Investing in Museums

Last week, I attended a talk hosted by the Smithsonian titled “Demographics of the Decade: Understanding the Museum Audience of the Future.” The speaker was James Chung from a firm called Reach Advisors. First of all, I had never really thought about companies like Reach Advisors existing. But now that I do, I’m thinking of museums more than ever as competing enterprises, vying to reach the elusive consumer. I'm also more interested in the idea of predicting museum audience trends (especially given the drastic population changes that we see ahead) with the idea that if museums are prepared enough, they can keep up.  In "Prescriptions for the Art Museum in the Decade Ahead," Maxwell Anderson wrote that while, "Once seen primarily as charitable and educational institutions, art museums are now being regarded as incubators of financial return." Sounds bleak.

James Chung's flashy Power Point presentation was loaded with terms like “macro trends” and “income dynamics,” which caused some anxiety in me-- an art student who can appreciate that unfamiliar world, but happily stands apart from it. But hmm, museums as enterprises. This intrigues me-- the idea of a non-profit, public-serving, donor-supported institution performing like a private sector, income-generating concern. How does this affect the prevalence of the nasty commercialism that we fear? That's your cue, Carol Duncan:

"But the idea of the museum as a sanctuary, a place set apart from more mundane concerns, is harder to sustain in big museums like the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the Art Institute in Chicago, or the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. With their crowds of noisy visitors, big advertising budgets, and ever growing dependence on corporate sponsorship--these institutions look more like a part of the business world than a realm apart from it." 

So, is it necessary to keep these realms separate? If so, what can we do to keep them apart, especially given the apparent necessity to market the cultural/entertainment value of museums? 

When is history history?

In the article, "Has Success Spoiled the Art Museum?" Hilton Kramer (whom I wouldn't usually evoke) writes that "we expect of our museums that they will be dynamic rather than stable" and that this "inevitably entails a shift of attention from the permanent to the temporary."

Although Kramer is writing specifically about art museums, I'd like to talk about this idea in terms of Andrei Antonov's private collection of Apple products that he hopes to turn into a museum by the end of the year. Although I'm sure no one is expecting anything big from Andrei, what I'm interested in is the idea of "museum-izing" Steve Jobs...already.

Let me start by saying that the tributes to Jobs have been slightly creepy. I admire the man for his vision and undeniable mastery of innovation, but reverence for the whole "I didn't finish college but I made tons of money selling you widely popular electronics" thing is strange. I saw a sign dropped off by an Apple consumer to one of their stores that said something like "Thanks for my iPad; you will be missed." People really think in these terms?

But anyway, I think my anxiety about immediately historicizing Jobs' work helps me to maintain perspective. What does the sense of immediacy we have in tributizing Jobs and our apparent obsession with nostalgia say about our methods of interpreting and documenting history? And why is his work more relevant now that he's dead?

The National Portrait Gallery responded immediately to Jobs' death by hanging a portrait of him from their permanent collection under the heading "In Memoriam" along with a label, and as a label-writing intern who walks by that portrait constantly, I keep thinking, "How would you write that label?"

I mean, do we need a minute? When is history history?

Blue Collar vs Black Turtleneck

Speaking of corporate money funding museum enterprises, exactly a month from today, the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art opens in the cultural hotspot that is Bentonville, Arkansas.

Founded by the Walmart heiress, Alice Walton, the museum has been aggressively collecting notable American masterpieces, forming a collection that situates it as one of the best in the country. And, a $20 million donation from Walmart has eliminated admission fees forever.

There are so many issues surrounding this museum that deserve further exploration:

1) The oddity that is a Walmart-sponsored art museum. 

2) Alice Walton's purchase from Fisk University's Steiglitz collection. Her museum isn't even open yet and Alice is already breaking the rules pretty aggressively, reminiscent of the cutthroat world of capitalism. 

3) The "Walton-effect": Alice Walton's readiness to snag any and every significant American painting to come up for sale. This freaks out the art world ("She's got Asher Durand's 'Kindered Spirits'? Noooo!" D: ).
4) According to the Washington Post, the art world thinks the museum is "too rich, too conservative, and too reflexively American" to be considered a "major player." An American Art Museum being too reflexively American...hmmm. 

5) A self-proclaimed modern/progressive cultural institution outfitted with an architecturally chic space in the presumably socially-conservative state of Arkansas. I've been to Arkansas-- this is weird.  

6) The migration of hundreds of American masterpieces to the rural south, in effect highlighting the rugged, landscape-y, transcontinental aspects distinct to the spirit of American Art...pretty cool, actually.
7) Because Crystal Bridges is an institution that apparently cares about cultural betterment and universal access, Walmart's corporate slogan ("Save Money, Live Better") oddly works for the museum, too.

BUT, what I'd like to focus on is the relation this story has to this week's reading: James B. Twitchell's article, "Museumworld: The Art of Branding Art." Twitchell writes that "Most museums...claim to have a higher calling than competing for market share. They are not soiled by the workday world. They don't sell a product. They are not an industry..." This remark is really interesting to consider in terms of the Crystal Bridges Museum, aka the Walmart Museum. There isn't a corporation that better embodies the sprit of American consumerism and capitalism than Walmart, and now it has a museum. According to its website, "Walmart Stores, Inc., is in no way connected to the development, construction or planning of the museum or the development and ownership of the permanent collection," but I'm curious to know how much Walmart Stores, Inc. advertises it's stake in Crystal Bridges. From Walmart's point of view, why wouldn't they flaunt their philanthropic efforts? We'll have to keep an eye on the impact of the museum in Arkansas and beyond.

I'd like to end with an insightful and relevant question posed by my fellow culture warrior/blog fan/dad after discussing the cultural impact of a Walmart-funded museum: "Will there be greeters?"

The Guccinheim

Last week in Florence, Italy the Museo Gucci, a "museum" dedicated to the legacy of the 90-year-old fashion house opened its doors. An A-List party was thrown in celebration of the opening and both The New York Times' review and The Guardian's review  of the event (found in their respective online Style sections) highlighted the musical performances and celebrity appearances of the evening, of course discussed who was wearing what, and thennn....criticized the place for not being museum-y enough? I thought that was my job. 


Both articles picked up on the awkwardness of throwing a party as flashy and modern as this one in the Palazzo Vecchio, in which thousands of years of Italian history are embodied. And both the Times and the Guardian, in some way or another, touched on the juxtaposition between the fleeting, temporal nature of fashion and the arresting staying power of really old Renaissance art. Yay!


But wait, what was that Jess Cartner-Morley, fashion blogger for The Guardian? You were "disappointed in the museum" because "it felt lacking in narrative"? Similarly, in The Times' article, "Rocking the Palazzo with Gucci," (yes, that is the real title) Eric Wilson weighs in on couple of bummers: "There was some grumbling that the museum, called Museo Gucci, might have glossed over some key moments, like that whole murder thing." Wilson also astutely observes that, "if this were your only source material, you might think that Tom Ford's greatest contribution to the house was a snorkel-and-flipper set from 2000" (I'm still not sure if he intended for that statement to be hilarious). Whoa, hold the phone. Concerns about misrepresentation and the absence of historical narrative!? Sounds oddly familiar. 


By far the weirdest thing about this piece of news is that after weeks of examining the issue of museums succumbing to commercialism and commodification, an internationally-recognized commercial brand attempts to essentially reverse the process: to institutionalize itself. And what happens?  Fashion correspondents, of all people, complain that they "[want] the stories behind the piles of early-edition monogrammed luggage." 


I suppose we have all come to expect museums to live up to certain standards, no matter the content nor the audience. I'll take that as a really good sign.