I miss in the discussion some basic underlying essentials regarding
the job-business.
Most jobs are given to recommended candidates before the selection
process even starts. These candidates are chosen not on grounds of
merit and capacity of renewal and innovation, but on the contrary,
because they are already known and amply proved to guarantee the continuity
of political control of static administrative museum management.
Said this,I acknowledge it doesn't amount to much more than the
discovery of warm water, since established elites tried at all times
to allow only members of their own flock to acceed to the green pastures
of culture and related privileges. Some years ago I conducted a research at
the Roman Archivi Capitolini on thefts of antique masterpieces throughout
the centuries from the city's museums. I found out that the biggest robbers
were the directors of the Musei Capitolini themselves! Needless to say that
they never got caught. Partly because they had the privilege to choose their
successors (sometimes the job was past from father to son), partly because
they free-handedly supplied the Roman political establishment with museum
items to furnish their houses. This regime (malandazzo) went on until the
collapse of the corrupt Andreotti/Craxi government in 1992. Since then the
new director reclaimed hundreds of paintings and "found back" over 600 (sic!)
bronze statues from senior administrators and politicians who had taken them
into "custody".
I clearly see an analogy with this, when I find on this page job offers, which
leave applicants with only 30 days time between the first publication and
the moment of starting in the new job. So happened for a vacant position
in New York last month. The question comes up instinctively: Who wants to
hide what and why? The selection committee, the "sponsors"?
O.K., as I said before, let's get real and accept that these methods of
perpetuation of power and control were not invented yesterday, but let's
never get used to them! Friedman economies and Thatcherite politics had a
profound impact on our societies in general and on the museum world in
particular. Neoliberalism has become a dogma which must not be questioned.
Is the L-page infected by this thinking? Why are museum boards not openly
questioned and critized for their sleazy behaviour, after all they are
handling public money, aren't they?!
In its technicality this site often appears to me so harmless as a monthly
Scottish Train Spotters Bulletin rather than the forum-page of vivid debate
and dispute of an international cultural elite.
Back to the initial entry-job-question:
My advise to any university leaver would be to make only one simple decision
and afterwards resolutely work on it-

a.)if you want "any" job, prepare to work gratis for some time (as suggested
by a colleague)and concentrate on achieving the privilege to carry the
directors bag. Accomplished that please wait, eventually you'll find a
steady job, and your apparently social commitment will pay off.

b.)if you want "your" job, don't waste time waiting for it,
start now anywhere, don't bother too much about museums,either.
There is nothing special about them, they are just as dull as all public
administration, - unless you know precisely what you can offer and what
you want to change. But it may take some time to find out and by then you
might not be interested in museums any longer. If you still are, good for us,
but be ready for a bad surprise: you will be questioned at the job interview
by people who years before choose for option a.). They will envy you for
your liberty and fear that you will threaten their position in their cosy,
tidy and well orginized museum world. Go for it, if you dare!



Dr T.K.Eppen
Network of European Museums and Archives
Avenue de la Couronne 412
1050 Brussels
Belgium


The opinion expressed perfectly matches with the philosophy of the above
named institution.