u just like to argue.  Well, here's some more
timber for you to whittle on with your sharp polemical penknife.

Not only did you not provide any documentation or proof for your rejoinder,
you didn't even clarify what you were talking about.  What do you mean by
"excluding" people?  It sounds like you really mean "discourage" or "make
unattractive."  I suggest that to "exclude" is not quite the same thing as
"to discourage."  First, you talk about "excluding" by "exhibit design" with
"glass cases and lots of text."  How exactly does a glass case exclude
someone from a museum?  Remember, most of the exhibits in art museums are NOT
in glass cases at all, but are fully exposed.  Small objects are encased as
much for security against theft as to keep them from being touched, and the
glass cases actually permit greater "access" to them (proximity) than would
otherwise be possible--if people are put off because they see the glass as a
separating wall rather than as a window, that's a problem of interpretation
that needs to be addressed.  But I should think that people ought to be used
to seeing valuable objects under glass in department stores, jewelry stores,
and even hardware stores, and not be bent out of shape by this familiar
technique--it's hardly an alien concept.  In fact, I think it's a no-brainer.

How does "lots of text" exclude anyone?  Do books with lots of text exclude
people?  Does the Internet, which has lots of text, exclude people?  (Why
then do libraries seem to think that providing Internet access will encourage
patronage?)  Should writers write shorter books so more people will read
them?  I personally prefer short, concise exhibit labels, but my colleagues
tell me THAT discourages people who want to know more about what they're
looking at!  Gosh, what to do?  Perhaps you can sense that I think the issue
of too much or too little to read is a bit of baloney.  I hardly think that
the hot news that some museum is producing shorter labels will draw greater
crowds, but hey, I could be wrong.  If I am, I'm sure you'll let me know.

Perhaps you're right that admission fees exclude people (although again I'd
say discourage); my museum, which has no admission charge, attracts a lot of
homeless people, who are certainly at the very bottom rung of the
socioeconomic ladder (or "social darwinist ladder," if you prefer).  I must
say, some of these folks seem to enjoy the exhibits thoroughly--at least,
I've seen them talking to the exhibits, if that's any indication.  However,
as those American museums that do have admission fees usually charge less
than the cost of a movie, I really wonder how much of a factor that is.
 Probably you have some statistics to back you up.

How does architectural design exclude the potential museum-going public?
 Here I won't request proof, just a couple of examples.  You mean there
really are people who won't enter a museum with a neoclassical design?  And
others won't enter a museum that's too modern?  Too postmodern?  Too round?
 Too square?  Perhaps you could enlighten us about the ideal architectural
design for a museum, one that would delight and attract all classes?

And what kind of atmosphere excludes people?  What kind of programming
excludes people?  Let's hear some specifics.

Why is it a "specious arguement" (sic) to say that museums must cater to the
rich (corporations and individuals) that support them?  This has been a hot
topic in museum circles for some time; where have you been?  Tell me how the
"voting power and voice" of the "rest of society" outweighs the big bucks
that actually pay for exhibits and acquisitions.  My museum, which is
federally supported for salaries and operating expenses, has been relying
almost totally on millions from corporate sponsors to fund major exhibitions
for years, and has come under heavy criticism from newspaper critics who
suggest, rightly or wrongly, that this perverts the choices we make and the
tone we take.  As far as the NEA is concerned, no, I don't think that if the
general public "liked its output" that would ensure funding at all.
 Complaints about the type of art supported by the NEA are a red herring,
because many Americans don't want any public arts funding whatsoever.  If you
want proof of that, I can cite the opinions of callers to a conservative
radio station that I monitor, and send you printouts from some listservs on
which the issue has been discussed.

You say 'the more accessable (sic) museums are to the general public the more
funding they will receive from that public."  That's wishful thinking.  And
what do you mean by accessible?  Entertaining?

"Here is your opportunity to provide data."  I don't have statistical data, I
have anecdotal evidence.  What do you want to see?  Those printouts I
mentioned?  Reports of conversations with friends and museum visitors?  Would
you believe me?

"Over-generalizing is probably the nicest thing one can say about your last
statement"?  Go ahead, don't be shy, say something nasty.  Tell me how I've
over-generalized when I've said "many folks" and "some."

"Art is created because one wants to create it."  It's certainly true that
many artists (notice the word "many") will continue to produce art even
without economic encouragement, but I think it's pretty naive to conclude
that "only a minority...create art with the sole intention of selling it."
 In the first place, I never said "sole intention," but I think MOST artists
hope to make a living from their art.  I have only anecdotal evidence again,
not statistics, but I'd wager YOU have no data to support your "minority"
contention.  Again, I said "a great deal" of art is created for sale.  How
can you possibly contest that?  Let's hear from all those artists who don't
care a whit (sorry!) about selling.

I'm sorry you're confused.  The paragraph that confused you was, I thought, a
logical extension of the argument, not a new thread.  Yes, your original
point was about the demographics of museum visitors, but then you mentioned
motives for producing and exhibiting art.  My question, "is art created only
for the rich," was an extension of your question about whether art is created
only for the "upper middle class/upper class Caucasian segment" because I
thought there was an implication of economic wherewithal, not just class,
involved.  Sorry if I misunderstood or seemed to go off on a tangent.

When you talk about accessibility, it sounds like you mean "relevance."
 And/or possibly "understanding" or "appreciation."  I consider museums,
libraries, and all kinds of art and cultural institutions a part of the whole
educational/cultural fabric of a society.  There are plenty of statistics
available which indicate a general decline in the relevance of education for
large segments of American society, and I don't think it's surprising if
museums and other cultural institutions find themselves in a parallel crisis.
 Museums are having a difficult time feeling "relevant" largely, I suspect,
because education generally has become less relevant to increasing numbers of
people.  I think some of what many museums are attempting to do (again,
notice the words "some" and "many")  constitutes a futile spinning of wheels
under such circumstances.  I firmly believe museums can be agents of
education, enlightenment, and social change, although I don't presume to know
exactly how this can be accomplished.  We try anyway.  I don't object to a
certain amount of wheel-spinning, because occasionally a wheel finds
something it can grip and propel the vehicle forward, but you know, there's a
lot of ice out there.  I'd like to see more people appreciate museums, but I
think it will take a lot more than cosmetic changes in museums and new
programming.  It's going to take a change in the whole
educational/economic/cultural (and maybe moral) climate to thaw some of that
ice.

I went to the Baltimore Museum of Art with a friend and her family over the
weekend.  Two of the three kids didn't want to go.  The thirteen-year-old
just plain thinks museums are dull places.  He's not interested in "old
stuff."  He enjoyed himself once he got there,  although he had to be coerced
into going.  He was reasonably fascinated with the Dale Chihuly glass because
it was bright and colorful, and liked the craftsmanship of certain paintings
(he draws imaginary sci-fi figures).  But what he really liked was the gift
shop because he wanted to buy everything in sight.  He'd rather buy
reproductions of art than look at the originals.  I joked that the only way
to make the museum exhibits more relevant and interesting to him would be to
put a price tag on everything, because these are his values.  The
eighteen-year-old, a college freshman majoring in computer science, wasn't
interested in anything; even though he took an art history course and got an
A, he's not interested in art at all; in France two years ago he wouldn't
even enter Chartres Cathedral.  Both of them would rather stay home glued to
the tube, playing video games, watching videotapes, and TV programs.  They
want to be passively entertained.  The 22-year-old sister, by contrast,
enjoys all kinds of museums.  All three were exposed to the same type of
education and family values, but two of them are captivated only by passive
entertainment--especially "action," horror, gore, and Jim Carrey-type humor.
 I hope they'll grow to appreciate other forms of diversion, but how can
museums possibly become more "relevant" to reach them?  They weren't even
interested in watching the video of Dale Chihuly's team making glass.  I
don't mean to oversimplify, but I think they represent an important aspect of
the museum "problem."  (Maybe one out of three ain't bad.)  I wonder if
museums have any chance of becoming relevant in their lives as long as the
competition--movies, television, and the occasional theme park--remain so
overwhelmingly important to them.  Maybe what actually "excludes" people from
museums is what's going on outside museums--the competition.

Well, Mr. Whittle, et al:  I hope I haven't just been spinning my wheels.

--David Haberstich