAL PRESS seems to be predicated on
contretemps like the Enola Gay or the sacking of administrators or the
looting of collections.  How welcome then to see a page-long overview of
new British museums in the Economist:  "British Museums: Superabundant,"
issue of Feb. 10 - 16, 1996, page 86.  Or is it?

The article observes that 120 (!) new museums have opened in the past five
years.  Some have been "spectacularly successful," giving the public "not
only what it wants but what, until the museum opened, it had no idea it
wanted."  The Roman Museum in Canterbury, the Jewish Museum in London and
the Museum of East Asian Art in Bath "are all specialist 'niche'
institutions that appeal to connoisseurs of their subject matter.  Each,
however, also possesses wider appeal and attracts an eclectic audience."

The Roman Museum interprets the site of a Roman town house that was
uncovered by WWII bombing.  Rather than attempting total reconstruction,
the museum combines viewing of stabilized remnants, video simulation of
what the house had been, and what seems like dioramas of the shops of
Roman Canterbury.  Curator Ken Reedie:  "Unlike some other heritage
attractions that aim to recreate the sights, sounds and even smells of an
environment, we have deliberately left much to the imagination."

Perhaps those with a fuller knowledge of British geography can say whether
the intro statement on the Jewish Museum refers to blessing or curse: "No
matter how fine its contents, the importance of location, presentation,
and publicity to a museum's success cannot be overstated.  The Jewish
Museum . . . recently . . . relocated in Camden Town, North London."  Once
again the Economist praises quiet exhibitry, describing what appears to be
the traditional display of extraordinary objects as bringing the subject
"spectacularly to life."  That same theme runs through the description of
the Asian Art venue in Bath.

Then the finale:  "Sensitive, unobtrusive presentation is the hallmark of
these three new museums.  At others the education approach is much too
heavy-handed.  A massive new arts complex in the Clocktower at Croydon
houses . . . wonderful works peppered with quizzes, illustrations,
artificial flowers . . . The result is highly distracting.  Obviously
aimed at children and childish adults, these displays lack the grace and
power of their equivalent in Bath. An ambitious permanent 'Lifetimes'
exhibition . . . showing hundreds of objects. . . . is marked out with
touchscreen computer consoles.  These gadgets give visitors access to
images . . . and to . . . people telling their stories.  There is much
fascinating material here but, unfortunately, many visitors seem to find
operating the new technology much more absorbing than the information it
imparts."

This coverage raises a few questions:

Given the forthright free-market bent of The Economist, is this article
merely a Whiggish critique of up-to-date audience engagement veiled as an
appreciation of uncluttered galleries?  Or is it more in the nature of a
valid summary of opinion among the educated minority that constitutes,
despite much effort to the contrary, the museum-going public?

And what about this efflorescence of new museums?  Any comment as to the
premises or wisdom of this expansion, or the long-term chances of success
(i.e., an evolving program in a context of solvency)?

Such questions aside, I admit to feeling pleased that a general magazine
made the space for a thoughtful look at museums without shouting about
some alleged misdeed, touting some putative blockbuster, or treating the
museum as an ornament of some urban redevelopment strategy.

Any comment?


Matt Roth
Santa Monica, CA
[log in to unmask]