Matthew White <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>While preparing a reply to John Strand I reread the _Baltimore_  article
in Museum News while I kept up on the development of this thread and as
my mental processes trudged along it occurred to me what it was that
made
that article so disturbing.  It was that it depicted the Baltimore as a
city with those same rose-colored glasses and overly optimistic
visitation/revenue forecasts the rest of you attribute to individual
museums...<snip>

Matthew, I'm glad you said it, and you've said it well--I hope you send
the complete text of
your comments to "Museum News" because they need to hear it there, too.
I've been following the stories of the Baltimore City Life Museums and
other planned museums in the Baltimore Sun, too, not to mention the
city's fiscal woes, and my response to that "Museum News" piece was that
there were no outright lies, but some disturbing omissions.  There are
some exciting things happening at Baltimore museums (and alternative
spaces, too), but whose interest does it serve to ignore the dark side
of the picture?  Around the time that the article came out, Baltimore's
Walters Art Gallery had taken the unusual step of stationing people
inside the entrance handing out fliers urging citizens to lobby their
city council representatives to help save cultural funding, which the
mayor had threatened to drastically cut.  The author couldn't have known
that at press time, but the city's financial problems are not a new
story.

I have read with interest the perceptive comments of others on this
topic about how museums get into these predicaments.  I started thinking
about how this thread raises many questions.  One is about
growth--Museums and museum
directors make their reputations on growth--more museums, major
acquisitions, new wings, etc.  Does this need to be questioned more?
Are these types of growth always the ultimate measure of success?  The
other question, which others on the list have spoken about, is about
marketing.  The aspect of marketing that I am thinking about is exhibit
evaluation and visitor studies--spending more time and effort finding
out from the visitors why they are at the museum, what they are getting
out of the experience and what would bring them back for more, rather
than *thinking* we know the answers to those questions.  Even a very
modest visitor evaluation that I conducted on a project yielded some
suprising information that defied the conventional wisdom of seasoned
museum professionals.  This leads back to my first question--can visitor
surveys help us to expand upon and perhaps redefine what success is--not
just looking at the tangible aspects like new buildings and bigger
budgets, but what people are learning and what the museum adds to their
"quality of life"?

--Helen Glazer, Exhibitions Director
Goucher College
Baltimore, Maryland USA
[log in to unmask]