Museums & Creative Practice

I'm pleased to announce the start of a new book project with my colleague Rainey Tisdale.  Museums & Creative Practice is a our effort to understand how we can be more creative museum workers--how we can embed creative practice in all aspects of our work.  Rainey,  an independent curator and blogger at CityStories,  has been actively thinking about creativity for some time,  and over the last year or so, we've begun a lively long-distance conversation about the creative process  and how it can be applied to museum practices.

We both believe that creative work can—and should-- be a part of every part of a museum’s efforts, from the gallery attendant’s work to the director’s.  As both of us travel and visit museums far and near,  we see that the innovative, compelling museums—of whatever size and discipline,  are ones where the creative process is embraced on many levels. 

We’re curious about how creativity is encouraged and nurtured;  how visitors respond to expanded creative efforts;   and how creative efforts take form in different types of museums—from art to science to history.

This is a joint project between Rainey and I because we both believe creativity flourishes with collaboration.  And that’s where you come in as well—we hope many of you will become our colleagues, sharing your perspectives, your great creative finds, and of course, your creative ideas.  Here’s where you can find us:

New Blog

Our work will result in a book, but we have several starting points that we hope become a part of.  First, a new blog, Museums & Creative Practice.  We'll use this space to update our work, to share resources we find, and of course, to hear back from all of you.

Survey

We want your thoughts on what makes you creative (or not);  on the most creative museums you know;  and about what you'd like us to think about in the course of this project.  The survey is short (!) and you can take it here.

Talk

We'll both be at the American Association of Museums conference in Minneapolis next week (yes, this year's conference theme is "Creative Community") and we are hoping to talk there with as many colleagues as possible about this project. We're holding two informal Museums & Creative Practice meet-ups.

• Monday, April 30, 12:30-2:00. Grab a takeaway lunch and meet us at the cafe seating in the lobby of the convention center, near Dunn Bros Coffee
• Tuesday, May 1, 6:00-7:30. Join us for a drinks and discussion at The Local, 931 Nicollet Mall, a few blocks north of the convention center. The reservation is under Rainey; we'll be at "Arthur's Table."

Can’t join us in person but want to share your thoughts? Please comment here, or on the new blog.  We look forward to hearing your thoughts and sharing our progress with you.

The Power of Paper

I'm always packing up paper to take to various workshops. Just today, I put together my paper, markers and scissors for a session at next week's Museums in Conversation conference in Albany.  So I'm used to watching people write on big pieces of brown paper,  stick up Post-It notes and piece together three-dimensional interactive prototypes from construction paper.

But this week, at the Corning Museum of Glass, I was struck by how powerful paper can be when you ask visitors or participants to make use of it.  I was at Corning to hold some visitor conversations around a re-doing of a section of their innovation exhibit,  the section focusing on advances in glass bottle-making.  The staff had known that the section, now more than a decade old,  just didn't quite do it anymore and they've been working with my colleague Christopher Clarke to re-shape the interpretive effort.   He suggested that it might prove illuminating to talk to some visitors about both the current gallery and the proposed re-designs--that's where I came in.

The great team at Corning put together full-size graphic mock-ups and recruited three groups of participants, ranging in age from 7 to over 70.  With each group, we met in the lobby where I distributed simple note-pads and pens to everyone; we then trooped upstairs to the current gallery.  I was interested in seeing what an open-ended approach would do, so I just asked them to note down what they saw,  any issues they saw,  what they liked, and didn't like.  And all of a sudden,  that pad and pencil were really important.  They looked deeper, they wrote down sections of the label text,  they drew pictures--no matter what age they were.  They were intensely serious and focused on their task.  I think the pads and pens were empowering in some way.  We really did want to know what they thought!

All of us then adjourned to a conference room to look at the proposed new graphics.  In the first group,  we had a useful conversation, but the second group was composed of kids from 7-17 and I was a little concerned about participation.  Out came the Post-It notes.  Each participant was asked to put a note by one thing they they found interesting and one they found confusing.  Again, the paper and pen were empowering.  They looked really hard,  they read all the labels, they sort of went back and forth between different elements trying to decide.  And then, because the notes gave me a place to start the conversation,  it was easy for that group (and another group as well) to share their ideas. After all, everyone had participated.  The pads and the Post-Its helped everyone in the group feel that their ideas were equally valued, and provided a safe space to think individually and collectively about the exhibit and design.  Perhaps it's really not the paper, but the idea that we really asked--that we did want to know what our audience thought.

But here's my favorite part of my time in Corning.  When we came in the second day,  there were a couple of additional Post-Its up.  Evidently during the morning,  a staff member named Betty came into the empty room,  saw the Post-It comments,  understood that we were looking for interesting and confusing elements,  shared her own observations and signed her name. Thanks Betty, Corning staff, volunteer participants and Christopher for such a great learning experience.  I'll keep those pens and paper handy!

Memorial Museums: Join A Conversation

From the September 11 Memorial and Museum to the Oklahoma City National Memorial and Museum to the Holodomor and Chernobyl Museums in Kyiv and Gulag museums in the former Soviet Union, to Holocaust memorials and museums in Europe and the United States,  interpretation at memorial museums has become a part of our international museum practice--and perhaps more importantly, these museums have become important ways for the public to understand violent, complex and often horrifying aspects of our common history.   As we reframe the idea of museums into a third space, with a community-centered focus,  it's more important than ever to consider the range of questions that these museums provoke in our work.

On Monday, April 30, 9:00-10:15 AM, at the AAM Annual Conference, I'll be joining an talented group of colleagues for an open dialogue exploring the  interpretation at memorials and memorial museums.  Chaired by Stacey Mann, Director of Learning Strategies, Night Kitchen Interactive, Philadelphia, PA (who did an amazing job moving our session from idea to reality), the presenters include Wendy Aibel-Weiss, Director of Programs, Tribute WTC Visitor Center; Danny Cohen, Lecturer, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL;  Ian Kerrigan, Assistant Director of Exhibition Development, National September 11 Memorial & Museum, New York, NY and me. The session sprang from all of our contributions to the fall, 2011 issue of Exhibitionist: Museums, Memorials, and Sites of Conscience. 

As a group, we've identified a list of key questions for discussion. A few of the questions on our list:

• How do collective memories of different atrocities and violent events differ across time and between communities? 
• Why do visitors make a pilgrimage to contemporary sites of tragedy?
• In this age of instant global communication, who “owns” an international tragedy?
  
• Are there age-appropriate guidelines to exhibitions that focus on human tragedy? How can museums engage children and younger audiences in these topics?
• How might the marginalization of particular histories impact collective memory and collective action?
• Should memorials and ways of commemorating be designed to change / shift over time?  If so, how?
• How do we balance individual loss and collective stories?
• Who determines the "truth" of a memorial museum?
• What happens when the "truth" presented by an authority changes?  or when the authority changes?

But we've designed this as a conversation (we promise, no endless talking heads)--so we'd like to hear from you, whether or not you'll be at the conference.  What questions do you have about memorials and memorial museums?  What do you want to make sure we share our perspectives on?  What do you wonder about?  What issues do you think memorial museums are frightened of facing?  What do you think the long-term impact of these museums can be?  Please weigh in here in the comments with questions, ideas and perspectives;  plan to join us on the 30th; and of course, check back here for a full report.

Image: Brian Kusler on Flickr

A Layer Cake? A Crown? Thinking about Museum Standards

A couple weeks ago,  I was pleased to be asked to join a day of thinking about museum standards at the American Association of Museums in Washington.  Twenty or so colleagues, from New England to Hawaii, representing museums ranging from county historical societies to the Getty Museum, along with staff from AAM,  AASLH and IMLS,  spent the day talking about AAM's Museum Assessment Program (MAP),  Accreditation, and AASLH's StEPs program for history organizations. Our goal was to focus on how we might, collectively, design a program that moves all museums forward.    I've been a MAP reviewer and now have worked extensively with the StEPs standards both in developing curricula and webinars for AASLH and in a state-wide training program in Connecticut so I was happy to join a great group of colleagues in a lively discussion.

From my perspective, it seemed as if, for a long time,  the Accreditation program was the crown jewel in our field, attainable by few,  and with benefits that were never clearly articulated.  And perhaps others held that same view,  because only a tiny (4%) percentage of US museums have attained that status.  AAM's thoughtful rethinking seems to reflect that same concern.  If we say our museums are great, that they matter, that they are worthy of public and private support--but then say, oh, only 4% of museums meet our own standards, what message does that convey?  So what do we, as a field, do?   Because, it's important to note that all these efforts come from the field, not from a governmental oversight agency.  (New York is an exception, in that the Board of Regents sets forth its own standards,  but there is no state agency that actually enforces any of those standards.)

The MAP staff posed a number of questions to the group.  What elements might be embedded in the MAP process to encourage the goal of Accreditation?  Does MAP need a report card or rating scale?  Can StEPs indicators be used as indicators for Accreditation readiness?  How can these programs best connect?  How can we propel museums up the continuum?

 The metaphors flew fast and furious.  Would a field-wide standards program build layer, upon layer, like a cake?  Or like a crown, with accreditation as the top points?  Are we building a house, with a sound foundation?  Going up a set of steps?  Is it like a board game where you need to accomplish a certain number of steps to move forward?

Despite--or perhaps because of the abundance of those metaphors, there were several important areas of agreement.  One, that the field can--and should-- to push itself harder in terms of encouraging museums of all sizes, shapes and disciplines to meet standards.  Second, that these programs will work best when we all (including other specific organizations such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums) work together to find common ground and share information in a clear, understandable framework.  In metaphorical terms, that we move from a series of silos to an interconnected approach.   I shared my own personal hobbyhorse--that standards need to focus, not just on collections (easier to assess plans and policies there) but also need to focus on an organization's ability to connect with their audiences and communities.

I think progress in this area will result, in part, from an understanding that we, as a field, can't be all things to all people--and that individual institutions must make hard choices about their future.  I'm pleased to see several places where these conversations are happening.  

On my must-see list for two upcoming conferences are sessions that address some of these hard choices.  At the upcoming Museums in Conversation conference in Albany, on April 23 historian and exhibit developer Christopher Clarke and Gretchen Sorin, Director of the Cooperstown Graduate Program will introduce and referee a sure-to-be-lively conversation framed around the statement  “New York State’s smaller history museums would be better off if they radically reduced the size of their collections.”    At the AAM conference in Minneapolis,  on Tuesday, May 1,  Marieke Van Damme, Deputy Director for Development and Planning, Bostonian Society Old State House Museum, Boston, MA and Rainey Tisdale, Independent Curator, Roslindale, MA join Ole Winther, Head of Department, National Heritage Agency of Denmark, Copenhagen, to discuss sweeping reforms, including widespread mergers, taking place at museums in Denmark and Norway and whether such reforms would work here in the United States.

The conversation is sure to continue on many levels--but I'd like to hear your thoughts.  When Ford Bell, President of AAM,  set the stage for our meeting, he commented, (I'm paraphrasing)  "the more institutions in the excellence tent, the better for advocacy."  And that doesn't just mean advocacy for government funding, it means advocacy and connection to your community on every level, in every way.  How can we bring more organizations into the big tent of excellence?

Not Closed, Just Locked: Exhibit Censorship in Kyiv

Anyone in the American museum field is probably familiar with the cases of censorship and attempted censorship that have roiled American museum practice (and in some cases the public) over the last few decades:  Sensation at the Brooklyn Museum, the National Portrait Gallery,  the Enola Gay controversy, and of course, Robert Mapplethorpe.   The resolution of each situation is different,  but in every case,  issues of free speech and the importance of showing sometimes controversial art have been brought into public conversation.

When I was in Ukraine as a Fulbright Scholar in 2009, I taught a course at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (NaUKMA).  One of independent Ukraine's most distinguished universities it was (and is) home to a lively, passionate group of students--I've been lucky enough to stay in touch with many of those who experimented with me in class.

But recently,  the openness, artistic enterprise and academic freedom have come under fire at NaUKMA.  Here's the story,  from Vasyl Cherepanyn, director of the Visual Culture Research Center at the University.

On February 10th, 2012, the President of the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Serhiy Kvit banned the exhibition of the Visual Culture Research Center “Ukrainian Body” that explored the issues of corporality in contemporary Ukrainian society. Serhiy Kvit explained his decision in the following way: “It’s not an exhibition, it’s shit”. After the act of censorship, which drew a wide response in the Ukrainian and foreign media, the President of NaUKMA has initiated a number of bureaucratic restrictions against the Visual Culture Research Center as the organizers of the exhibition. On February 23rd the Academic Council of the university led by Serhiy Kvit passed a resolution to bar the activities of VCRC.

On March 12th, the President of NaUKMA Serhiy Kvit made a resolution on the prohibition of all events and exhibitions in the Old Academic building, where the Visual Culture Research Center has been working since 2008, referring to the building's “condition conducive to accident”. Despite its “accident rate” the galleries of Old Academic building are shortly to be used as the library archives. Hence the President of NaUKMA closed the VCRC's exhibition “Ukrainian Body” at first, then the Center itself, and eventually the premises where the VCRC is conducting events, announcing their “condition conducive to accident”.

Those interested can read more in a recent NY Times article (yes, sorry about the paywall) in which the president describes the space as "not closed, just locked" and watch this video (with English subtitles) that includes interviews with the university president, artists, and project curators.   For many,  the attention brought to contemporary art in Ukraine's capital not been entirely negative.  In the Times article,  Kateryna Botanova, the director of the Foundation Center for Contemporary Art , comments,  “I absolutely believe that the closing of this exhibition is the most important thing that has happened in Ukrainian contemporary art in quite some years...It shows that contemporary art is not always beautiful and glamorous. Art can be subversive and a place for discussion.”

I think of Ukraine as a place where lively conversation--the subversive discussions that Kateryna mentions--is still emerging as an accepted part of civic life. As museum colleagues around the world, I hope that we can all encourage that conversation--in Ukraine--and in our own communities.  If you want to support the re-opening of the center,  you can do so by joining me--and many others (including historians Timothy Snyder of Yale and David Walkowitz of NYU, David Elliott, curator of the first Kyiv International Biennale,  and other artists, scholars and curators from around the world) in signing this online petition.

Bite-Size or Banquet? How Do You Like Your History?

Several weeks ago I was in Indianapolis and had a chance to visit both the Indiana Historical Society and the Indiana State Museum and was struck by the differences in the way they presented history, differences that reflect both the DNA of the organizations (one primarily an archives and one an encyclopedic collection)  and a distinct approach to involving visitors.

The Indiana Historical Society is, unlike many historical societies, solely an archives, a repository of millions of photographs and archival materials.  But it's housed in a big, grand space that has now become a place to experience,  on a changing basis,  bite-size bits of Indiana's past.  The You Are There project takes a historic photograph, re-creates the particular space, and peoples the space with live, first-person interpreters to, in any way you wish,  connect with the visitor.  While there,  I heard a bit of Cole Porter sung, met a sponsor of a Holocaust refugee resettled to Indianapolis as she described their arrival, and a listened to a true-believing (and a little cranky) WCTU activist at the site of an illegal still.   I stood in the dark as Robert F. Kennedy announced the death of Martin Luther King to a shocked audience.   Each experience surprised me and led to interesting conversations with my fellow visitors (museum professionals all on that morning). 

The project is an ongoing experiment as the historical society staff listen to visitors, work hard to pick engaging photos from their enormous collection,  and figure out what works and what doesn't.  Several elements take the experience further:  there's a staff member, sort of an introducer, outside each experience.  S/he sets the scene, and even said, in one case, "I like to ask her about..."  to give shy visitors a starting point.  Wall exhibits outside each experience allow interested visitors a place for deeper exploration. 

After RFK's speech,  a staff member engaged us in conversations about the speech, about the members of the audience that night (we were all given a simple description of one and got the chance to learn the rest of their story);  and encouraged us to use a talk-back board sharing what gives us hope.    I'm a sampler,  I like to dip in and out of things,  and this approach really gave me a chance--not to learn a full overview of Indiana history--but to connect with the stories of the state. 

The Indiana State Museum takes a familiar, now seeming a bit old-fashioned, approach. After the You are There experience, I struggled to find the same kind of meaning.  The State Museum takes the long view, starting with the geographic formation of the state.   I've been in meetings where we try and figure out the appropriate sized time period to include in an exhibit.  Here it was the birth of the earth to now--the really long view.

Artifacts and text were layered and layered and layered, to the point that it was tough to make sense of any of it.  I appreciated the care that clearly had gone into developing the exhibits (like the embedded roads, below) but I couldn't find myself caring about much of it.  And I couldn't find that I would find much reason to return to the museum.   But in the case of the historical society,  I'll be fascinated to see the next photo chosen and the next stories shared.

And, by the way,  in this contentious election year, it was meaningful and important to hear Kennedy's words that sad night spoken aloud, "What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence or lawlessness, but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice towards those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black."

Bite-size or banquet?  I vote bite-size.  I think that the historical society's approach could serve as a model for so many other historical societies, large or small.  If the model of the billion years ago to now exhibit is the encyclopedia,  perhaps as museum workers, we should be considering if we're headed the way of the Encyclopedia Britannica.  But the historical society's bites of history perhaps better suit contemporary life.  No high-tech media,  just solid research,  a commitment to training great staff, engaged presenters,  and a passionate desire to share meangingful stories.

Coffee to Coffee: Expanding My View

In an earlier post,  I posted my schedule and invited readers to contact me if they had an idea, wanted to share perspectives, or just wanted to meet me.  To my delight, over the last two weeks I've had coffee with a Wikipedian-in-residence, an archivist contemplating a new project, and a Pickle Project supporter.  I've also had lively supper and conversation in tiny Herbert, Saskatchewan; chicken and waffles and talk in Indianapolis;  and morning conversations about exhibits and meaning on Long Island.  The last two travel weeks have been a great reinforcing lesson for me (other reinforcing lesson:  eat local when you can) about the importance of opening up and hearing new voices in all of our practice.  

One of the great gifts of my time as a Fulbright Scholar in Ukraine was the sense that I could pursue and engage with anyone and anything I was interested in.  For me, the Fulbright was a chance to be curious on so many levels.  At this point in my career, that knowledge gained in Ukraine, combined with what I suppose is my natural interest in connecting,  makes me ever more willing to meet new people and talk about new things.   It seems all too easy for museums to get in a rut--to not get out and talk to new people.  You're busy, you have to do this or that, where would you go, etc, etc.  What would be the result if you went to somewhere new in your community, offered to buy someone a cup of coffee, and talk (that means listen too)  about your museum--and your community.  Where would that take you?

And a reminder--I'm still around for coffee.  Here's where you can find me over the next few weeks.  Be in touch!

March 16-20,  Washington, DC, for a meeting at AAM and lots of museum-going. 

April 22-24,  at the Museums in Conversation conference, Albany, NY doing a session on career planning with colleagues Anne Ackerson, Marianne Bez, Gwen Spicer, and Christopher Clarke

April 25-26,  Burlington, VT, for a talk with Sarah Crow about the Pickle Project at Shelburne Farms

April 28-May 2 at the AAM meeting in Minneapolis participating in a session on memorials and memorial museums and one on career planning.

May 21-22,  Middletown,  CT,  facilitating a workshop for the CT StEPs program of the Connecticut Humanities Council and the Connecticut League of Historical Organizations