Adrienne, I'm not sure I want to continue a "fight" with Mr. Jay
(Establishing Relevance Is Our Business) Smith.  As far as the "controversy"
issue is concerned, in all seriousness, I agree that controversy can attract
museum visitors.  However, it isn't everything.  The Vermeer exhibition did
quite well at the National Gallery of Art and in Holland with minimal (if
any) controversy; some people are repelled by controversy.  On the other
hand, the Robert Mapplethorpe exhibition thrived on controversy a few years
ago in Washington, and it certainly was responsible for attracting great
throngs.  I thought the remark of the little old lady who was quoted in the
Washington Post as saying that she had visited the Mapplethorpe show 5 times,
and hated it more each time, was especially illustrative.  So there.  I think
that just about exhausts my commentary on controversy at the present time.

Ever since Mr. Smith delivered his June 1rejoinder to my May 28 message, in
which I suggested that museums are not "relevant" to the lives of some young
people--which I honestly thought was patently obvious--I have considered
sending him a private reply in order not to bore the whole Museum-L list with
a silly argument.  However, if you like controversy and "fights," Adrienne,
I'll make it public for your entertainment and that of any voyeurs lurking on
the list.  Here goes:

Mr. Smith:
Did you get out of the wrong side of bed on June 1, or what?  I think your
"you ought to know this by now" represents a new low in so-called dialogue.
 When did I suggest that I didn't know that our duty as museum professionals
was to our audience, not ourselves?  This hardly even qualifies as a normal
cheap shot.  It's just gratuitous.

I'm not convinced that we have an "obligation" to provide a setting where
young people want to be.  The best way to do that would be to offer a free
theater showing "action" movies like the "Die Hard" series.  Our obligation
is to provide opportunities for learning for a variety of audiences.  Not
everyone WANTS to learn, which is one of the important things I know by now.
 I would think YOU would know THAT by now, despite whatever rip-roaring
successes you may have had in attracting visitors to your exhibitions.  I
find it hard to believe that there aren't at least a half dozen kids in
Hutchinson who would rather see a bad movie than a good exhibition at the
Reno County Museum.  If I ever do visit Hutchinson, I guarantee I'll take a
poll and get some signed statements to that effect and send them to you for
your files, because I think you need a reality check.

Our duty is to our audiences, plural.  Young people represent just one of
those audiences.  To the extent that museums are competing with other forms
of diversion for young people, there are limitations on what we can do and
still be museums.  It may well be that the Reno County Museum is the most
exciting place to be in Hutchinson, Kansas, but in the Washington area the
National Mall has a tough time competing with shopping malls.

How, pray tell, do you suggest museums become relevant to young people?
 Would you care to share your secret?  How do you entice all those hordes of
children into the Reno County Museum?  I can tell you our secret for the
limited success that we do have--escalator racing.  My museum has the most
popular escalators in the region.  I never see kids playing on shopping mall
and subway escalators, so apparently the word has gotten out that ours are
superior.  To tell you the truth, we're handling pretty close to our maximum
of young people; I'm not sure how we could squeeze many more in.  We provide
a great venue for group interactivity; I was probably wrong to imply that we
have a problem in appealing to young visitors.  I was misled by our apparent
failure to attract local kids for repeat visits, but perhaps the locals
regard our museum as a tourist hangout.  This puts a whole different light on
the matter, now that I think about it.  I take it all back: perhaps we have
great relevance to our young visitors.  And it is entirely possible that many
youngsters are accidentally engaged by an actual exhibit while running from
the east escalator to the west escalator.  All museums should have
escalators.

Sarcasm aside, I think there are limitations on what a museum can do to
"picque" [sic] the interests of some visitors, young or old.  How do you get
people in the door in the first place if they don't already have some
interest in the basic features and content of a museum?  Once they're in, how
do you sustain that interest?  You seem to have all the answers--perhaps
you'd care to tell us how it's done.  I have a young friend of 18, of whom
I've written before, who has no interest in any museum exhibit, including one
which I curated (I thought he might feign interest out of politeness, but not
even that happened).  His interests at the present time are: certain movies,
baseball, Newsweek magazine (!), amusement parks, and computers.  Period.  I
say "certain" movies, because he is extremely selective, and actually
unpredictable, about what he will predetermine is going to "interest" him.
 If he finds himself in a museum, he will sit and read his Newsweek until his
companions are ready to leave.  I guarantee that he would not willingly enter
your museum no matter what you put in it or how you display it.  In case
you're wondering, this young man is a straight-A student; getting good grades
is his other interest--not knowledge--just good grades.  He's a particularly
tough case, but I don't think he's unique.  There are plenty of children,
teenagers, and adults like him, who are simply not interested in ANYTHING ANY
museum has to offer.  I cannot see how anyone in his (or her) right mind can
argue that museums have somehow "failed" people like that.

"Establishing relevance," Mr. Smith, is not a mandate peculiar to museums.
 Any human activity, any business, seeks to establish relevance for its
customers or audiences.  I love museums and most of the curious, beautiful,
and/or fascinating objects that are shown in them.  I love history and the
evidence of the past which I find in museums, libraries, archives,
cathedrals, canyons, and forests.  I also love liver and onions, as I've
mentioned elsewhere.  I personally have wide-ranging interests and am
continually appalled to find that not everyone shares all my passions and
interests.  It pains me to think of what some people are missing by insisting
on having drab, circumscribed, limited lives.  I have an insatiable thirst
for knowledge (which is what my graduate school roommate said just before
getting hooted out of a bull session by my colleagues).  I try in my small
way, both personally and professionally, to share my interests and passions
with others, and am frustrated when I cannot elicit some spark of interest or
insight.  But it just doesn't work on some people.  That's what I know by
now, despite what some Pollyanna-ish museum people think to the contrary.  I
don't think I'm being defeatist, it doesn't stop me from trying, but I have
enough humility to realize that no museum director or curator is an
omnipotent super-educator.  I can take heart if just one skeptical visitor to
my museum is sufficiently engaged by some exhibition effort of mine to feel
some impact and be changed to some small degree, even if it happens only ten
years later.  Our successes have to be gauged largely by sustaining and
nurturing the visitors who are already predisposed to an interest in our
exhibits before they walk in the door; it's great to make converts, but we
can't neglect the existing faithful.

Mr. Smith, I am surprised that you now admit to doing merely a "pretty good
job."  I too think we're doing a pretty good job at my museum.  No museum
needs the Haberstich seal of approval; why are you so defensive?  Have I said
anything derogatory about your museum?  I merely questioned, with some
sarcasm, the implicit boast that your institution is so much more successful
than ours in attracting young visitors.  After all, I have only your
boosterism and arrogance as proof.   I actually think most museums are doing
a pretty good job as well, including the traditional art museums that some
Musem-L people (I won't mention names) love to knock.  Your enthusiasm for
your museum certainly piques my interest and you have my tentative seal of
approval in absentia.  I'd love to visit, but my own museum activities keep
me pretty busy.  Time and budgetary constraints being what they are, I have
to be selective about where I travel (who doesn't?); I'm either traveling out
of my own pocket or a host institution has to pay my way for a lecture or
consultation.  I'd love to see every museum of every type in the world, but
that isn't likely (that old reality check again); if I'm traveling on my own
funds, a museum has to have something specific I want to see in connection
with a research project or relate to specific selected interests.  Tell me
about your photographic collections; send me a brochure; do you have a web
site?

Whew!  Anything else, Adrienne?

David Haberstich
National Museum of American History