Watch the video. Have a snack or a drink and let its languid pace start you thinking, not just about museums, but about all the arts, especially the ones you want to manage. Who creates value? How? What is the role of the arts manager (perhaps more than you might think?) in creating value and
in deciding what we want to remember and what we want to forget?
--Mike
Value.. value for whom?
ReplyDeleteSome art has instrinsic value in its rarity or historical context.
Some art may be valuable to one institution and not to another. For example, The Museum of Industry isn't displaying any Watteaus- they are down the street at the Painting Museum. Not to say that the Museum of Industry doesn't recognize the importance of the art, but their viewing public doesn't come to see that art, they come to see the first combustible steam engine.
This kind of relates to the last blog post in that value is in part determined by "what the public wants to see" and in part by "what the curator/artistic director wants you to see".
One of the comments on the youtube site intrigued me: the poster wanted a museum where we could place our own personal objects on display.
Another interesting commenter said that he was glad there were museum professionals determining to display, for example, a piece of fine art and not his toothbrush. However four hundred years from now people will probably love to see what the toothbrushes looked like "back then".
One man's trash is another man's treasure!
How does a hoarder like me know what to forget?? Now I'm scared of all this power I might one day have.
Clearly one museum cannot be all things to all folks. And the curator/artistic director is held accountable for the success and failure of the work. -grp.
ReplyDeleteAs a cultural consumer, when I think of “value” as related to the arts, I think of emotional value. It’s what drives me as a patron and a volunteer. An emotional connection with an exhibit increases the probability of a successful experience and influences perception of the museum. As the concept of emotional intelligence (EI) becomes more popularized, museum professionals are increasingly turning to EI models to research what attracts patrons and to use that research to harness long-term commitment and support.
ReplyDeleteThis ties in perfectly with this week’s fundraising chapter and the importance of relationship building.
I have mixed feelings about some of the things mentioned in the video but a few things stood out to me. Who is to decide what is important, and more importantly, what is not important? This is not just a question in museums, or even in the art world. This is an issue/ debatable matter from history textbooks (e.g. the Chinese/Japanese Governments' debate on wording of WWII) to museums (which piece of art is worth hanging), and to art traders (who is to decide that one painting should cost 1 million dollars?). I think this video is thought-provoking in a strange way, and I now have more questions than answers!
ReplyDeleteIs it true that if the object is in the museum, it's important? Does that mean objects that do not get the eye of the curator are not important? On another hand, how many things can we possibly keep in a museum? Every telephone model ever made? Or just the big milestones?
Another interesting point the video brought up is how nice, tidy labels with language that sounds academic help create the convincing 'authority effect'. Is it true that this is the way museums should produce their labels? What do they want to achieve by producing these labels, or even the exhibition? Do they want visitors to feel intimidated by the academic language? Or do they want to engage the visitors and actually invite them to learn about the subject matter? In that case, would you be writing simple, clear, intriguing and educational, but not condescending, labels? I would be interested in knowing more about that debate - I've heard, briefly from a professor, that this debate exists...
I think value is ultimately be created by people, right? Audience and managers alike. I think this whole Aesthetics debate is very interesting and so many more questions come out of it.
ReplyDeleteShould there be/are there certain universal aspects that everyone considers to have high value? What should we look for when we judge art? What are the factors in determining what we choose to have value? What is beauty? What is art?
I think value is created out of experieinces and emotions. What could be considered high value art now might not be 50 years from now, depending on how society and the individual changes. So, I think artistic value has to be linked to political, economical or ethical values as well.
Obviously the curators will decide what is in their exhibitions, so it is up to them to decide what has value. A good curator, I think, will realize that what might not have value for them will have value for others and vice versa. The arts manager might be just another authority figure that can help add their two cents.
I'm not sure if any organizations have explored this, although I'm sure they have, but it might be an interesting idea to give the public some level of involvement as to what the museum has on exhibition (a survey, a vote, etc.). That might be cool.
I think that within the role of art managers who carry the responsibility of selecting valuable pieces, the mission or the core purpose of that art organization has to be kept in mind. What pieces or programming is the most valuable in fulfilling its mission to their audience and community?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that really bothered me in that video was that they say "museum people need lots of training to know what is important and not important. They go to college to get training on how to think properly so they can learn how to recognize something that has value". I'm not sure I agree with this at all... people don't have to go to college to "think properly" or to be able to recognize something as valuable. The museum isn't build for "museum people"; it's built for the audience they are to serve. So I'm with everyone on the importance of keeping in mind the audience and what value is to them.
I think the video is coming from a perspective of the museum managers being a god-like figure in dictating what is "good" and "bad" for the audience. Instead, as Laura said, I agree that there needs to be a balance between what the audience wants and what arts managers believe will push their audience's traditional means of receiving culture.
First of all I am trying to separate the discussion topic from the supremely annoying video. And we all realize that ridiculous generalizations are perfectly acceptable in terms of the satirical format of the video, right? That being said, the video did indeed elicit a response (several in fact) and spark debate on its content if that was the desired intention.
ReplyDeleteFor me the basic thrust of the video is that "value" is relative. In terms of an arts experience we are all free (and in fact, encouraged) to determine and access what we connect with or is important to us. Whether we are discussing the contents of a museum or a performance on a stage, art is meant to inspire, educate and encourage us individually.
In other words WE, as arts consumers (yes, I'm still fighting that label "cultural consumer") determine the value of art. Museums, performances, etc. provide us with a wide variety of arts experiences from which to choose. We gravitate toward what we need from such an experience; history, beauty, to be challenged or entertained, moved or provoked. The "value" of art is not created by those presenting the arts experience, but by those experiencing it.
I think that we, as arts managers, are ultimately responsible for ensuring that audiences have a variety of art forms and content from which to choose. Audiences and those partaking of the art then determine (and fundamentally create) its value.
Like a couple of the others on here, I immediately thought of our marketing class because of the way the video mocks traditional museums. I got the general sense that there is an old-school, org-centered approach that many museums employ. Perhaps, if curators could apply some kind of segmentation in the way they display works, visitors could more effectively relate to or understand exhibits.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, as a layperson, I do trust a curator to know what's best for visitors. At the very least, they certainly could make their displays more accessible to a broader population.
I found the video very interesting, it is really a look at the average person’s perceptions of museums/ the arts, and the thoughts that arts managers need to work to change. I think that Rick pretty much nailed the idea that value it’s relative, not all people that view a painting or attend a performance will take the same meaning away from it or find the same value in it. It’s all relative to the experiences that we have and what values we hold in our daily lives.
ReplyDeleteJust to comment/question something related to what Guy said, on how the curator / artistic director are essentially responsible for and need to be accountable for the success of the works they choose. So does that mean they should make sure to present works that they consider valuable and believe in, even though the public isn’t 100% receptive of it, because the work that they exhibit or support says something about them and their values? Or to that affect, if the curator / artistic director knows they are responsible for the success of the work does that make it even more necessary to incorporate values of the public, even if they aren’t the same as their own, to ensure the success of a performance/exhibit?
So many questions, but like many have said balance is the key, to maintaining integrity of exhibit to the curator while addressing the values of the audience you’re trying to attract.
WOW. First, I don't know if I'm disturb by the fact an animal activist/unsuccessful artist cat who probably couldn't be accepted into a museum was making fun of me or second, the fact I just really hate cats.
ReplyDeleteDespite the one sided opinion of the cat and its disturbing story of stuffing it's beloved host, Pinky, I can see how this is a controversial issue for those audience members who wish to be exposed to art other than what is on display in highly funded venues. Perhaps these artifacts displayed in mainstream/high valued venues are chosen based on historical significance/influence in culture and valued over time, proven popular by exhibit reviews?
If the cat wants to see other artifacts without the significant light illuminating an artifact, "proving it's credibility/value," then the cat can go to another museum where it can choose to appreciate something else! I personally believe the lighting and small info signs with serious fonts allow the audience member to view the art without surrounding influences. This helps the viewer capture a pure opinion/reflection on the artists' work and intentions for the artifact.
Maybe I'm being a suborn arts manager... but the venues of art seem endless and the levels of value placed on an artifact is ultimately up to the viewer. It's the viewer's right to critique/judge/reflect on the art BUT it is the arts managers liability to provide/curate exhibits which the community should be exposed to based on the mission of the museum/venue (which proves its value)
If the arts manager is following the mission of the museum, they are not at fault if some cat doesn't like the exhibit or feel the same sense of value. Although, is it also the responsibility of the arts manager to portray/display/educate-facilitate (in some way) the importance of an artifact to which one can understand its significance/value
If the art does prove significant and support the museum's mission yet the majority of an audience doesn't value the art, perhaps the mission should be reviewed or serious surrounding educational programs or exhibit reconstruction should be developed to support the importance of the mission in conjunction of the art.
in conclusion; I still don't like cats.
-Ethan
After reading previous posts, I have to say I second Guy and Rick's comments. We can't please everyone, and ultimately it is those who experience art that give the art its value.
ReplyDeleteBesides, every successful public entity has a curator of some sort. CEOs, boards, administrators, managers, etc., curate our shopping habits, eating habits, academic habits, etc. We give value to their products in our responses; either we love it or we hate it. It's similar with our art selection and tastes.
This is exactly why cats aren't allowed in museums.
ReplyDeleteNot entirely true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pfPMiu0J8Y
ReplyDeleteSorry, this isn't very academic...