So, do I have this right...Museums are feminine and that contributes
to the under-valuation of culture and the humanities in our society
(that is American society in the late 1990's?) And that is the thesis
you are working to develop for your dissertation?
In general, if I understand, you are proposing that the museum world
has become increasingly "feminine" (through education) and that that
should correspond to an increasing gap between the under-valued
museums and the valued "male" institutions such as business, sports,
etc. I would be willing to bet that the facts are quite contrary to
this, and that the economic activity generated by museums (gifts and
grants in, revenue, expenditures, employment, and sheer number) has
increased dramatically in some reasonable window of time, like 20
years from 1975-1995. And, I would bet that one could draw a strong
correlation between the museum world's increased emphasis on education
and this increased economic activity. Now whether it has increased at
a rate greater or lesser than these other "male" spheres would depend
on your definition of these male spheres, and the measurement of their
economic activity. In short, it would require an economist (gawd help
us.)
I have no idea what you feel you have proved when you say "What is the
big focus for museums these days? Education -- entertainment --
families. What is the common denominator? Gender" Then you go on to
say that is the explanation for the decline in the value of museums.
Are you suggesting that entertainment and family activities have
become *less* economically successful in the past decade or so? It
would seem to contradict all the facts...family cars, movies, disney,
theme parks, tv for gods sake. All of these are working to involve
themselves in family activities and to entertain!
You are also, at least in your post, clumping together ideas that seem
unrelated: Museum professionals, I would concede to you, are
relatively underpaid and undervalued because they work in areas that
are "soft" "nonessential" "nonprofit" "educational", etc as you say.
Then you segue immediately into a claim that Americans "subconsciously
cling to the mystical ideal of the nuclear family and the male
breadwinner." That is one of those cheap magazine article phrases
that deserves total puncturing. Which Americans are you referring
to? What do you mean by "subconsciously," "mystical," "cling?" How do
you know that "most" American's feel this way, even if you could
define what you were saying more clearly?
And beyond that, what is the connection between the first idea, that
museums are "nonessential" etc, and the second, that Americans believe
in this nuclear family. And how do you connect this to the final
phrase "Until this changes, the arts and humanities will continue to
take second place; museums will take back seat to baseball stadiums,
etc, etc." And how do you know that a change in the belief in the
nuclear family will produce such an effect?
Professions perceived as feminine, for example, teacher, social
worker, day care worker, babysitter, secretary, etc., are undeniably
undervalued in America, and in other rich countries. Agricultural
work in poorer countries, where it is largely a feminine sphere of
activity, is undeniably undervalued in economic terms.
If museums are in fact some how shortchanged in America relative to
football stadiums, the obvious reason is also the deeper reason: the
latter moves money around more rapidly than the former. To look more
deeply for a reason, visual art takes patience and contemplative time
and abilities, historical artifacts don't yield their beauty and
meaning quickly and readily. To the degree that we have made museums
better competitors for leisure (read "family") time dollars, to that
degree museums have been more significantly rewarded through increased
funding and visitorship.
I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't be taking this so seriously, after all,
its just a post on the internet, but I think that the hypothesis you
present needs some sharpening and defining.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
