Apologies for this long posting --- unless there is still interest for the
whole group, I hope that this will be the end of this thread, and would be
happy to respond personally to anyone who might like to pursue it further.
On Sept. 25, 1994, Charles Desmarais had several comments regarding my
recent posting of the experience that the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston has
had with serving food and beverages around works of art. I really don't
want to sound defensive, or to get into a major debate about this --- my
main point was that is works for us, and (in my opinion) it works for
several reasons:
(1) because we have *LOTS* of controls embedded in our policies and procedures
(2) because we communicate *emphatically* about the need for those
controls to prospective clients, caterers, and anyone else who asks --- and
we do this early enough that the client knows we won't tolerate behavior
that is *inappropriate* (sorry if that sounds elitist, but there you are)
in an art museum. For whatever reason, people do seem to be on their best
behavior during *most* of the parties held in our museum. I say *most*
because, sure, we've seen examples of the horrid behaviors that Mr.
Desmarias mentioned, but not often, and we've been able to deal with them
quickly and effectively.
(3) because we have developed a reasonably high level of mutual trust with
the curatorial staff, in that they know that our priority is to serve the
art mission of the museum --- our particular *kind* of service is to help
raise the money to deliver the art, but our job is to do it in a way that
respects and enhances the primary mission of the museum. Does it work all
the time? Of course not, but I think we all try to go into the whole
process with an open, not closed, mind. Does every curator think every
event we hold is terrific? Also, of course not, but for the most part we
work together in a positive, cooperative, non-adversarial, manner.
(4) because we have the support of the Director and the Board of Trustees;
this support is due in no small part to point #3, above.
To respond to some of Mr. Desmarais's specific horror stories:
> 1) Caterers sauteing (sp?) foods in oil, over a gas jet, within
>six feet of important, unprotected paintings.
> 2) Caterers pushing serving tables up against walls with unprotected
>paintings hanging on them, where splashes from a dish could easily land on
>a work of art.
We simply don't allow open flames, or cooking, inside the building. All
prep has to be done off-site, or outside on our loading dock. We don't
allow *any* tables within 5-6 feet of any painting or sculpture --- we are
on hand for all events, approve all setups ahead of time, and have been
known to make a caterer change his/her setup in the middle of a party if an
attempt is made to get around our rules. Caterers who demonstrate that
they don't respect our rules aren't allowed to cater any more events. We
also don't allow table arrangements (flowers) to be tall enough that if
they fell they would fall on a work of art (grammatically poor, but you get
the point!)
Do caterers find this restrictive? You bet, but our attitude (nicely,
usually!) is "too bad".
> 3) Guests using sculpture pedestals (with sculptures on the pedestals)
>as tables or shelves for their dishes and/or glasses.
> 4) Guests become irate when asked by guards to move away from
>paintings,
>or to stop waving their wine glasses at sections of a painting (presumably as
>they explicate some passage).
> 5) Guests lean against paintings inadvertently, absorbed in
>conversation
We have, on average, 20-25 guards on hand for major events. They are
trained to help us watch for the kinds of problems listed above. Our
service staff is also trained in the same fashion. When we have a work of
art on view that is particularly vulnerable, we either post a separate
guard for that individual work of art, or we don't allow food or beverage
in that area, or both. Period. Yes, it has been known for a guest to
become upset at being asked to move, leave, etc. Again, "too bad". We
don't have that kind of problem often, and when we do, we can generally
handle it without too much fuss. I might add that our bartenders are also
trained to observe the amount of alcohol that guests imbibe --- we simply
don't serve guests who appear to be inebriated. If the guest in question
is some sort of "important person" (e.g., a trustee or the like), we have
the support of the museum in enforcing our mandate to protect the art.
Frankly, most people *do* behave, especially people who are involved with
the museum in some capacity.
> The person from the MFA who shared her experienc
>es (sorry, I deleted her message too quickly) talked exclusively of the money
>to be raised by allowing receptions with food and drink in the galleries--but
>the money's supposed to be raised to protect and share the art--the art's
>not there for the development efforts.
I think it is clear, if not in my original message, then hopefully here,
that the money is, indeed, raised to "protect and share the art". Perhaps
Mr. Desmarais misread my original message. I obviously do not think that
the art is "there for the development efforts". Such a position would be
both ludicrous and counterproductive.
> I think it is particularly telling
>that the MFA does not allow food in galleries with loan shows (at least,
>that's what was said), but will allow it with the works in the Permanent
>Collection if there's money to be made. Why not with loan shows? Because
>they'd never get another loan again from a museum, presumably.
Sorry, Mr. Desmarais has made an unjustified presumption. As I understand
it (I could be wrong about this) most loaned shows have this proscription
in their contracts. When the contract does not mention it, our policy is
to ask the curator to make the decision, and, if he/she thinks it *might*
be OK to serve F&B, the curator asks the lender. We have had occasions in
which the lender says OK once it sees a copy of our "Guidelines for
Caterers" (which, I should add, we require all caterers to execute, in
contract form, before they cater *any* event ---in addition to showing
evidence of insurance). We don't avoid F&B around loaned art for the
"potential reprisal" reason that Mr. Desmarais suggests. I''ve hoped to
communicate that, while we do have an active, revenue-generating program,
we are *very* conservative in how we make decisions about which galleries
to use, etc. We don't argue with decisions made by curators in that
regard -- to the contrary, we support them.
Mr. Desmarais, this response is not intended to "flame" you, by any means.
Your reservations are, and have been, ours as well. We've just chosen to
deal with all of the actual, and potential, problems in a proactive,
positive way --- for the good of the museum as a whole.
In all my years at the museum, there has never been the need to make a
claim on *one* insurance policy. Could something awful happen to one of
our artworks tomorrow? Of course. Just as something awful could result
from the behavior of a bad child on a docent-led tour or an adult with some
sort of mental problem.
So far, the positive, actual results of our program (not only in terms of
revenue, but in terms of exposing more Houstonains to our collection than
would have been possbile otherwise --- which is actually one of our goals
as well) have so far outweighed any problems. We've simply chosen think
ahead and deal with the problems, if and when they arise, rather than to
simply close our minds to the whole issue.
I wouldn't suggest trying to implement a revenue-producing special events
program unless you are also willing to invest the time and money to hire
people with the right skills --- it takes years of expertise to be able to
plan and execute events well. Failures I've heard of arise from
situations in which a museum has tried to use someone from another
administrative job to do special events "part-time" -- this just wouldn't
work, especially in a large institution like ours.
Hiring people with an appreciation for art is also extremely important ---
in our case, our Special Events Director could as easily lead an "art
tour" of the museum as a "facility tour". I've been through docent
training and was a docent for two years, and our secretary has been a
gallery owner. We are experts in Special Events, not art --- but we do
have the background to understand and communicate the overall job that the
museum is trying to do.
So, with all due respect, it works for us, but I really don't care to try
to convince the doubters that it will also work for them. Each
institution obviously has to set its own priorities and to be comfortable
with the results.
Finally, I don't think we are the only museum with a successful program
--- we learn a little more from each event about how to do it better, and
we share ideas with other museums all the time. End of issue, I hope.
Carol McDavid
dutch @sam.neosoft.com
|
