it's taken me a few days to digest this piece published in the New York Times on 08.10.13. i have some mixed opinions about it, considering i have a background in the very type of museum she seems to dislike.
i understand her argument that we shouldn't be forced to change the nature of our cultural institutions on a whim, but aren't institutions supposed to reflect the very culture they exist in? and, if that's the case, than it is a natural progression for a museum to engage their visitors in a different way, which can mutually benefit both the institution and the audience? there still is the stigma around museums as academic, unwelcoming places only for those who are highly educated, of a high socio-economic background, and Ms. Dobrzynski seems quite content on keeping them this way. but the democratization of art has been systematically happening for quite some time now, so isn't it time that our institutions reflect that?
there are bigger factors at work here - one of them being that cultural institutions are forced to change their methods because of a lack in funding. the very people she sneers at, stating: "...Even in Europe’s old cities of culture, some people might stop in at the Louvre or the Uffizi, but often just to snap a few pictures on their cellphones to prove they were there..." are people spending money and supporting those institutions. while every museum worker knows that admission sales don't make a dent in operating costs, engaging new audiences, younger audiences, and getting them so excited that they wait in line for your exhibitions can only help garner good-will within that community. so that, perhaps, in twenty years when that obnoxious teenager that engaged in the "gamification" of exhibits, grows up and makes money, they might remember that experience donate money back to that institution.
i admit i'm irked by certain experiences in museums - i don't find it necessary to have touchscreen panels near every work, nor do i find didactical material that helpful. but i'm also a trained artist, and have art history background, so i'm coming at it from a different perspective. the perspective of the people that cultural institutions need to reach are not the educated and well-off, they're aces at that already. how do you get your local community engaged? she even throws that in, stating: "...younger people want museums to connect them to the creative economy. They don’t want to listen to some art historian flown in from New York; they’d rather network with members of the local arts community and take part in a conversation. This is all in the name of participation and experience — also called visitor engagement — but it changes the very nature of museums, and the expectations of visitors. It changes who will go to museums and for what."
and in response to that, i can only say "yes! EXACTLY!" let's engage our local art community! let's realize what a wealth of information, what a network truly exists in every single city you visit. art should belong to the people who are interested in it, and want to learn more about it. if they can help foster burgeoning talent by engaging the local "creative economy" and introducing them to a broader audience, than i think it is absolutely necessary for our institutions to do so. and it should be in the name of visitor engagement. you shouldn't be a passive audience - art is not passive. and if you find yourself wanting that experience, perhaps it's a trip to a white box gallery you prefer?
what are your thoughts? what do you like/dislike about museum going?
No comments:
Post a Comment