July 15, 2019

For today's class session (led by Rose!) we discussed "From Being About Something to Being For Somebody," "Curator: From Soloist to Impresario," and "Changing the Things we Cannot Accept: Museum Edition". All three articles shared a similar theme about moving museums forward by adapting the information that they provide to the general population, as well as adapting how they present it to the public. In our small group discussion, my group was particularly interested in considering these ideas in relation to museums whose collections have been relatively set in stone for the majority of recent history. One good example which was also mentioned briefly in class is the Louvre, which targets very specific art in its exhibits (according to the website, the Louvre boasts Western art from the middle ages to 1848). Not only is the art displayed very specific in terms of its scope, but it also displays the art in a very traditional "museum" format, and has not been forced to innovate the same way that other, less renowned spaces do. We had an interesting discussion about what to do with these museums--do we ask them to innovate and integrate a wider range of artifacts in their exhibits? Is there really anything wrong with these museums or are they better as they are now? Or, is there a third option in which we ask these museums to innovate their spaces in order to attract different populations but accept that their artifacts are set in stone and work well for them? I would argue that we as patrons need to push these museums towards innovation. It seems important to find some way for individuals from communities often excluded from these prestigious museum spaces to be invited in and to get value out of the exhibits. Not only would these visitors benefit from the museum, but also vice versa. These museums could continue to innovate incrementally over time using feedback from these visitors, and in doing so continue to grow the patrons they attract. This line of thinking also caused me to wonder what the current opinions surrounding this issue are like within these museums. At many museums we have seen on site visits, they indicate the struggle to innovate as a problem of persuasion. So thinking about how do employees persuade administrators to innovate in significant ways? Or how do museums innovate while simultaneously retaining the support of their donors? While these questions are necessary to think about, they also presume a location that wants to change. I'm not sure whether I really predict that employees at the Louvre would push for this kind of change, considering that they don't need to. So now the problem becomes how to make this issue urgent enough that large museums will listen.