As I look at the transformation of the landscape of museums, I see a heartening move towards using museums to work for social justice, to improve the equitable distribution of risks and rewards in society. This is certainly not pervasive. Many museums remain elitist. Many museums claim to avoid politics, though this is just another way of endorsing a lack of change. But just as incremental moves toward equity are happening in other cultural and social arenas, so too in museums. One happy result of this ongoing change is the willingness of museum professionals to critically examine the ways in which museums can and should be more inclusive and accessible.

I’m coming to this project with the lens of social justice in mind because that’s the focus of my own research, but I don’t want it to seem out of synch with our collective project of civic discourse. To me, there’s a real connection between the two. Many of our rights and freedoms come together in the public square, in our “cosmopolitan canopies” (as Elijah Anderson put it), such as museums. Free speech, our human right to cultural heritage, freedom from discrimination, and even our need for shelter inflect our participation in these spaces. Likewise, spaces that allow cosmopolitan or civic engagement allow us to work as a collective to handle concerns that affect us all: education, health, the environment, labor, violence, immigration, and so much more.

  1. Money, money, money, and its relationship to representation

When I think about the role of museums in civic discourse past, present, and future, I think of a changing role, yet one with odd constants over the last century. For example, instrumental use of the museum for change is nothing new. Yet the meanings of progressive change have radically transformed as have the stances we deem appropriate in interactions with visitors, communities, and other stakeholders. The authority of the museum remains, but what we think we should do with it is in flux. Many agree that we want visitors to feel ownership in the museum – ownership of their experiences and, indeed, even ownership over the objects. How do we foster those experiences, especially for those who have historically felt out of place or unwelcome in museums?

One of the answers comes in the form of another question. People will feel welcome in the museum and will participate when they feel that they are represented, not just as an object of inquiry, but also among the staff, board, and throughout the leadership and voice of the institution. So, how do museums change their staffs and boards to equitably represent their home communities? There must be a variety of processes for coming on staff at a museum beyond the ubiquitous unpaid internship. What is the state of the field on this issue? Where are the resources to bring exciting candidates to work in museums who cannot afford to work for free? I hope our discussion, and ultimately our volume, begins to compile resources around this subject because it has the power to literally change the face of museums. That change is itself connected to the livelihood and relevance of museums. For, as more people are welcome and involved in museums the museums’ work becomes more relevant to more communities.

Another issue that is connected to the tandem questions of staffing and sharing authority is that of admission costs. Museums that truly care about civic discourse must find ways to offer free admission. But I believe that the onus should not lie solely with institutions. We need to look abroad for examples that we can apply to a cultural policy that will drastically expand the number of free institutions in this country, especially among the biggest mainstream institutions. What can we learn from the flux in the British system? How do we preserve the freedom of speech in museums that are publicly funded? What can we learn from the changes in newly democratic Spain post-Franco? In Beyond the Prado, Selma Holo described the development of cultural policy there: “museums must remove obstacles to their development as centers of communication and interpretation of knowledge” (194). That sounds awfully close to (though not the same as) removing obstacles to civic discourse. And, at bottom, is change from within possible? Can museums function inside a state-funded system to change the state?

  1. Setting the table for civic discourse

I’m fascinated by the question about what the traditional affordances of the museum as an environment have to offer work for social justice and civic discourse as well as that of how the curatorial tactics that have become staples when working for social justice can inform ongoing efforts to build civic discourse. In the first place, it’s interesting, though certainly not new, to consider how places that were built for reflection – often quiet, solitary, personal reflection – can also build discourse. The real question to me, here, is not how museums can change their shape to accommodate discourse, but how their extant forms can inspire and incite civic discourse. Some museums take advantage of John Falk’s lessons about how visitors attend museums socially in groups and what they’re looking for, and some don’t. But that’s a starting place. I think there are other elements that make museums very socially friendly, and that’s a starting place for discourse. When a welcoming, open environment in which food and drink are allowed and offered is easily accessible to the entrance of the museum (Dallas Art Museum), that’s a great start. When shopping experiences do not rupture the flow of traveling through the museum (as it does in museums such as the Field Museum and the Art Institute of Chicago), but instead are contained in their own space, that’s helpful. Instead, break-oriented spaces where food and drink are allowed and there is limited seating would be much more useful. As the education consultant Paul Gabriel put it, our brains begin to get low on energy part way through the museum and become increasingly less engaged unless we refuel. We’ve all felt and experienced that. Some museums are oriented around a central courtyard area that may even include seating and the opportunity to eat and drink. This is exceptional because visitors can slip out of the flow of the space at virtually any point, and then go back in. There are variations on this organization at the Detroit Institute of Art, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, and the Cloisters of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Even when food and drink is not allowed, as at the Isabella Steward Gardner Museum, a courtyard area can offer a welcome respite and opportunity for group reflection and conversation away from the pressure to look and do way-finding. The same is true for museums that have indoor / outdoor spaces such as (again) Dallas Art Museum or San Francisco’s de Young. When a march through a prescribed floor plan changes to exploration and there’s the bonus of blowing off steam, great things can happen. In other words, when visitors are most relaxed, they can make connections and linger longer. These kinds of logistical issues are at the heart of spurring dialogue and involving the museum in civic discourse just as much as creating a welcome for everyone is.

As to the second question about staple curatorial tactics, there are very good reasons that the involvement of stakeholding communities in the development of exhibitions and calls to action inside the museum have become canonical. When we think of civic discourse, these specific tactics are indispensable. Both feed the content of the museum back out beyond the museum’s walls and also integrate and reintegrate input from outside the museum. Drawing on a canon of tactics has tremendous appeal for me personally (hence my writing a book on that very topic). But it has dangers as well. Most notably, there are the dangers of “phoning it in” – not really involving stakeholders, for example, but simply doing lip service to a checklist as well as the danger of applying the tactics because they’re there and not because they’re appropriate. So, what other tactics can we add to the canon of tactics to promote civic discourse? And what stories can demonstrate the range of their applicability and usefulness?

I’m looking forward to tackling these questions and more in Baltimore. In particular, I’m excited to work with colleagues on laying the groundwork for a useful collection of resources that will benefit museum professionals, visitors and stakeholding communities, and students. I have so much to learn from all of the participants in this special opportunity to think together.

~ Elena Gonzales, independent scholar and curator

Discussion

2 comments
  1. Aleia Brown says:

    I’m particularly interested in your comments about free admission in light of the Hyperallergenic post questioning free admission’s effectiveness (http://hyperallergic.com/229835/looking-at-the-data-behind-free-museum-admission/).

    I’d like to know your thoughts on this question – How is free admission mutually beneficial for both museums and their projected audiences if museums don’t cultivate exhibitions and programs for disadvantaged socio-economic demographics?

  2. Lyra Monteiro says:

    Thanks for this statement, Elena–you touch on so many important issues! Or, at least, I think they’re super important…maybe that’s a product of us both coming out of the same program 🙂

    I’m curious about what you call the “human right to cultural heritage”–where does this idea come from? How would you theorize this right?

    I’m thrilled that you raise the issue of the unpaid internship as a barrier to diverse staffing. It’s such a huge problem, and really inexcusable. Same with free admission. I remain disgusted by how the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, despite its other commitments to civic discourse, continues to charge $25 for admission–and complains that it has difficulty expanding its audience beyond its mainly white, upper-middle-class visitors. I definitely agree with Aleia, though, that free admission alone does not solve the problems of diversifying museum audiences.

    The impact of the layout of a museum for creating a welcoming space is such a great point! And I also love the observation about how spaces built for quiet reflection might be used to create dialogue.

    Looking forward to our conversations tomorrow–thanks again for organizing!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.