Communities and Cooperation

At the very end of the section on the "experiment" that was the Newark Museum, Dana describes an institution with an acquisitions policy so in tune with the needs and desires of its community that it would still be considered a model example. In fact, the Newark Museum from its foundation, had a clear sense of its own circumstances-- how it should use local resources to meet local needs and its geographical relationship to very prominent museums in New York. Rather than trying to compete with the grand, seemingly comprehensive collections held in some of the New York City museums, the Newark Museum had "a policy of acquiring and using only what can be made effective in the life of its community" (181). Much of what the readers of this book have said over and over is how applicable Dana's ideas are to modern museum work, but I am forced to repeat those sentiments yet again in this post.

His embrace of the fact that the Newark Museum did not have the objects and resources of larger museums, but that there was so much value in having the city around them is quite astounding. One might laugh that his museum once staged "a showing of bathtubs made in New Jersey," (180) but it's also easy to believe that such an exhibit might have shown the people of Newark how "art and science and industry were made to seem closer to everyday life" (180). The Newark Museum tried to fill the space the community had open for it, rather than try to rival the nationally recognized museums. The Newark Museum based its collections on the principle of utility, meaning the power of its exhibits to "inspire by their beauty, stimulate creative design or creative ideas, or have educational value" (180-181). Dana also advocates for a "less is more" approach in exhibit design because a small, well-designed exhibit can convey messages more effectively than a sprawling, unfocused one. These ideas show up all over my 21st century textbooks! Today, it seems that even the largest, wealthiest museums are expected to evaluate how they measure up in terms of meeting the needs of their specific communities. In 2011, the museums Dana was determined not to struggle to imitate are working to be more like his Newark Museum was.

If this seeming model of a community museum has not already made you wish for a time machine, perhaps the prospect of visiting the 1923 exhibit on China, discussed in this section, would. According to Dana, "China: The Land and the People" was the product of an extraordinary amount of US-Chinese cooperation. I want to see this exhibit. Dana certainly makes it sound like a landmark achievement, devoted to "promoting understanding and sympathy between nations," and breaking "down hostility and open[ing] up paths to friendship" (181). Yet, it's so difficult to envision an exhibit during that time satisfying our modern requirements for collaborative work and the representation of multiple perspectives, especially given the knowledge of some of then contemporary cultural or ethnographic exhibits. I really wish I could see "China: The Land and the People," and evaluate it for myself.

Negotiating a Sustainable Path: Museums and Societal Therapy

In this chapter by Glenn C. Stutter and Douglas Worts, they discuss the museums role in assessing the needs of the community. They state that “while museums can and should be addressing sustainability through the non-formal education system, they also have a much broader role to play as active facilitators of social change at local and regional levels” (pg. 131).

Many people can relate to viewing sustainability as this large and looming global issue impacting ecosystem health, economic development, and social justice. The authors argue that people need “social therapy” because of the growing divide that has grown between man and nature. This gap continues to widen the more technologically advanced that our society becomes. In order to help combat this human- nature split, “museums can help by encouraging people to become more conscious of critical relationships that link them to nature and to other people” (pg. 137).

This was the goal of The Human Factor exhibit at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum which:

1. Examined the scope and consequences of human activities

2. Identified the industrial worldview as the root of multiple global and regional issues

3. Stressed the importance of restorative economics, choices, and our connection to nature.

Even after highlighting the issues surrounding sustainability, the harsh reality is that it is a complicated and chaotic topic that is out of any one individuals control. Putting visitors face to face with this reality was a challenge because the developers knew that it could illicit an emotional response from visitors. Instead, the authors encourage museums to allow their respective communities to identify their needs, and reflect on the ramifications of their current actions. Basing the presentation of information on a front-end evaluation may cause some museums to feel as if they are relinquishing their authority. Rather, I agree with the authors when they describe how using these surveys can create a bridge between the museum and the community and set the museum up as a place of non-formal learning as well as an avenue for social advocacy. This may be more of a challenge depending on the various exhibits created for various communities, but no matter the subject of the exhibit it is always important to connect the material to the needs and interest of the surrounding community.

Chapter Three - From body to soul

Silverman describes several programs through general themes on how museums offer social work to their constituents. During this chapter she focuses on how individuals create meaning impacting their self. Many of the examples she provides are public programs based around the museum collection. During the latter part of the chapter she examines the spiritual and ephemeral capabilities of exhibits. Public programs through the lens of social work offer individuals opportunities to build self-esteem through individualize or collaborative projects. Often, such programs engage the individual in activities which promote introspective analysis on the self. One example Silverman provided was through employing mentally and physically disabled persons in a museum café. Through this employment experience successful individuals were able to generate better self-esteem. Other examples included reflection creation of artistic objects as therapy.

One of the key areas where I have concern is of Silverman’s discussion on museums and work. I am curious on how the professionalization of the field through programs such as the IUPUI museum studies master’s degree may affect this form of social work. Will potential internship and volunteer opportunities for persons benefiting from work experiences be limited due to an influx of individuals with a professional degree in this area? In many ways, it seems that Silverman argues for museums to exist and to support social work ethos through simply existing and being open entities to the public. Museums then serve their communities as a third-place environment which promotes self-reflection and identity creation. Identity can best be created and reflected upon when the individual sees herself in the exhibit. Many groups still do not see their story represented in museums due to broader preventative social norms. While museums may serve to create reflexive environments, they also help maintain social barriers and walls.

Chapter three provided many key examples of successful meaning making experiences that museums can create. Public programming and community outreach are excellent venues for museums to create increased community relevance. Through examining how such programs assist communities I can better serve the community in which I live. This path allows museums to actively solve problems within a community, rather than suggest solutions or ignore them completely.

Ultimately, this chapter leads me to consider questions about representation and its association or dissonance with identity creation. As practitioners are serving our constituent’s desire to learn, but to what extent inside and out of the museum are we approaching their needs for self-reflection? How are we hindering this process? How can we help?

Re-Presenting Disability: Section Two

I found Chapter 7, titled “Disability Reframed,” a useful case study in analyzing the success of using the social model of disability as a theoretical framework for exhibits. While I think it is essential to reframe disability in this way, I am afraid that these representations may get lost among the other, more prevalent representations of people with disabilities as either victims or heroes. When I consider the most common contexts where I see disabled people in the media, it is usually in commercials or advertisements either showing a person with disabilities “heroically” performing some act despite their disability, or in advertisements for charities that paint people with disabilities as pitiful or helpless. It is therefore understandable that many visitors’ comments framed people with disabilities in this way. As mentioned in this chapter, reframing these kinds of stereotypes is also more difficult because a medicalized or individualized understanding of disability is not viewed as harmful, and it is generally understood that no one wishes harm on people with disabilities. In your opinion, are these kinds of stereotypes harder to change than more negative ones?

For the exhibit mentioned in Chapter 7, curators and exhibit developers chose to use comment cards at the end of the exhibits to collect visitors’ reactions and opinions of their experiences. These comments helped museum staff measure if people felt their views had been changed or influenced by the exhibits. Are publicly-viewed comment cards an ideal method of recording visitor reactions? How could they be problematic? For instance, I think visitors are less likely to post negative comments or admit their opinions hadn’t changed if the cards are visible to all visitors. If the comment cards are more private and turned into a staff member at the end of the exhibit, how do you think the visitor responses would change? Are there problems with this approach as well? I also found it intriguing that the museums asked visitors to provide demographic information on the back of the card, as I have never seen that approach. If you were implementing a comment card program, would you ask for such information? If you were a visitor, would you provide it?

Chapter 11, “Revealing Moments” was an open and honest account of the challenges and triumphs of putting on an exhibit about disability and sexuality. I found the controversy surrounding the Museum of Sex’s choice to include information on the medical definitions of the participants’ disabilities to be particularly revelatory. While some disability activists thought the inclusion of this information only served to further “medicalize” perceptions of disability, many participants approved of the museum’s choice. If you brought the exhibit to your museum, would you include that information?

Elizabeth Mariko Murray and Sarah Helaine Jacobs, the authors of this chapter, mentioned how the Museum of Sex is in a unique position as a for-profit, private museum; there is a degree of freedom that other museums receiving public funds do not have, yet there is a constant struggle to make enough money to stay open. In fact, they are the only authors I have read in this book who openly admit that they must always consider the money-making potential of their exhibitions. Is having the freedom to take on more controversial issues and exhibits worth worrying about losing your job or keeping the lights on? Given that many government-supported museums are struggling as well, does it even matter?

WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?

Sadly Silverman’s fourth chapter Solve et coagula on close pairs was rather aggravating. Notions of romantic pairings overshadowed far more interesting pairs and as a result placed the possible civic work of museums in a secondary status. Silverman began with a definition of close pairs as “friendship[s], romantic partnership[s] or marriage[s]” (p. 67). She spent considerable time throughout the chapter engrossed in a discussion of how visitors used museums to meet dates and make romantic connections, and how the museum acted as a place for the development of those resulting relationships. While I do not deny the importance of romantic relationships, her almost singularly focus on this topic overshadowed other important paired relationships, such as friendships.

Silverman detailed the four ways museums meet the needs of close pairs. These four ways are through companionship, intimacy, interdependence and separation. While the scope of this blog does not allow for an in-depth analysis of each, I would like to highlight some of Silverman’s more interesting declarations from each section.

Companionship – Silverman’s discussion of Bill McLaughlin and Dick Hughes, the two World War II veterans who traveled through the Philadelphia region visiting museums, is not only touching, but an excellent example of how museums act in a social manner by providing opportunities for shared activities.

Also, in stepping away from romantic notions of pairings Silverman addressed the possibility of conflict resolution through a shared and safe space where conversations between enemies might occur. She offered the example of work done with Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. This summer I was fortunate to work with an equally antagonistic group of teachers from Armenia and Turkey. In traveling to multiple museums and historical sites members of these different ethnic groups were able to develop a common language and begin to look beyond their differences in a safe space. Much like Silverman predicted.

Intimacy – Here the notion of romantic close pairs become relevant. Silverman discussed the opportunities and obligations of museums to offer sex education. This was particularly interesting as sexual topics are often considered taboo. She even evaluated the abilities of museums to work against these taboos and to provide safe environments for those often considered outside of dominant societal norms.

Interdependence – In this section Silverman missed her greatest opportunity to evaluate close pairs from a non-romantic standpoint. She discussed how museums can help couples improve on communication. Silverman even spent considerable time illustrating how museums provide the background for love stories.

Separation – According to Silverman museums should provide death education and bereavement support, as death is an integral component of any museum. While the focus is providing support for those suffering from the loss of a partner, many of her propositions are directly related to any museum visitor and can be applied to the loss of a parent, friend or other loved one, not only a romantic partner.

Final Thoughts

My aggravations with Silverman’s focus likely results from my cynical and rarely romantic nature. I highly suspect other readers may disagree with my perceptions of Silverman’s work in this chapter and encourage readers to bring additional ideas into the larger discussion.

Do you think this chapter had too narrow of an emphasis? What would the chapter look like if Silverman focused more closely on friendship pairs? Should the reader simply assume that the categories were to be applied to friendship pairs or do other nuances exist thus making this difficult? Were there other missed opportunities to address the work of museums in pair development and conflict resolution?

Déjà vu

So I was reading along in The New Museum and I had a funny feeling that I had already read this chapter. After rubbing the sleep out of my eyes and looking more carefully at the chapter called “A Museum Of, For and By Newak” I realized that I had in fact not read it – I was just experiencing that maddening sensation of déjà vu. Phrases and ideas raised by Dana were calling to my mind a fuzzy familiarity – I had definitely read something similar before. I hastily thumbed through my syllabi for my classes this semester and came across an article title that sparked a connection – Stephen Weil’s “From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum.”*

The title of Dana’s chapter and Weil’s article even convey a similar sentiment. Throughout The New Museum Dana asserts that museums should think about their communities, and In this chapter he details how the Newark Museum is striving to be for somebody. The Newark Museum lends objects to schools and other community organizations for the purpose of study, but also to inspire local designers. With Newark’s rich history in manufacturing, the museum has tried to create exhibits about manufacturing on a local and national level, even highlighting the work of Newark craftsmen. The Newark Museum does all of this because, as Dana notes the Newark Museum is trying to be an “assistant to all educational activity throughout the city” (p. 174).

Weil also writes about providing educational services to the community as a benchmark of the contemporary museum (p. 229). Weil’s article is really a review of the history of American Museums, so there is much discussion of before and after in a effort to demonstrate where we are now. He discusses how museums of today are in “marketing mode” whereby they find out what their public needs or wants, and then try to deliver what the public wants (p. 233). The way that Dana describes the work of the Newark Museum, seems to fit in in with Weil’s description of the marketing mode.

My favorite part of Weil’s article, after having read Dana, is the very beginning where he describes the post World War II museum as collections focused. 50 years later, he asserts, we are beginning to think more about the public (p. 229). Later he mentions Michael Spock’s idea circa the 1960’s that museums should be focused on the public. But Dana was writing these things in the early part of the 20^th Century!

It just continues to amaze me that Dana was writing these things so many years ago, and yet his ideas and musings feel so contemporary. It makes me think that we may never quite be as far along as we would like in figuring out the role of museums in our society.

Chapter Two- “Social Work Perspectives”

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

In chapter two Silverman speaks more about the relationships that museums must build in order to pursue social work. She explains that for effective social work to take place museums must have close working relationships with the people in their communities.  Similar to chapter one she refers back to the history of museums as evidence of such social work.

As chapter two continues she points out eight different categories toward merging social work and museums. While all eight of her points have some merit in their own right, I found her second point “the client-centered empowering relationships” (pg. 31-32) to be the most important. I often see museums, and community groups, clubs, schools (let me not just pick on museums here) that offer programing that at times cause me to question how much thought was given to how it would impact or be relevant for the people that they are serving.  I think these organizations have good intentions, but somewhere along the line someone forget to ask the people participating what they would like/need.  By focusing on the “client”, Silverman brings up an excellent point about making sure that the people involved are asked about what they would like to see or do.  She points out that when people are active in the process (pg. 32) the end result is more likely to be successful.  This echoes the old teaching philosophy that it is harder to break the rules when you are the one who made them- an idea that invites students to own the classroom environment by creating classroom rules and holding themselves accountable to them.  She is wise in pointing out that museums need to find ways to invite opinions and ideas from visitors to make experiences more valuable.

Think About It:

What are some ways you can think of to get communities involved in choosing both content of exhibits and programming associated with it?  How would you get visitors to be more active in their relationship with the museum?

A New Approach to Museum Field Trips

Most people, at least I myself, think of school field trips to museums as a one day event where students are led to different gallery spaces to fill out worksheets and participate in programs or activities that usually relate to some aspect of school curriculum that can be tied to the museum’s exhibits. However, in the chapter “Engaging Young Minds and Spirits: The Glenbow Museum School” by Michèle Gallant and Gillian Kydd, a unique approach to museum visits by school groups is presented. In The Museum School, teachers submit proposals to the Glenbow covering any range of topics and formats they wish to explore in partnership with the museum over the course of two weeks to a whole school year. Cost subsidization is offered by business partners to alleviate the burden on schools to provide funding for the program and allow for greater participation. The teachers introduce concepts that will be explored at the museum in the classroom as a first step in the process. Then students and their teacher spend an entire week in the museum using various learning techniques such as observation, critical thinking, and free-choice exploration to expand upon concepts presented in the classroom.

While reading this chapter I created a connection between the design of the Glenbow Museum School and the constructivist learning theory. Gallant and Kydd stressed that students were given time every afternoon to explore exhibits and artifacts of their choice and reflect critically on them by writing or drawing in personal hard cover journals. The students are given the liberty to make choices about what they focus on, and this gives them a sense of ownership in the learning experience. The structure is very much based on principles of the learner creating knowledge for themself. The success of The Museum School program is an excellent case study that outlines the benefits of a constructivist learning environment.

Looking Reality in the Eye is mainly focused on social responsibility and how museums best serve their communities. While the benefits to students are outlined above, I really see the partnership between the museums and their business associates as the way in which this program promotes collaboration in the community. Chevron Canada Resources provides funding for The Glenbow Museum School, and it is only through their support that the program is made possible. These partnerships create important networks of support that help museums to grow and remain a relevant part of the communities they serve.

One line from the chapter that I took note of was, “only by working together were the characters [museum, school, and business partner] able to gain the necessary force to reach their goal” (p. 83). This chapter is really about partnership, and this quote reveals how while individual groups may not have the resources to accomplish their goals, collaboration can be a powerful tool in overcoming obstacles. Building and utilizing community relationships is thus a key characteristic of the socially responsible museum.

The Glenbow Museum School and the Gerund-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named

In their chapter, "Engaging Young Minds and Spirits: The Glenbow Museum School," Michèle Gallant and Gillian Kydd describe their work with field trip groups in the Glenbow Museum's ChevronTexaco Open Minds School Program. In short, teachers submit proposals for long-term student projects, and those that are accepted are then given special access to the museum's material and human resources. Gallant and Kydd identify ownership and time as the two qualities that make their program distinctive; they argue that it is crucial to allow teachers to design their own programs and to allow students the chance to see museums as something other than novelty. According to program evaluation, this program teaches students to think more critically and provides a space for educators to test and develop new approaches to teaching.

For this chapter, my first two questions from my last post (To what extent does the author identify a specific catalyst for a museums' move toward increased social responsibility? What challenges does the author identify in trying to implement "socially relevant missions"?) are mainly related to issues of challenging the status quo. While Gallant and Kydd do not clearly name what prompted the foundation of their program, they strongly imply that its philosophical roots--not just the financial backing for it--are fundamentally important to their sponsors. In terms of implementation, it seems that the Open Minds Program is only limited by the imaginations of their applicants. On both counts, participants in all aspects of the program are simply expected to try something new.

My last question, as before, is which strategies in this case study would translate best to other museum contexts. While Gallant and Kydd point out (see p. 83) that over seventeen other sites have already begun using this model, they do not describe which elements of the program (if not all of them) have been maintained in other contexts. While funding opportunities, school curricula, and museum collections will inevitably vary, it seems that the key ingredients must always be collaboration with community partners and the freedom to teach what "should be part of public education" (p. 82). In Gallant and Kydd's model, these ingredients are what allow students to move beyond their roles as objects-for-engaging into new and exciting opportunities to engage with ideas for themselves.