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.

Birds in Flight

Chapter six describes group inclusion within museums. Silverman looks at groups with common identities (e.g., physically disabled, gender, age) and how museums develop partnerships. She opens the chapter by asking “How do museums propel groups?” (113). What follows is a discussion of the process to which museums can help groups and their individuals feel empowered and valued in society.

Museums, as social work agents, should partner with groups and search for common goals and outcomes. Through such efforts museums are helping to create dialog which addresses societal differences. The potential in these discussions is to expand them to a larger, societal framework. Through such dialog groups may notice the paradox of groups being both actors within and enforcers of social norms. Museums are no exception.

Silverman quickly concludes this chapter with a discussion on linkage. She summates that museums serve as social glue between groups and their individuals. Through this link-making, museums with social work agencies blur the boundaries between displaying cultural property and offering opportunities for individual growth.

Silverman’s choice to use the title Birds in Flight feels un-uniquely fit for museums. Museums may act as another group (or bird) partnering with other groups, but this behavior is not localized to our cultural institutions. Organizational behaviors like representing specific demographics can be achieved elsewhere, as well.

What makes museums special on the social level is their central mission to display and discuss cultural identities across a variety of mediums through a multitude of voices. Such efforts, as Silverman points out, can lead to greater group appreciation and a shift in personal perception or values. Museums act as the catalyst for community dialog and personal reflection.

Birds in Flight helped me focus my perception of museums as social actors. I was reminded that museums are subjected to the same social norms as other community groups. That is, museums may act against social norms, but will also reinforce stereotypes of other or similar groups. Knowing this helps me to consider how museums serve their greater communities. As social actors, museums are constantly butting heads with themselves as they attempt to represent their constituents without under representing others. Applying this lesson to my future professional will include incorporating more voices within a museum and attempting to challenge my employer to seek new audiences in new ways.

Telling it Like it Is: The Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre

Janet Pieschel begins this chapter on the Calgary Police Service Interpretive Centre (CPSIC) by describing the need for museums and other cultural institutions to stay relevant to their community by focusing on the issues that concern their visitors. She cites Chris Pinney, who states that one day "all financial institutions and most corporations will, like their European counterparts, eventually have to report their social and environmental impacts along with their economic results (175-76). To me, this statement implies that someday the government will recognize that cultural institutions, like museums, contribute just as much socially to society as corporations contribute financially, and that the need for environmentally-friendly buildings and programs is crucial.

After establishing context, Pieschel then describes the CPSIC. Located inside the Calgary Police Service (CPS) administration building, the CPSIC is a six-thousand-square-foot exhibit and administrative space. CPS management wanted a museum that went beyond uniforms and weapons, and instead wanted to focus on the social factors of crime and change visitor's perspectives on crime. Part of the CPSIC mission is "to instil a respect for police and authority", and this is an especially important for the target audience of school-age children (177).

Pieschel then reviews three of the museum's exhibits. Covering topics such as substance abuse, juvenile prostitution, and domestic abuse and family violence is challenging, and Pieschel acknowledges this while offering the museum's strategy to minimize negative effects for visitors who may have experience with these subjects. One of the most interesting exbits, Dead End Streets, depicted a crack house that museum personnel had seen when they accompanied Calagry police on a tour of such places in the city. The detailed description on page 179 conveys the destructive power of drug use. I can imagine this scene having a profound impact on those who see it, and wonder if such exhibits were created elsewhere, if they might have an effect on high-risk youth.

While I'm sure all museums have numerous challenges to overcome, Pieschel only describes two of the most significant. These are fundraising and the role of docents. Pieschel found that until the museum articulated its social role in the community, it could not gain corporate support. She also found a creative solution the high docent turnover at the museum. She introduced a life-size "robocop" that delivers a consistent message and can deal with the sensitive issues the museum portrays. I'm not sure how well received this "robocop" will convey the message of the museum, but I am sure it will be a memorable addition.

I studied criminology as a undergrad, and have always been fascinated by the motivation and subsequent effects of crime. The CPSIC, in focusing on these topics, can educate kids in a very real way. I can only hope that a museum such as this one will someday open in the United States and continue to educate everyone.

Is Art Good for You?

This chapter, authored by Susan Pointe, describes the evolution of the McMullen Art Gallery at the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. As Dolly mentioned, the gallery began as a out-of-the-way space frequented primarily by the public, and not its intended audience of hospital patients. To fix this problem, Pointe, gallery staff, and volunteers decided to bring the art to patients, instead of having the art only be available to mobile patients in the gallery.

The Artists-on-the-Wards program used expert, paid staff to visit four patient areas and either help the patients create art or the artist would paint for the patient (118). This project lead to the creation of a "Mural of Hands", "Healing Tiles", and "Healing Ceiling." These projects included the patients in transforming the visual space of the hospital. Patients who participated in these activities reportedly felt less stress and anxiety (119), although Pointe is quick to acknowledge that this program is not art therapy.

With the immense popularity of bringing art to the patients, Pointe wonders if it is really necessary to create exhibits in the gallery space. She feels the true value of the McMullen Art Gallery comes from its outreach, and not the gallery itself. The gallery is not a "collect and conserve" space and exisits to serve hospital patients, so it is not constrained by a strict mission statement. Therefore, Pointe concludes her chapter by wondering if the hospital needs a gallery at all, or if money would be better spent by creating a series of temporary exhibitions
throughout the hospital.

Personally, I think that due to the nature of the building and the fact that many patients can't visit the gallery without assitance, it might serve their needs better to create exhibits on each floor or area that patients can easily enjoy. However, the gallery began as a place for the public to enjoy the art as well. Should the gallery close and exlusively focus on the patients' needs or should continue to exist and serve the needs of a few, and continue to be augmented by the Artists-on-the-Wards program?

How to Heal a Gallery

In her chapter, “Is Art Good for You?” Susan Pointe describes an outreach program undertaken by the McMullen Art Gallery, a space in the middle of the University of Alberta Hospital. The Artists-on-the-Wards program began in 1999 as a pilot project in which visual artists visited adult patients in their rooms and led art-making activities. The program eventually grew to include more wards and more artistic media. As Pointe carefully explains, the Artists-on-the-Wards program is not art therapy (a specialization which requires professional clinical training), but it provides patients with the opportunity to participate in creative experiences and create lasting testimonials to their presence in the hospital.

Pointe is very forthcoming about why the program was conceived: despite the gallery’s generally positive reputation in the art community, no one in the hospital seemed to know the gallery was there. In addition to being bad for the gallery’s visitor numbers, this was also in clear violation of the gallery’s purpose for being. As Pointe writes, “Although the gallery was mandated to serve patients, only 4 per cent of its visitors were hospital patients” (p.115). Meanwhile, “Most hospital staff did not visit the gallery and many did not know why it was there; some had actually never heard of it” (p.115). In response, the gallery staff worked to create appealing and explanatory signage, installed artwork throughout the hospital, opened the gallery for drop-in art-making, and redesigned their feedback cards. Most importantly, they decided to take art to the patients themselves. For Pointe, the challenge in implementing her gallery’s social relevance seemed to lie in the acknowledgement of and rededication to the mission, rather than in arguing against those who disagreed with it. Despite the realistic threat of the hospital choosing to replace the gallery with for-profit ventures, careful planning and execution of new programming seemed to make for relatively smooth sailing.

Although not all strategies in this case study would translate to contexts without patients, Pointe herself acknowledges that some American hospitals (particularly the Shands Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida) had already undertaken artists-on-the-wards programs to positive effect. Similarly, our course reading, “Museopathy: Exploring the healing potential of handling museum objects” (Chatterjee, et al), suggests that positive museum-like experiences in hospitals are not limited to art programming. More broadly, Pointe’s chapter underscores the necessity of making museums know and serve the needs of their audiences.

The Art Critic...

I thought that Dana and I were on the same page. Up until this point I have followed along with his musings on museums, and for the most part have been amazed at his prescience when it comes to museums. I have read along and nodded my head in agreement until the very last section. Why did he have to say those nasty things about art and art museums? I realize that it might not be for everyone, but come on!

He begins well enough (with me nodding along). His definition of art is simple and optimistic; he defines art as a thing with the “permanent possibility of an agreeable thrill” (p. 202). I love that definition, though I might take out the qualifier “agreeable” and just assert that art has the permanent possibility of thrill. I think art can cause agreeable feelings for some and disgust in others without losing its artiness (its all about personal preference). I can even approve of his apparent contempt for American taste and his argument that Americans only appreciate beauty where they have been trained to appreciate it (p. 204-5).

But he really loses me when he asks the reader, “If you could control the art teaching in the United States, and had a moderate amount of money and a few good teachers, what would you do?” He answers his own question by suggesting that teachers focus on teaching a few (naturally talented artists) the skills necessary to create art, and to teach everyone else the very basics. Ultimately he advises the reader to not “waste time” by teaching students who were not born to be artists (p. 209). I have a major problem with this – since when is any kind of art instruction a waste of time? Even if a student does not become a great master, how is acquiring skills not beneficial? And why in the world is he advising the teacher to make those kinds of subjective judgments of their students – especially when he seems to have a problem with American judgments of taste in general? It seems like a dangerous road to go down, Dana.

I could have forgiven his suggestions about teaching art (after all he was writing a loooooong time ago), had he not also attacked the art museum. He begins the section “The Use of Museums” by listing all of the things (in his opinion) that art museums do not do. Apparently art museums do nothing but collect and preserve objects (p. 220), and Dana seems to believe that department stores do more to influence taste and aesthetic appreciation than an art museum could ever hope to (p. 221). Throughout his writings, Dana has suggested that people can appreciate art and beauty in places other than museums – and I totally agree with him on that point – but here he suggests that an art museum is not a place where one can develop taste and get inspiration. That just seems harsh. Of course an art museum can inspire people – just as much as that 15 cent piece of glass or a hastily positioned rubbish bin on the side of the street. If there is inspiration to be found in that bin, there is inspiration to be found in a museum.

Chapter 5- "Treasures of home"

If you are not reading The Social Work of Museums here is some of what you missed:

In chapter five Silverman uses the term “home” to define two different things.  At first she uses it more literally as she develops five different ideas as to how museums can fulfill housing needs in the community (pg. 91). She lists them as promoting safety in homes, using museums as temporary shelters, using museums (primarily historical homes) as permanent housing, advocating for public housing and promoting green living (pg. 91).

Her points on promoting housing safety, advocating for public housing and promoting green living seem more plausible in the museum setting than her other two points which refer to actually using the museum itself as a shelter.  She notes that historically examples exist of museums providing housing, and she even provides a more current example of a family receiving a grant to help restore a historical house that the family would then live in and take care of (pg. 94). 

In my opinion, using the museum as a link to promote those organizations that have professionals who are trained in this area seems to be more beneficial than actually having the museum provide shelter.

Silverman then dives into using the term “home” more metaphorically to represent family ideals.  She explains how the museum can be seen as a place for spending "quality time", a place where communication happens between people and also a place for learning (pg. 96-100).  These ideas about relationships relate strongly to ideas that she has presented extensively throughout the book. Links can be drawn to current museum examples, that already focus their mission on this second idea of Silverman’s “home”.

Think About It:

Where do (or should) museums end and other service organizations like counseling, community housing, and other social services begin?   Are museums and staff prepared to take on all the roles that Silverman suggests in this chapter?

Spoiler Alert: Chapter 7, Toward the Next Age

I enjoyed the work and am convinced there is a solid future between these two fields. However, final chapter left me wanting and again (I know you are shocked) a bit aggravated. In “Towards the next age” Silverman wrapped up her analysis of how museum can and have provided opportunities for social work. In doing so she called for a truly collaborative effort between museums and social workers. She also detailed the need to establish joint priorities, goals, ethics and values.

Silverman presented her plea in almost apocalyptic terms. At the beginning Silverman stated:

“We are quite capable of destroying each other and the planet. To survive and thrive in the next age, we must evolve new strategies for beneficial coexistence, using every suitable means to do so. In this light, the social work of museums no longer seems optional, or a clever way to keep collections-based institutions relevant, but an essential responsibility to humankind. The world’s museums have always been committed to caring for culture. To insure the next age, museums must help foster cultures of caring.” (p. 139)

While I personally found her introductory tone melodramatic Silverman did neatly detail the mission of her text and set the foundation for future work between the two fields. Unfortunately Silverman waited until the very end to direct the reader’s attention to the overall format of her work. Understanding this hierarchy would have made reading each chapter a bit more fulfilling as readers would undoubtedly see the larger connections between each relationship group and their individual but similar needs.

In the section titled Common Human Ground Silverman detailed her own hierarchy of needs, which she related to Maslow’s famous Hierarchy. She explained “Across selves, pairs, families and groups alike, four needs emerged as major themes to organize definite clusters of museum activity” (p. 141). Her hierarchy is displayed in a matrix as seen below.

Relationship
Needs		Self	Pair	Family	Group
	Transformation	Transcendence	Separation	Flexibility	Linkage
	Evolution	Identity	Interdependence	Continuity	Empowerment
	Development	Competence	Intimacy	Cohesion	Cohesiveness
	Foundation	Health	Companionship	Home	Purpose

*Silverman (2009) p. 141.

Interestingly each chapter focused on relationships (3-6) is divided into the four categories of needs. I do not disagree with such a hierarchy; my argument pertains to the placement and explanation within the final chapter. This could have easily been placed in the second chapter along with the introduction of Relationship Needs.

On the broader subject of her appeal for and interconnection between social work and museums Silverman is more detailed and developed a strong foundation for future practice. She focused on the need for collaboration, shared ethics and values, a growing body of knowledge and of course innovation. These sections read as a road map for future practice offering up pertinent questions, but rarely addressing possible road blocks.

From here Silverman transitioned into a futuristic scene reflective of her introductory chapter complete with recurrent actors. In a perfect world where museums and social work are fully integrated the grey haired lady and her slender male have their special needs addressed through a technologically integrated exhibit. In a similar vein the recently released convict and his son not only learn together but act as models for others in similar situations. The optimism in her conclusion seemed almost contradictory to the introductory paragraph. However, this optimistic version of the future can provide the inspiration necessary for the success of this joint collaboration.

Questions for thought?

Does anyone else feel her tone throughout the chapter seemed a bit scattered and melodramatic, or was this simply a literary tool utilized to gain readers emotional attention and to stir activism?

I am curious as to whether or not other readers found the placement of the Relationship/Needs hierarchy strange or if I am again focused too closely on the minutiae of her work? Would placing this explanation earlier have distracted readers from her main thesis?

Which of the following objectives do you think is most important to developing a true relationship between social work and museums; collaboration, shared ethics and values, a growing body of knowledge and/or innovation? Which would Silverman place as most essential, least? Must they all be met at the same time in order for success to occur or will the evolution happen in jumps and starts? Are there other areas she left out in her analysis? If so what are they?

Do you agree Silverman meet her goal of connecting museums and social work and establishing a framework for future collaboration? Are there any areas she may have overlooked in creating the book? Overall what was her most engaging argument for the future collaboration between the two fields? Did she adequately address the difficulties inherent in melding two distinct fields?