I agree.  Certain museums find it more within their mission to reflect popular cultural concerns, while others would find doing so a real stretch to their mission. I’m sure we all have shaken our heads at one point or another at the ludicrousness of certain exhibition choices by certain museums, finding them clearly driven by a motive to bring in the warm bodies at any cost.  Any “new audiences” brought in typically result in a bump in revenue from admissions fees (if they exist), a temporary membership jump and increased sales in the gift shop during the exhibition, but these rarely have staying power if these audiences do not find that the regular mission of the museum is something that resonates with them.

 

Also, all museums have certain topics within their mission that they know will bring in the foot traffic, but they can’t do those too often at the expense of other mission-driven activities.  (for example—quilt exhibitions are always popular and publicly-accessible for both history and art museums, but how many of those can one do without slighting the other important areas of the collection?)

 

Having said that, I noticed on a recent visit to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Hall of Fame and Museum that they have added a couple of NASCAR cars to their extensive display of Indy cars, rather later than the actual introduction of NASCAR racing to the track itself.  In this context, NASCAR programming makes sense.  However, an exhibit of NASCAR autos at the Metropolitan Museum of Art might not.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Marie Morgan
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 2:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: museums catering to the general public

Attracting wider audiences is something that museums struggle with, but museums usually have a mission, a narrowed focus of what they are about. Every museum is not supposed to cater to every person. Although, it seems that we have to do that more now in order to stay afloat.

Museums are not commercial. Granted, to survive we need to think more that way, but at what cost? When you think of a museum you should have a silent, reverent feel at the word. Museum. That word should mean something significant. It was always meaningful to me, even when i was a kid. It was a place of learning, wonder, boredom and excitement. I don't ever want to feel about museums the way i feel about the mall.

And that's a lot of money to spend on the tastes of the moment. Why do companies spend so much money on consumer testing? Because the fads come and go so fast. To sell your products you must stay on the crest of that wave. That is not financially feasible for museums. Yesterday wrestling, today nascar, tomorrow who knows? To me, the job of a museum is to preserve what is culturally significant. Is Nascar significant? Ask me in 20 years. Museums gamble on that every day. What young artist do they invest in? Should they accession the old office macintosh? What are people going to be interested in years from now?

In this world museums are competing with TV, video games, themeparks, shopping centers, and so on. Does competing mean we have to emulate them? Every museum in America could host a traveling exhibit of the newest and biggest sensation, but should they?

I haven't really answered your questions . . . but I really don't think there are any good answers out there. At the very base, you have to ask: What are museums? What do they do? What are they for?

My best answer is that no museum can be everything to everyone. Let your mission guide you.

Marie


Micah Zender <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Being an outsider looking in (a contractor, and corporate donor) I find that museums often shy away from creating exhibitions that cater to the greater publics interests.

I'M GENERALIZING HERE!

Why?

I know that having an "art of Nascar" exhibition may not fit well into the lineup of exhibitions next to say: Early Female Expressionists, or Decorative Indian Pottery. But there's a great following behind nascar, and may bring a new audience to the museum.

Some of the institutions see this as petty, or not 'culturally significant', but isn't the core mission of most museums to bring culture, and appreciation for the arts? (Or something close to - I'm generalizing again) And isn't part of doing that reaching out to people that aren't in the upper-income bracket or aren't already artistically versed? (Super generalizing)

My corporate clients spend a great deal of time, and money on 'consumer understanding) research, trying to figure out how to reach their customers effectively, do museums not do the same? Or want to? Are these practices considered 'dirty' - because companies like P&G use this information to sell more tampons, or soap, or dishwashing detergent - is this research not a fit for museums for moral reasons? "We don't want to trick people into coming here"??

I'm interested in your thoughts/oppinionms.

Apologies for the generalizations I write with the purest of intentions.

Thanks

Micah Zender
Micah A T Zender . Com