A Bundle of Museum Consultancy

I’ve decided to put these together instead of separate posts. Just to show the wealth of valuable information from the blogs I follow and because they all deal with the same kind of field. Here’s a whole bunch of thinking points that if it was written down on a piece of paper would probably cost you.

Maryann Devine talks about small arts non-profits and branding.

If he or she expects provocative political dramas on stage, then that’s your brand.

If he or she expects a fantastic time for the kids, then that’s your brand.

Music that’s familiar and well-loved? Your brand.

Long lines and crowded lobbies? Your brand.

It seems so simple, but as Mary Ann Devine points out, “branding” seems to have the connotations of a large fortunes being spent on a total design. Your “brand” is what people think about your establishment. Efforts should be made to make people think about you and in positive way. What does it look like if you don’t care what people think?

To the other side of the fence, Nina Simon has a barn-storming article about what museum’s think about their visitors in terms of participation.

And yet many museums are fixated on creators. I show the tool and then they say, “yeah, but we really want people to share their own stories about fly-swatters,” or, “we think our visitors can make amazing videos about justice.” Museums see open-ended self-expression as the be-all of participatory experiences. Allowing visitors to select their favorite exhibits in a gallery or comment on the content of the labels isn’t seen as valuable a participatory learning experience as producing their own content.

Nina’s point is that the best participation experience are one’s with some set guideline and I agree. There’s nothing worse than staring at the blank sheet of paper and being told “Go”. Tell me to write a 100 word, ultra-short story about a dancing robot with a missing leg and I could write several pieces on the subject. As Nina’s graphic shows, there’s far more spectators and critics, and not everyone has the creativity to be motivated when given the “blank page”. From what I understand, critics and spectators would surely need the participation in the shape of a forum. What happens when you think your audience is something it’s not?

In a strange conclusion to this, and possible the most intelligent thing I’ve read on Suggested Donation, Lowconcept visits the Newark Museum in New Jersey. This museum is 30 minutes travel from Manhattan, so close enough to compete with the NY big dogs yet a bit too far to attract the same audience, so how does it survive? 

The delightful answer: it attracts visitors through a combination of local, community-targeted programming and a focus on education through its galleries. Too much jargon? In short, the museum focuses on the visitor, not the art historian or snooty donor, through classes and instruction through its collections.

Lowconcepts also mention a large array of workshops, labels with guidance for interpretation and that Newark Museum being the second highest spender on education programmes. This is what happens when a museum has clearly though about its audience and its brand.

Finally a quote from Nicolas Serota, Director of the Tate Modern, about the Whitechapel Gallery where he started out.

Suddenly, the Whitechapel had a lot of competition and looked very far from the centre of London – and it had a poor relationship with its local community. What I wanted to do was try to reinstate it as a place that could show international and British modern art, and reconnect it to its immediate locale. The first appointment I made was someone to work on community projects, and we started an artist in residence programme in local schools.