Art is a Fine Large Word

Throughout this collection of essays, John Dana references the art museum as the example of everything he thinks a museum shouldn’t be. I have found this to be both entertaining and frustrating. Entertaining because of the snarky and often off-handed manner in which he makes these comments, and frustrated because he seems to regard the art museum as so beneath him that he does not propose any set of solutions for its improvement. Dana seems to have a certain fondness for detailing hypothetical museums, but he does not give the art museum this treatment. He spends a great deal of time and energy criticizing art and art museums and then gives no time to the solution.

In the final section of this collection of essays, Museums and Art,  Dana discusses art in America in two essays, one focusing on the significance of art in America and the other focusing on the art of America. In the first, Dana describes art as a way to “...conceal thought, and to conceal the want of thought (Dana, 1906, 201)” He goes on to tell us to define and limit the use of the word, and not to fool your pupils with it. In the end, Dana concludes that art is not a teachable endeavor, and that the time spent teaching a student to draw when that student is not artistic is time wasted (Dana, 1906).

I am an art teacher, and I most emphatically disagree with Dana on this point. It is my most sincere belief that all of us have a need to express ourselves, and that art is a way in which we can do that. Not everyone uses art making as a mode of expression, but that is not because they can’t.  I have been teaching art for a year now, and that is a remarkably short period of time. In that year, however, I have seen dozens of students who were told that they were not artists create some of the most creative and poignant works I have ever seen.  My job is less teaching technique and basic principles and more encouraging my students despite their inhibitions about art. It is very disheartening to face a classroom of twelve year olds who have already been convinced that they cannot create art.

I wonder now if Dana was as ahead of his time in this mode of thought as he was with most everything else he discussed in his essays, or if this denouncement of art and art making is a deep-rooted myth we have been perpetuating for a century or more.

The Idea of the Teaching Museum

Let me start by stating that I find the fact that most museums spend a huge portion of their budget on taking care of a collection that is rarely if ever seen by the public that museum serves is a woeful travesty and should be one of our top priority issues in the museum field. This is a delicate subject for many reasons, and I do not argue that the objects sitting in collections storage departments across the world to not warrant care. What I do argue is that museums based on collections typically house 90% or more of their collections in storage, and that this is unacceptable. Museum budgets are stretched thin as it is, and it is unlikely that collections departments will continue to receive even the limited funding they are typically awarded given the tight economy and its effects on museums.

My argument is twofold. First, museums need the money used to care for the 90% of the collection in storage to build exhibits and education and evaluation staffs. Second, the objects being cared for by museums are sacred, priceless, and in many cases incredibly delicate and are often not cared for as well as they should be due to budgetary restraints of the museum. I can’t honestly say that I have come to a solution of any reasonable kind for this conundrum. John Dana, however, has something to say on the matter that does come with an interesting, if vague solution.

Dana proposes the teaching museum, which is an institution comprised of objects that are of the public and offered to the public (Dana, 1918). In the teaching museum, there are no restrictions on objects or object handling, and consequently visitors would be allowed to touch, play and use the objects as needed for study or research (Dana, 1918).

Given even my limited experience with collections care and management, I see many flaws with this plan. First and foremost I think that the mental health of registrars and collections managers the world over would be in serious danger were we to announce that some of these priceless objects be passed about by eight graders on a field trip. I also think that this would necessitate a selection process for which objects are important enough to be kept locked in the basement that would be drawn out and arduous. However, in the end I see the teaching museum being an incredibly useful element to any community.

Institutions like this already exist on most every major college campus. At IU Bloomington, for example, the Lily Fine Arts Library houses an impressive library of rare, antique books that are available to students by request for research. At the Indiana Historical Society most of their collection is available to any member of the public, also by request for research only. 

Dana seems to be taking this one step further, in taking away the exclusivity of the research museums and making all objects available to all people. I think the ideal is a happy medium. If museums were to donate even 5% of their collections to a teaching museum, the money saved would be staggering, and the potential benefit to the community immeasurable.

Re-Presenting Disability: Section Three

I particularly enjoyed this final section of Re-Presenting Disability. At first, I was confused by the editor’s decision to title this section Unsettling Practices. The stories in this section are far from unsettling; rather, they are some of the most inspiring and motivational of all the case studies because they present some way to negotiate the crisis of representation surrounding people with disabilities and museum work. Perhaps what the editors really mean is that these are all examples of museums re-evaluating and changing their practices rather than remaining “settled” in the their old ways.

I found Chapter 15 “Transforming Practice: disability perspectives and the museum,” to be a revealing look at how the decision by the National Holocaust Memorial Museum to discuss issues of disability rights led to other important changes. I found it interesting that the museum was forced, for the first time, to look deeply into issues of accessibility when they invited the activist and lawyer Harriet McBryde Johnson to speak about disability rights. People in many departments had to prepare space and staff for a diverse audience including many people with various disabilities. While this scramble to make the museum accessible may not be an ideal scenario, it is important to recognize that if this exhibit and symposium had not happened, the museum would likely still not be as physically accessible as it is today. In addition, the museum forged relationships with individuals from communities of people with disabilities who can act as advocates for continued attention to these issues.

Chapter 16, “Reciprocity, Accountability and Empowerment: emancipatory principles and practices in the museum,” carried on the theme of the importance of involving people with disabilities in the planning of museum exhibits, elements and programs. The author, Heather Hollins, frames her discussion with the ideas of emancipatory research, wherein people with disabilities are involved in the development and implementation of museum exhibits and policies. Emancipatory research is different from other forms of partnership or consultation. There is an expectation of accountability and action on the part of the museum to improve in the areas identified as problematic by the researchers, and the relationship between researcher and museum is reciprocal and mutually beneficial. I am left wondering about local museums that use contractors to carry out accessibility analysis and research. Is the museum expected to act on the recommendations of the consultants? What is a museum’s ethical responsibility in this case?

I was also pleasantly surprised to learn about the existence of a program like the Pioneers Forum, a group encouraging young people with disabilities to stand up for their rights and advocate for accessibility. Their participation in emancipatory research for the Holocust Center in England got me thinking; are there programs like this in Indianapolis, or in other cities? I couldn’t find information on any. What a great opportunity for improving the lives of these young people and making the museum more inclusive at the same time! Do you think a museum could implement and lead a program like the Pioneers Forum?

I am glad the editors chose to make “Collective Bodies: What museums do for disability studies,” by Katherine Ott the final chapter. Ott presents some ideas on how museums can truly become places of healing and social change. She makes many excellent points, but my favorite is her discussion of the power of words. In several places in this book, words have played an integral role. They can cause anger when used improperly, in the case of the Museum of Sex and the Intimate Encounters exhibit, and there is always much deliberation by museum workers when determining what words to use in an exhibit. Ott suggests that this is the inherent problem with words; they are by their nature generalizing, and disability studies eschews the general in favor of an individual person’s concept of their disability. Museums have the power to turn the general into the particular through the use of objects. An object is, imbued with the story of the individual who owned and used it. By displaying, for instance, a wheelchair and the story of the person who used it, we can focus on the importance of individual people instead of generalizing and compartmentalizing with words.

The Final Book Discussion—Live and In-Person (or perhaps on Skype)

Greetings one and all.  I hope that you’ve all been enjoying the book discussions thus far. I’m excited and impressed with all of the comments everyone has put out there so far. 

As you have no doubt noticed, we’ve come to the end of the books! It’s time for the final discussion. You are all invited—so here’s the deal,

Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 7:15 pm at The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis.  You MUST rsvp if you would like to attend in person, or if you want to try to participate on-line. 

If you plan to attend, please post your response here or call 317-274-7332 and leave a message.

Hope to see you there in some form!

This is not a library!

This post is a bit out of order, given that the last one takes us to the end of the book, but indulge me here. I wanted to discuss what Dana has to say about museums and education-- a topic obviously relevant to this course. Some of what I noticed about these sections are similar to comments we've made all semester about what a visionary Dana was. He accurately predicted many of the educational practices that have now long been a part of museum work, such as the suggestion that "the teachers in all schools will be given courses of lessons on the use in the classroom of illustrative material of whatever kind they need and the museum can furnish" (189). Sounds like teacher training (and possibly curricula generation!) to me, but Dana goes further than things museums have actually done at present with some of this statements. He's rather ambitious at times, and it would certainly be interesting to see what he would have to say about museums today. Would he be disappointed that we do not have a branch museum in every school (189), or that most modern museums are not "very much like a lending library" (191) ?

Of all the staggeringly accurate statements Dana makes in this book, his final section on education is the most impressive. He writes that "a museum is not a school; it cannot afford to become a school," (196) and while he probably have meant "afford" in a basic, monetary sense, I think there is so much truth in that statement taken another way. One of the reasons I am interested in museum education is that there is more flexibility in a museum to find out what works (as well as what does not) in terms of how people learn-- to study processes associated with learning, to experiment with new methods, and to make changes based on those findings. Not that there is never innovation in the traditional educational system, but it seems that the basic structure is unchanging. Students may try any number of new activities or systems, but the pattern of lectures directed at rows of desks seems permanent. Dana wrote in 1928 that lectures "are generally thought to be quite the most ineffective form of educational effort" (195). Museum education is an area that can break away from that pattern. A museum can be a tremendous resource for traditional educational structures, but it can also create very different learning experiences.

I am amazed by Dana's proclamation that a museum is not a school, and should not try to take the place of one. Though the course that museums have taken into the 21st century is not necessarily the one Dana envisioned, they embody a number of his hopes. They may not be touchable libraries with satellite sites in every school, but they have embraced the educational mission to the extent that it forms the basis for the definition of a museum. Whatever judgment Dana might pass on museums today, I am sure he would appreciate that.

(Yes, if anyone is familiar, this post title is a reference to 1990s Nickelodeon programming, just so you know!)

Telling it like it is: The Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre

In this chapter, author Janet Pieschel explores how museums can change their perception by highlighting and addressing current issues that are important to their respective surrounding communities. Pieschel uses the example of the Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre (CPSIC) to demonstrate how and exhibit being tied to present issues allows the museum to be a stage for education as well as an agent of social responsibility.

I completely agree with museums being socially responsible and connecting to their community by addressing relevant issues, but I was a little worried by the connection that the author made between reevaluating the role of the museum in the community (p. 176) and receiving funding from corporations. In this chapter, Pieschel quotes Stephen Weil who states that “…museums need to re-evaluate their relevancy to their communities…,” which may be the reason that government and corporate funding is becoming scarce for institutions such as museums and historical sites.

As the author discussed the role of the CPSIC, she explained that the exhibit located within the administration building was set up to give visitors some perspective on the social basis of criminal activity versus displaying weapons, uniforms, and photographs from Calgary’s law enforcement history. The three displays reviewed were: domestic abuse, family violence, and healthy relationships; substance abuse; and juvenile prostitution.

Although there was some discussion on the challenges surrounding museums and social responsibility, Pieschel only discussed issues surrounding fundraising and the role of docents. One this this chapter did make me ponder was: How often do museums tie the content of their exhibits to the present cares and concerns of their surrounding communities? Do they do it because they feel it’s a foundational responsibility that the museum has to the community or because the present economic environment has made it a challenge to function without fitting “social responsibility” into the mission of the museum?

Engaging underserved communities at the Liberty Science Center

The chapter “Liberty Science Center in the United States: A Mission Focused on External Relevance” by Emlyn Koster and Stephen Baumann explores the ways in which one New Jersey science museum has tried to become a socially responsible institution by reaching out to the traditionally underserved members of the community in which the museum is located. The Liberty Science Center has worked toward accomplishing this mission by implementing three unique programs. While each program is different, they all treat community members as partners instead of static receptacles for information.

The Abbott partnership program provides science learning opportunities to urban schools by offering on-site, off-site, and on-line resources. They also provide free visit passes to students so that they can continue their learning experience by bringing their family back to the museum. This program allows community members, especially school aged children, to feel welcome at the Liberty Science Center. It helps to dispel the myth that museums are institutions for the elite and provides an entry point for members of the community who may feel unwelcome due to inherent museum stereotypes.

Another program aims to reduce the acceptance of youth smoking amongst students ages 9 to 17. The museum worked in conjunction with community members to determine that this issue was of concern to local residents. This type of museum community partnership has been explored in other chapters of Looking Reality in the Eye, and it is wonderful to see that any type of museum (whether art, science, natural history, etc.) can create these personal relationships.

The third program that the Liberty Science Center has implemented is “Live from… Cardiac Classroom”. This is a very innovative and technologically driven experience. Students are able to watch an open-heart by-pass surgery taking place live through two way video conference technology. The goals of this program are to expand student’s knowledge of anatomy and physiology, while also highlighting the many different careers opportunities that exist in the medical field. In this way the Liberty Science Center promotes career development in the field of science. Students who may not have known much about the medical field before the program could be encouraged to explore a new career path. The program is also offered free to one-third of the students who attend to make sure that everyone is given an equal opportunity to participate regardless of income.

While these programs provide an excellent overview of the ways in which the Liberty Science Center provides public programming to create a community conscience, I am interested in the ways in which this focus on community may be incorporated into exhibits and gallery spaces? Is community input sought when developing or redesigning exhibits? If the Liberty Science Center wants to remain a relevant figure in the New Jersey community they must work to incorporate this type of social inclusion into all aspects of their institution, not just their public and school programming.