MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Christopher Whittle <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 28 Feb 1996 14:53:46 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (88 lines)
On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, David Haberstich wrote:

>  Well. I for one don't think many museums are "excluding by design"
> people who aren't at the top of the "social darwinist ladder." I think
> that's a vicious slander that demands documentation and proof. Show me.

Many museums exclude people by exhibit design- glass cases and lots of
text.  Museums exclude people by charging admission, selling tickets,
architectural design, atmosphere, programming, etc.

> On the other hand, museums must CATER to those at the top because that's
> increasingly where their bread will get buttered.

This is a specious arguement.  The few donors a museum might have are
nothing compared to the voting power and voice of the rest of society.
Do you think the NEA's budget would be cut if all the "Joe/sephine
Sixpacks" liked its output?  The more accessable museums are to the
general public the more funding they will receive from that public.

 This is the best
> argument I can think of for public funding of the arts and humanities
> (and sciences): it's one way to keep the rich from being in total
> control. Trouble is, many folks at the lower end of the socioeconomic
> ladder (dare I call them Joe Sixpak?) WANT it to be that way--they WANT
> the arts to be the province of the rich because they aren't interested
> and it reinforces their prejudices that the rich concern themselves with
> meaningless frills.

Here is your opportunity to provide data.

 I don't want to fall into the same trap of
> over-generalizing that some of my colleagues on this list do,

Over-generalizing is probably the nicest thing one can say about your
last statement.

 but I say
> we need to recognize that there is a rich vein of genuine apathy and
> hostility to museums and the arts in many classes, not excluding the
> "lower" classes.

Accessibility is the key to changing that apathy.

 For that matter, you can find such attitudes among the
> rich and socially prominent as well, where there really are people who
> don't give a hoot about "culture" and wouldn't dream of getting off
> their yachts to mingle with museum mobs. Now, is art created ONLY for
> the rich?

Only a minority of artists create art with the sole intention of selling
it.  Art is created because one wants to create it.

 No, but a great deal of it is created for buyers with adequate
> funds. This is known as an economic reality, so let's get real.

It was a economic reality for Warhol.  Are there any other artists on
Museum-L who want to comment on this one?

 Are
> Rolls-Royces created only for the rich? Well, primarily. What's wrong
> with that? As far as creating art for upper class Caucasians is
> concerned, I must say I'm not aware of too many sellers of anything who
> are more concerned about the color of the buyer's skin than the color of
> his money. Or do you think Van Gogh is rolling over in his grave because
> a Japanese buyer acquired one of his paintings for many gazillions of
> dollars? He's rolling over because he didn't meet that buyer during his
> lifetime! On the other hand, many artists have been known to give away
> paintings to poor people who really appreciated them.
>

You are confusing me.  You have appeared to have begun a new thread.  My
original point was about the limited demographics of museum visitors.

> But I digress! What bothers me is all this rhetoric about museums as the
> province of the upper classes. One person says museums are the
> playgrounds of the rich, another says museums were created to show the
> masses how grand it is to be upper class, or even to "educate" the
> masses to upper class values, which is supposed to be terribly arrogant.
> Nowadays it is increasingly fashionable for museums to concern
> themselves with preserving and celebrating both mass culture and
> minority culture, which is fine. But I think it is no less arrogant for
> someone in the "lower" social strata to be prejudiced against "upper
> class" culture than vice versa. I think the whole museum enterprise is
> getting a bad rap, some of it from within. --David Haberstich
>

It is time to rethink the museum paradigm.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2