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