In the March 2010 edition of MUSEUM Maxwell L. Anderson presented his thoughts on Museum Transparency. His take seems to reflect his current position as the Melvin & Bren Simon Director and CEO at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. His article was very interesting. Anderson's Thesis was that museums could be transparent and successful if they are true to themselves. He presented five truths in the article that I agree with:
The size of a museum's audience should not reflect the amount of public financial support it receives,
Museums are not a part of the entertainment industry,
A museum's exhibits and activities should reflect its mission not its need to pay the bills,
A non-profit museum is a red-ink business,
It is appropriate for the government to financially support culture.
I would like to elaborate on two of these points. First, is that the museum is not part of the entertainment industry. Over the years this has gotten lost. First the public changed its viewpoint of museums, then the museum leaders changed with them. When museums began they were primarily intended as places of learning. Curiosity Cabinets where collected as, admittedly, a show of wealth, but also as a way to view the amazing wonders of the world in your own back yard. Scholarly insights were made at museum, where research and study flourished. Over time much of this has transferred from the museum to universities, but museums are still places to learn. Parents bring their kids to see an exhibit about dinosaurs on a rainy day. The kids are having fun seeing real dinosaurs and that fun and play may not look like education, but that is exactly what it is. (For more information about this just look at Mary Ellen Flannery's article in the same issue of MUSEUM.)Every notice that after a little boy leaves a dinosaur exhibit he can tell you the most amazing things about dinosaurs. Things you may not have known. That is because he is having fun in the museum, and when you interested in what your seeing AND doing you remember and notice more than if your read it out of a book. Museums are educational institutions and should not be judged by attendance records like the entertainment world. You would never judge a school or library by how many people enter the door, instead you judge it by how much they take out of it. Judge the museum the same way you would judge a library.
The second point I would like to elaborate on is that the government should support culture. Anderson notes that in Western democracy "cultural offerings are indispensable to their citizenry". He says this is how it is in every Western Democracy except for the U.S. Everywhere else "they define a nation's identity and shape a national conversation about what matters most." Why is the U.S. different. Why do we put less importance on preserving and spreading the culture that got us to where we are today? In Germany it is impossible to avoid knowing and facing the country's past. They have monuments, museums and cultural institutions everywhere that discuss their past and present. What is even more impressive is that when walking down the street you can ask any local about these monuments and they will be able to give you some information. It is not like that here in the U.S. Here late night TV hosts can walk down the street and ask people questions focused on U.S. culture and history and will find many blank stares or completely wrong answers. Why is the U.S. so drastically different? How can we fix this? How can museums make the public see them for what they are, educational cultural institutions. Anderson and many others think that the first step is museum transparency.
Anderson is leading by example. At the Indianapolis Museum of Art he and his colleges are practicing what they preach. It is not perfect, but it is closer than most, and a step in the right direction. One thing that they are doing there that I think is worth noting is providing the public with a complete list of all past and current deaccessioned objects. You can find the list on their
website It shows any interested party the object, date of deaccession, the recipient, and how it was removed (aka sold, auctioned, transfer to another institution, etc.). This publicity is not required by museums, but I would include it in my best practices. What is especially nice about this is you can use it to follow, and prove an item's provenance. Many objects have a clouded provenance, and museum clarity in the accessioning and deaccesioning processes would help to remove some of the clouds. A quote of Anderson'a that I particularly like is "if we acquire and sell objects for and from our collections with only secondary regard for potential claims on ownership, ethical dilemmas or sources and destinations of funds, we are exposing our institutions to great risk." This is an important idea for museums to take to heart. The movement of elicit art and artifacts is an ancient, yet still blooming segment of the black market. Museums can not support this trade if we have any chance of minimizing its effects on the entire world's cultural heritage.
