Regarding museums and controversy:

In 1993 I completed my master's thesis on "Public Controversy over Funding
for the Arts: Robert Mapplethorpe and the Perfect Moment." The study was
an analysis of media coverage of the controversy and the effects of the
coverage.  I am assuming most on Museum-L are familiar with this
controversy.

While I am sure that the individual museums and galleries involved have
much more information to share on this subject, the results of my study
showed a direct correlation between media attention and public attention.
According to the NEA, at the time, this was the largest attended
NEA-funded show.

This exhibit provided an excellent case study.  When it opened in
Philadelphia, the Inquirer ran only a small mention about it.  While at
its next
venue, in Chicago, Mapplethorpe died, and his death generated media
attention.  It was not until the Corcoran Gallery canceled the show in
Washington just prior to its opening that the media "spotlight" focused on
this exhibit. What happened next was a classic example of how the media
set an agenda, hype a story, and the public reacts.

The results showed a dramatic increase in public attention to the exhibit.
Visitors were lined up around the block at the Washington Project for the
Arts, the gallery that accepted the show in Washington.  Similar
attendance records were set at each venue.

Somewhere Robert Mapplethrope was smiling.  The price of his artwork
skyrocketed.  The difference between the
auction prices paid for his photographs before and after the
controversy was phenominal.

Did the controversy have any lasting effects?  Ask the Contemporary Art
Center in Cincinnati, ask Dennis Barry, ask the NEA which is still
fighting for its existence.

Jill MacKenzie
Wilmington, Delaware
[log in to unmask]