Paul, since when do directors of museums get bonuses? I think that
your post (and I mean that in the best possible sense) is comparing
some related phenomena in a slightly unexamined way.
First of all: the "traditional" corporate culture with lots of middle
management is obviously the product of the post-war generation. Some
change from that, an elimination of middle management, though painful
to us middle managers, is not abandoning a platonic ideal of a
corporate structure. Similarly with museums. The "traditional" role,
and structure, of museums is a product of the post-victorian era. So
it is not, apparently, something so written in stone and proven with
success that it can't be tinkered with to good effect.
Second of all, the economic incentives are completely un-related.
Museum director's don't get bonuses, and they don't get increased
funding by eliminating useful functions in the museum. Unless, of
course, those *useful* functions are not perceived that way by the
public, and then there can be some reward for focusing on
interpretation rather than collections. But that is an argument that
has been well-presented on this list: and there are museum
professionals who are in disagreement about the relative merits of
interpretation vs. collections management (in light of limited
resources).
There is something in what you say about the short-term-ism vs. longer
range thinking. For different reasons, but perhaps behind the same
impulse, short term thinking is rewarded in both the corporate
culture and, one might argue, in the museum culture as well. But if
museums are inclined to hire another PR person at the apparent
sacrifice of a collections manager, that is not a violation of a long
tradition, but simply a choice based upon the current priorities and
needs of museums.
Do we owe more to our public than our collections? Which should we be
spending money on. Something about which honest people may disagree.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
