Peter the Rebernik wrote....

t is not enough to include the staff of the museum into museum planning;
reason: the staff does not have any experience in creating a new museum.
This is a once-in-a-lifetime-job for a museum employee. They will tell y lot
of things to the architect, but not everything is true or sufficient. Only
staff should be allowed to discuss in earnest, who has visited a lot of
other - newly built - museums, discussed thoroughly with the people (staff
and visitors there).
Otherwise, only the windows for the staff will be fitted best.
 -I know that is (a little) provocative, but the unexperienced museum staff
(unexperienced in creating new museums or advising architects on it) is the
reason for so many museums which do not function properly ever after. Staff
should be schooled intensively before being let into the architect's room.
And vice versa: never trust the eloquent architect, before he hasn't
designed a properly functioning entrance hall for a museum.

Greetings,

Peter, the Rebernik
....




I can't agree with the idea that only people who have spent time assessing
newly-built museums should contribute to the architectural planning of their
institution.  For one thing, museum professionals are usually that -
professional - and tend to keep up with the literature (or at least
Museum-L), very few architects do.

The Powerhouse Museum, wonderful as it is, has some real flaws.  Education &
Visitor Services, for instance, ended up with what amounts to a set of
grotty little classrooms with no windows lurking in the depths of the
museum.  We were actually asked to comment on the plans, spent quite some
time detailing what we really wanted (based on both museum experience and
educational principles) and then were told that the plans could not be
changed.  The classrooms are also greatly separated from our actual offices.

More interesting, and really unforeseeable, is the impact of our entry which
deliberately echoes C19th points of arrival and departure.  Great, high
spaces, wonderful appearance - but it alienates indigenous Australians and
those from colonised backgrounds.  There does not seem to be much
investigation into the psychology of public spaces, or the emotional impact
of an architectural 'statement'.  Perhaps museum front of house staff could
contribute to planning based on their direct experiences of visitors - at
least they might ensure enough public toilets and clear routes to explore.
 We are something of a rat maze, and some exhibitions are not often found.
 Admittedly we are a recycled power-house made up of several linked
buildings, but our architect seemed more interested in exploring his
theories on spaces than considering our visitors.

I agree that architects tend to ignore staff as far as possible.
 Overcrowding in hard to access spaces seems to be the norm - as does
separation from the museum proper.   Having visitor services lurking at the
top of a couple of flights of killer stairs is not really conducive to
observing visitor behaviour!  Nor does the separation of various departments
 - curatorial, education & visitor services, management & PR/Marketing,
venue, etc. etc. - into separate locations, sometimes separate buildings,
help to create a common culture or integrated museum community.  We need
dialogue with each other (and possibly to lynch the architects!)

Heleanor Feltham
"I'm mad, you're mad.  We wouldn't be here if we weren't"
[log in to unmask]
 ----------

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------