On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, David Haberstich wrote: > Well. I for one don't think many museums are "excluding by design" > people who aren't at the top of the "social darwinist ladder." I think > that's a vicious slander that demands documentation and proof. Show me. Many museums exclude people by exhibit design- glass cases and lots of text. Museums exclude people by charging admission, selling tickets, architectural design, atmosphere, programming, etc. > On the other hand, museums must CATER to those at the top because that's > increasingly where their bread will get buttered. This is a specious arguement. The few donors a museum might have are nothing compared to the voting power and voice of the rest of society. Do you think the NEA's budget would be cut if all the "Joe/sephine Sixpacks" liked its output? The more accessable museums are to the general public the more funding they will receive from that public. This is the best > argument I can think of for public funding of the arts and humanities > (and sciences): it's one way to keep the rich from being in total > control. Trouble is, many folks at the lower end of the socioeconomic > ladder (dare I call them Joe Sixpak?) WANT it to be that way--they WANT > the arts to be the province of the rich because they aren't interested > and it reinforces their prejudices that the rich concern themselves with > meaningless frills. Here is your opportunity to provide data. I don't want to fall into the same trap of > over-generalizing that some of my colleagues on this list do, Over-generalizing is probably the nicest thing one can say about your last statement. but I say > we need to recognize that there is a rich vein of genuine apathy and > hostility to museums and the arts in many classes, not excluding the > "lower" classes. Accessibility is the key to changing that apathy. For that matter, you can find such attitudes among the > rich and socially prominent as well, where there really are people who > don't give a hoot about "culture" and wouldn't dream of getting off > their yachts to mingle with museum mobs. Now, is art created ONLY for > the rich? Only a minority of artists create art with the sole intention of selling it. Art is created because one wants to create it. No, but a great deal of it is created for buyers with adequate > funds. This is known as an economic reality, so let's get real. It was a economic reality for Warhol. Are there any other artists on Museum-L who want to comment on this one? Are > Rolls-Royces created only for the rich? Well, primarily. What's wrong > with that? As far as creating art for upper class Caucasians is > concerned, I must say I'm not aware of too many sellers of anything who > are more concerned about the color of the buyer's skin than the color of > his money. Or do you think Van Gogh is rolling over in his grave because > a Japanese buyer acquired one of his paintings for many gazillions of > dollars? He's rolling over because he didn't meet that buyer during his > lifetime! On the other hand, many artists have been known to give away > paintings to poor people who really appreciated them. > You are confusing me. You have appeared to have begun a new thread. My original point was about the limited demographics of museum visitors. > But I digress! What bothers me is all this rhetoric about museums as the > province of the upper classes. One person says museums are the > playgrounds of the rich, another says museums were created to show the > masses how grand it is to be upper class, or even to "educate" the > masses to upper class values, which is supposed to be terribly arrogant. > Nowadays it is increasingly fashionable for museums to concern > themselves with preserving and celebrating both mass culture and > minority culture, which is fine. But I think it is no less arrogant for > someone in the "lower" social strata to be prejudiced against "upper > class" culture than vice versa. I think the whole museum enterprise is > getting a bad rap, some of it from within. --David Haberstich > It is time to rethink the museum paradigm.