How to get kicked out a museum

So, say you wanted to get kicked out a museum. Barring the normal ways (stealing, defacing property, bellowing obscenities, use of illicit substance, weapons, etc), what would it take? I ask because a young man was asked to leave the infamous Creation Museum last weekend. According to him, he was talking with his friends, mocking the exhibits, and was suddenly confronted by the museum security staff.

Admittedly, he was wearing a tee shirt that was deemed offensive. (Whether it was or not is not the point.) But, he did as others have done, turned it inside out and went about his visit. I was not present on this trip, and of course my own biases are coloring my opinion. It is possible that to one set of eyes, it was entirely justified. But, from most reports, the majority of what was happening was commentary on the exhibits. Mocking, yes. Loud, by some reports. But no one was swearing, no one was threatening, no one was defacing anything. The major issue seems to be the real or perceived discomfort that other visitors experienced.

So the question becomes - is mocking the content of an exhibit enough to get you kicked out? And how much does the context of the exhibit play into that? Is a museum that is afraid of ridicule and criticism doing any good? Is it ok to reprimand or expell one visitor for the comfort of another?

Situation 1: At a modern art exhibition, a PhD student is intently studying visitor reaction to an installation. His attention wavers when a family comes in and loudly begins mocking the work - "My 4 year old could do this," "This isnt art," and so on. The student tells the security guard that the family is ruining his visit.

Situation 2: A curator is about to give a docent tour of a natural history hall. After gathering a crowd, she notices a large group on their own tour, complete with leader. The other group is using the dinosaur display to discuss ways to teach creationism. The curator is afraid that this group will counter her information and upset her group.

Situation 3: A school group is visiting the the Holocaust Memorial. Another group there at the same time is discussing the exhibits and making comments that deny the holocaust and seem anti-Semetic. The group is not overly loud and is not being aggressive, but the children in the school group are trying to listen in. The teacher is very worried that some children might be swayed by their rhetoric. She informs a guard.

So, what do you do? Each situation is different, and context does matter. Is it different for a private institution vs. a pubilc one? Where do we draw the line between allowing discourse and censoring speech? Is free speech a right in a museum?

Me? I get it. The Creation Museum is much like the group in Situation 3. The families involved were worried that their children would overhear the rhetoric and suddenly become "eeeevil atheists" (muauhahahahah). I understand. It makes me sad, but I understand. I hope that other museums see this incident and take heed. A truly educational organization allows for discourse and disagreement. It embraces multiple viewpoints and helps people winnow out their own truth. It does not proselytize and it does not censor. Yes, even if a Holocaust denier is giving a tour of the Holocaust Memorial - a good educator uses that as an opportunity to teach.

The sad thing is, AIG could have used this moment for good, but instead, they showed that they really are preaching to the choir, and they have no need for any of the rest of us.

Talking in the dark

On Thursday, I was fortunate to get a chance to attend a special seminar led by Tammy Borman about dialogue in museums. She had us participate in dialogue, rather than just listen about it (instructors, take note!) and we all came to some interesting conclusions about what it means to dialogue in a museum. 

One thing that was brought up was having a space for dialogue in a museum. I have a great interest in how the physical space affects learning, and so I have been really thinking about this. If physical space is a barrier to cognitive learning, it must surely be a barrier to deeper levels of understanding that are generally brought about by dialogue.

So, when the comment was made that dialogue can happen anywhere, I had to have a think. In a very broad sense, yes, dialogue can happen anywhere. If people are comfortable with the idea of dialogue, then they can dialogue in a car, in an uncomfortable room, even over the phone or Internet. But for relative strangers, in a space that already brings about feelings of discomfort (as museums often do), physical discomfort can limit a willingness or even ability to unpack feelings and get deep.

I titled this post as I did, because the whole conversation brought to my mind a specific memory. My freshman year of college, I vividly recall having a "kiss and tell" session with my girlfriends. One of those "let's talk about sex" moments that all young adults have at some point. Some of us knew each other well, some of us were practically strangers, and the conversation was a bit embarrassing for most of us (we were shy and pretty damn naive). So, we turned out the lights. Suddenly, the comfort of not having to see the people you were addressing made it seem that much safer to share. It was a silly moment, but really helps me understand why I feel so strongly that physical comfort is important to dialogue. This isn't to say that I think dialogue is space-dependent, but I think that certain levels of comfort must exist, and that additional comforts make this sort of conversation much easier to have.

More on this later, I'm sure. But how about you? Do you think that dialogue can be affected by physical space?

Recessions, museums, art and Etsy

A comment on the last entry, plus recent work stuff and a story on NPR, all combined to get me thinking about the recession. Well, when do I not think about the recession - I have friends getting laid off, groceries cost way too much and I started clipping coupons for the first time since college.

There's been tons of talk about how the recession is impacting museums. In the 90s, during the last big recession, museums were in their boom period. We were expanding rapidly, building like crazy and growing at insane rates. (I can say "we" even though I was in high school and planning to be a doctor at that time.) However, lately we have seen museums hit hard by the economy. Most of the problems owe to the HUGE hit our endowments have taken. 

Conventional wisdom dictates that endowments are good. They are a steady stream of support and get you through the rough times. But, they are a bit like privatized social security. In a good market, they swell and grow and we build and build. In a bad market, our endowments wither away. The Indianapolis Museum of Art publishes the current size of its endowment online. They have lost $100 M in the past year. For perspective, thats about 1/3 of the total. That's huge.

And so, because of this, budgets are being slashed. Boards and directors are having to make tough decisions about staffing and exhibits. We are using volunteer labor for exhibits. We are using salaried people to do OT work. Luckily, we have not yet had to let go of staff, but we are officially the only large museum in Indianapolis to avoid layoffs.  

So, that's the bad news. Here is the good news. It's PACKED here today. I mean, crazy busy. Our attendance has been up - well up on many weekends. Its not yet Spring Break here, and we are already feeling the crowds. I think there is something to be said about the "staycation" effect - if you aren't taking the fam to the beach for Spring Break, why not come to the local museum? But...last spring, gas prices were creeping near $4 a gallon, and we didn't see this. I think there may be something more happening. 

So, what does this have to do with Etsy? Do you know Etsy? Its GREAT! Its online, one stop shopping for artsy crafty homemade items - clothes, vintage pieces, jewelry, you name it. And, in a time when retail is not so hot, and boutique stores are closing left and right, Etsy is doing quite well. I am not an economist, and I don't know if this is a reason, but I'll try.

I think (I think, I don't know, its my blog, I can op-ed) that when people are faced with declining income, a devalued dollar, and economic malaise, we want a return to simpler times. We made hats for the holidays - to great success. People are growing veggies (seed sales are up) and making their own sauces and salsas. My sister and I are going to learn to make jam and can food. Its not as much about being cheap as about putting value into things.

The items on Etsy are handmade - they are unique and there is a value beyond cost in them. Someone worked on this item. Someone put love into it. That may sound silly, but I really do think there is something to this.

So, back to museums. Why do I think museums will recover quickly? Or at least weather the storm? Because there is a value to museum visits above and beyond the price of admission. The people here inject their work with love and passion. And I truly believe that visitors see that. 

Museums need to get back to what they are - authentic places for a real experience. We've moved too far towards being fast food - we need to get back to being a sit down place, or better yet, a local diner. A place you feel comfortable just hanging out. I hope we can get there - I think we are getting closer. I think that the slow crumble of some larger institutions will, like large trees falling, make way for other sprouts to grow. 

I've rambled. I should really do these in one sitting, but ah well. :)

Until later!

Um...wow.

So, two kitty cats teach us about museums. Honest, scathing, cruel and wonderful. Probably overly general and a little mean, but it's a really good look at the museum as a temple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFbmuEUdwI

I wish I knew how to embed video, but trust me, this link is worth clicking on. The title of the report: "The Creation of Value: meditations on the logic of museums and other coercive institutions." 

Wow.

Dr Jekyll and Mrs Hyde

Sometimes I feel like I am two people, museum-wise. Take today for example. Between the AAM webinar on Excellence and Equity and class tonight, I spent about 7 hours thinking about audience advocacy, civic dialogue, the role of education, etc. All good, soul-edifying things.

But I also spent several hours working on things to drive revenue, and ways to get parents to pony up cash for premium experiences.

And I should probably feel bad about that, but I really don't.

So, I guess what I am wondering, is this: Is it ok to play both roles? Can you advocate for audiences and still play the business angle? I think my response is yes.

I sometimes feel like a broken record in class. When in a classroom full of students and often professors for whom museum work is largely still theorhetical, I feel I need to remind them that museums are an odd combination of business and educational/cultural institution. People always seem to forget the business end of things.

The modern museum is constantly faced with a need to compete for your constantly decreasing free time. We need to keep you coming in the doors. LIke it or not, the money you give to museums, through tickets, donations, retail and food service, helps us not only keep the doors open, but care for collections and continue our mission.

So how do I reconcile championing things like photo sales and face painting - and charging for them- with my passion for audiences and education? It's not always easy. I almost have to be two people, part savvy businesswoman who looks at theme parks and malls and says "what a great idea!" and part subversive educator who looks at websites and tiny museums and library programs and says "what a great idea!" When I am lucky, the two things meet up. When I am not, they juxtapose in ways that are uncomfortable.

I cannot say that I am sorry for thinking of ways to generate revenue. It is not my intention to nickle and dime visitors. I can only hope that what we are coming up with is an experience that is beyond a simple retail transaction. I hope that I manage to balance the two sides of my personality.

Anyone out there have similar experiences? Or thoughts?

Marketing and getting the joke

On the way in to work today, I heard on NPR a brief mention that Microsoft, hard hit by the brilliant "I'm a Mac" ad campaign, has enlisted comedian Jerry Seinfeld to help counter the ads and reestablish its "street cred."

A few things come to mind.

1) No one on NPR should ever use the term "street cred." Especially not as it concerns Jerry Seinfeld.

2) The ad geniuses at Microsoft just don't get it.

The "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" ads have been successful because they understand their audience and appeal specifically to it. Better than that, they know what audience they WANT to attract and have pointedly played to that group. The young, hip, artsy crowd immediately identifies with Justin Long's uber hipster/slacker. We (yes, I am totally counting myself in this crowd) laugh at his good natured ribbing of John Hodgman's PC. Long's Mac is the ad world's version of Jim Halpert. And, we get the joke. We see nice guy, cool guy, guy we want to hang out with. And, we think that we too should have Macs, to be cool and hip.

Trying to use Seinfeld to counter this image just proves that Microsoft doesn't get the joke. Jerry Seinfeld is a funny guy (so I hear, I never really cared for him), but his appeal is to the fans of his TV show - i.e. people who were 30somethings almost 20 years ago. Totally different audience, and if that is what Microsoft is after, great! However, if the goal is to reclaim the "youth vote" as it were, they need someone with ACTUAL "street cred."

How does this relate to museums (see, you knew I'd get there eventually)? Most museums are now marketing to younger audiences - either parents of young children (25-45) or young professionals (25-40). These audiences are increasingly responsive to a level of fun and humor that is not always present in museum marketing.

The IMA did it well with their campaign for "Roman Art from the Louvre," most notably with ads with the line "togas not required." Silly, simple, and clever. I'll be on the lookout for clever advertising for museums, as there isnt much out there.

Museum directors need to trust their marketing teams to come up with ideas that appeal to the target audience - which may not include the director! Too often I wonder if directors push for advertising that appeals to them personally, rather than what will appeal to the target audience. There is so much creativity in museums, it will be great to watch it go wild.

So, way to go Microsoft - you basically proved Apple's point for them.

Blockbusters: Boom or Bust?

Charity (my awesome boss, though she hates me calling her that) and I were just discussing the sudden interest in our traveling exhibits. Not a bad thing, not by a long shot, but still, sudden. We produce traveling exhibits for children's museums. We currently have 2 on the road, and one more scheduled for 2009. And about 4 in the works - ish. And it seems, that we will continue to have them all booked up all the time! Which, is wonderful...but it does lead me to wonder what is happening to the industry that we are being so flooded with requests.

A few things come to mind, and none of them are any more than the ramblings of my own mind. So, don't quote me.

1) Museums are under pressure to maintain high levels of visitation and membership, and have seen that temporary/traveling exhibits can help with this.

There is always discussion on mailing lists and at conferences on the value of traveling exhibits. On one side of the argument, is it worth the money (sometimes LOTS of money) spent on a temporary show, when the same amount could build a gorgeous permanent exhibit? Decent large shows (5000 -8000 square feet) now regularly rent for $150K+ for 3 months. Add in shipping, labor, etc, and you've got a sizeable cost. Blockbuster shows can require a guarantee of millions of dollars - which means if you don't make that much, you owe them cash. It's a hefty investment and in a museum struggling with finances, can be a huge gamble.

On the other side, the argument is that visitors are fickle. They want something new every time they come. For a museum such as ours, over 50% of our visitation comes in the form of members - who often visit 3-4 times per year or more. Yes, they visit their favorite spaces, but if you never give them new, they will not come back as often. In a market like Indianapolis, it doesn't take long before you have maxed out your audience. Then you have to rely on repeat visitation to increase your numbers. Temporary shows help with this, as it gives people a call to action to come back. Add to this that changing exhibits are easier to market, and you have a strong argument in favor of hosting these shows.

2) There isn't anything out there

My job is to manage our temporary/special/changing exhibits. Whatever you want to call them. And let me tell you, pickin's are slim. Where once we hosted exhibits about toys, bears, or economics - we now almost exclusively host shows featuring cartoon characters, popular books, or grown up artifact shows. The name is driving selection as much as the content. Even at a children's museum, it has to be sexy. Nanotechnology? Love it, want it, would love to host it. Can we market it? Ehhhh, I don't know.

And, with the focus on licensed product for exhibits, that means there are fewer museums that can produce these exhibits and fewer museums that can host them. And, the well of IP may be limited, but the good stuff at the top goes fast. Sure, you can probably get a license agreement from the author and publisher of a marginally popular children's book, but you probably can't sell/market it.

2) The growth of the blockbuster exhibit world is slowly killing the little guy.

I'm not going to pull any punches here. I firmly believe that, no matter how cool they are, blockbuster exhibits are killing the industry. They are another step towards the corporatization of the museum world, and they are further separating the museum world into a sort of "haves" and "have nots". As mentioned above, blockbuster exhibits come with a hefty price, but not just financial.

Blockbuster exhibits, like Body Worlds, Tut, Vatican, and Titanic, came on the scene in the 70s, with the first Tut show. At the time, that show was groundbreaking, and the crowds were more than happy to stand in line and shove through like cattle. The term "blockbuster" came from the movie industry - a term meant to imply a double threat, a financially viable show that features amazing content and quality exhibitry. But, as we have seen with the film industry, just because something is a blockbuster, it doesn't mean it is good. I give you High School Musical, Speed Racer and The Mummy 3.

The blockbuster boom has led to a glut of exhibit copies (there are at least 3 Body Worlds on the road) and knock-offs (Bodies: The Exhibition - more on that in the next post). The simple supply/demand model kicks in, and as more exhibits become available, and visitors have more options, the exhibits become less financially sound. If you know you can see Body Worlds anywhere, why worry about driving to see it? There's no rush, no call to action. There is no longer a "limited time only."

Other issues:
* With the perceived success of exhibits like Tut and Body Worlds, everyone wants in on the game. When a museum proposes an exhibit to an IP holder or the owner of an artifact, they expect handsome compensation. After all, if Tut can rake in millions, why can't their pirate ship/costume collection/famous toy exhibit?
* With the drive to use licensed product, exhibit producers are bending more and more to the will of the IP holder. The museum or exhibit company is no longer in charge of the content or design of the exhibit. We are no longer trusted with our own expertise. And the exhibits suffer for it.
* The drive to create these shows leads to shorter development time. This leads to mixed messaging, mish-mashed content, and sloppy design.

Well, this became a rant on blockbuster shows, but so be it. I won't say that I didn't enjoy Body Worlds, or Titanic. I wont say I am not excited about Tut. But, like everything else, the bubble cannot hold. Soon, very soon, the blockbuster bubble will break, and museums will be left with empty schedules and a demanding public. So what then?

How can we as an industry return to creating strong exhibits that stand on their own, without a $15 ticket charge and a hard bound catalogue? Seriously, I'm asking.

What's the Big Idea?

Museum exhibit people can be obnoxious. We have to make just about everything difficult. Nearly every day, someone comes up to me and says “I have a great idea for an exhibit!” and proceeds to tell me about an interactive they’ve dreamed up, or a topic they love. (My sister insists that an exhibit about wax would pack ‘em in.) Then I ask the dreaded question: “So, what’s the point?” I’m not trying to be mean, but trying to get across that to be an effective exhibit, it needs a why. It needs a Big Idea.

The Big Idea is a frustrating master. Without one, you cannot hope to know if your exhibit was effective. But with one, you are constantly bound by the question “does it speak to the Big Idea?” The concept has provoked many a developer ranting “but it’s fun dammit!”

So why does this matter? Well, we hope that exhibit designers and builders aren’t creating exhibits for themselves. There are these people called visitors, and the exhibit, ultimately is for them.

A good exhibit changes a visitor. The change can be in their knowledge or skills, their attitude or behavior, or their life conditions. An exhibit on the plight of the purple-horned snorkack could change my attitude toward them and my behavior (if I feel compelled to help them.) An exhibit about the history of 18^th century flatware will certainly add to my knowledge base. What will your exhibit do for the visitor?

The following is NOT a big idea: Biodiversity

That is a topic. It’s a good one, but it isn’t a big idea.

This is a big idea: Diversity of life is necessary for the survival of all living things; diversity is under threat primarily by human beings living in the environment, but things can be done and are being done to help. (Courtesy AMNH)

A big idea is a complete sentence. Ideally it should answer the Enduring Question. For this example, the Enduring Question is: “Why should we care about the diversity of life?”

An effective way of creating a successful exhibit is to work backwards. Start with the end result – not the interactive, but the experience the visitor will have – and work back to the concepts.

Stages of Backward Design:

1) Think about what you want your visitor to come away with.
2) Think about how you will know if they “get it”
3) Plan the experience to make sure they do!

So, what is your Big Idea? How can designing backwards help your exhibit to be more effective?

(Info gathered from The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, Dr. Elee Wood and the Shaping Outcomes training)

SL Internship, month one

I am now officially one month into my internship with The Tech, and I think things are going well. I am teaching building classes twice a week, and leading tours on weekends. People always say that you learn better when you teach someone else, and I think that holds true here. I continue to feel more and more comfortable with simple building, navigating, and explaining just what the heck we are doing here.

My first class was - less than great. Had 2 people show up 30 minutes late, and neither one really needed a basic class. That prompted me to add a description of just how basic - basic was. Its like, make a cube. Change its size. Change its color. Voila! Simple stuff. I dont want people to come in thinking I am going to teach them how to create buildings and steampunk engines, etc. Nope, just boxes and balls. But...look what we did with boxes and balls!

Tonight, between 4 of us, we experimented our way to a greater understanding of some of the intricacies of prim building. And this, I think, is a point in favor of SL.

Even on the most cohesive exhibit team, not everyone gets to be part of every step. The developer spends a great deal of time coming up with the ideas, while the curator combs the archives. The designer locks herself away to sketch and draw, while the production team asks you to stay out of their hair while they build. Its necessary to have specific skills on the team, and you cannot expect every team member to be able to contribute to every step along the way.

Imagine a team building an exhibit - they all go into a room that is filled with every substance imaginable. They can all build, as very few skills are required. They take time to experiment with wild ideas. They play. Imagine what kind of exhibit could come from that? I dont see SL as an analogue of the RL design process, but rather as a tool for building creativity.

In RL I am currently working on a new exhibit. Our exhibit process is very open and creative, and we spend lots of time brainstorming, refining ideas, etc. What we dont get lots of time to do is play around with the physical. I can suggest changes, but those need to go to the developer, then to the designer, then to the CAD designer, then to the production engineer and graphics designer, then back to me for approval. Whew! And what if I dont like it after all? It becomes like the classic comedy scene - move the couch over here. No maybe here. No maybe back there after all.

But in SL - I can be working away and suddenly think - Hm, would this look better with a curved surface? Or, what if it were stone? And I can change it in a flash, and change it back. No harm, no foul. And everyone on the team could have their say. And, as the budget manager in me has to say it, you havent spent a dime.

Could museums use SL as a brainstorming lab? A place where they could go to play with ideas?

Virtual Museums in SL

In September, Jim Spadaccini over at Exhibit Files wrote a review of the Dresden Museum's Old Masters Picture Gallery in Second Life. His review is fantastic, and points out some important things to consider when creating a virtual museum.

The Dresden has done an admirable job of recreating a real life (thats RL) place in a virtual environment. I cannot begin to imagine how much time it must have taken.

Here is the real museum.
<------









And here is the recreation in SL --->


Beautiful. And not just the outside. The interior is just as amazing, complete with parquet work, moulded ceilings, the works. The big problem is - it takes forever to load on screen.

And, like many grand old museums, its easy to get lost. (Of course, in RL you can't just teleport out)

The idea is great - a virtual recreation of a real space, featuring recreations of the artifacts, in this case art. The chances of my visiting this museum in RL are slim, but I can hop on SL and at least see something, right?

Wrong. The images of the art are far too small to provide any sense of what the real art might be like. Add to that the time it takes to load, and the art becomes secondary. Now, for architecture buffs and those who just love beautiful buildings, the site is well worth the visit. But this is a nice example of how what works in RL doesn't always translate to SL.


Next: An update on the internship, a review of some papers from Museums and the Web, and a visit to Virtual Starry Night.