Remuseum

Thanks Adam Rozan and American Alliance of Museums for this interview with Remuseum's Founding Director, Stephen Reily. In the long run, museums will thrive if they stay focused on the public they serve.

This article in the Observer tackles an interesting story, but it uses the wrong museum to illustrate and launch the piece. The Rubin Museum of Himalayan Art has not closed; it has only closed its building, launching an ambitious venture of fulfilling its mission of sharing Himalayan art with the public without first requiring them to come to New York City’s 17th St. to do so. In a short period since announcing its decision last year the Rubin has (among other things) presented its immersive “Mandala Lab” in Bilbao and Milan; loaned its Buddhist Shrine Room to the Brooklyn Museum and its 650,000 annual visitors; launched a collection tour to other museums in Utah, Minnesota, Oregon and California; and initiated an annual prize to artists inspired by Himalayan art forms and techniques. The article states the Rubin’s building “represented a large financial drain on the museum’s overall resources,” which is no surprise, since the same fact is true for every American art museum. What is surprising is that we don’t see more museums explore ways to fulfill their missions without their financially and environmentally burdensome buildings. After all, they aren’t required: The International Council of Museums (ICOM) definition of “museum” does not even include “building” in its 57 words. Museum buildings, which grow bigger and bigger, are beautiful things and offer sublime, educational, and social experiences with art. But they also present challenges, including  the financial and environmental cost of their upkeep (much of which is devoted to storing art the public doesn’t see) and the fact that the museum’s walls themselves become an obstacle to meeting people where they are. Striking the right balance presents more questions than answers, and we should celebrate when a single museum is willing to achieve a global mission with a global business model. Rather than “closing,” you might actually say that the Rubin – liberated from the museum building as its dominant tool of expression – has opened itself to the world. We should all be interested to see where it leads.

Sometimes museums go where their existing donors lead, and sometimes museums can chart a new direction and gain donor support for it. With inspiration from Art Bridges Foundation and others, the Whitney Museum of American Art is showing that donors (including one very generous artist, Julie Mehretu) are willing to support not just new buildings and collections but increased public access. Whitney Director Scott Rothkopf said it just right when he told reporter @Kelly Crow: “In any museum, you’re choosing what to spend money on—be it storage or loans or whatever—but getting more young people in here is the most meaningful thing I can think of to subsidize.”

Art museums are still a young and dynamic field, always changing: from royal collections to public goods, from clubhouses for the elite to engines of economic development. Now "palaces for the people," the primary goal of art museums is no longer built around preserving objects and assuming the public will be interested in them; it is now built around engaging the public in the process of finding meaning in art. It's a bold and exciting vision. But does the public feel that shift? Does the information that museums share with the public does reflect the trust or transparency that the public expects from institutions that earn its respect and loyalty? Do their budgets and practices (which museum boards and leaders endorse) represent mission-compliance, or mission neglect? Thanks to Observer for sharing Remuseum's research and questions for the field.

There's so much I could say about Heidi Zuckerman and her podcast, "About Art." I met Heidi just as I was becoming a museum director myself, and she was immediately helpful, and inspiring, through what she accomplished in Aspen and later through what she has created at the OCMA / Orange County Museum of Art. On her podcast, which helped carry me through the early stages of COVID (and beyond) Heidi interviews artists, arts leaders and gallerists, so it was an honor - and great fun - to be the latest on her list, and to talk to her about Remuseum, museums, and more. You can hear it (or read its transcript) at the link below and wherever podcasts play. https://lnkd.in/eWEPK8bw

In exploring new ways to expand a museum, the Portland Museum of Art is finding itself criticized by people from not one but two fields undergoing dramatic change: historic preservation and museums themselves. The historic preservation movement has done much to keep America’s built heritage intact. Historically, and not surprisingly, it focused on buildings that were important to the people who created and funded the movement. It did not generally seek out different voices or invest in preserving buildings in parts of town whose historic fabric had been devalued or demolished by lenders and aggressive urban planners. It has left us with a lot of preserved mansions but not so many preserved houses where workers lived. The movement is adapting as a result. Museums have done much to keep the world’s visual culture intact. Historically, and not surprisingly, the collections and buildings that museums built were important to the people who created and funded the museums themselves. When museum ambitions broadened and they learned that many people did not always feel welcome in their buildings and did not see themselves reflected in their collections, the field began adapting as a result. It is not always easy to adapt, and there are many who object to change. I don’t know enough about Portland to have a view about whether its museum should be allowed to remove one historic building as part of its expansion plan. What I do know is that Portland led what may be the most inclusive process in the country in involving its community in the plan to grow and change the museum. It now faces objections from historic preservationists and from a director who led the museum many years ago. I think the museum and the people who support its plans should have a chance to make it work. I also credit Portland’s Director, Mark Bessire, for a level of honesty that deserves credit. He was honest about the financial challenges felt today by almost all museums when Portland announced layoffs earlier this year. And he is certainly being honest when he said this to Mark Shanahan, a reporter from the Boston Globe:  “We’re thinking about the folks who go to museums, but also the folks who don’t go to museums. I love art dearly, but if museums don’t wake up, we’re going to lose the next generation of visitors.”

It's good to see The NY Times give some attention and praise to innovative museum directors like Melissa Chiu (Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden), Chris Bedford (SFMOMA San Francisco Museum of Modern Art), and Rand Suffolk (High Museum of Art) who are (in Chris' words) meeting "people where they are." With a realization that actually attracting the public requires change, is consistent with their nonprofit status, and embraces their public-centering missions, these museums are exhibiting art that the public will care about, explaining all art in terms that the public can understand, and reflecting their own communities in every way, which puts them in the vanguard of what the Times describes as a "revolution." Maybe someday it won't be seen as "radical," but as representing the highest professional standards in the field. https://lnkd.in/e6KkFkdu

You knew museums were changing, but maybe not how much. Remuseum's new research report documents that almost 90% American art museums now center the public in their mission statements. 60% of those mission statements do not even mentions objects or collections. Only 11% still center objects/collections in their mission statements. A shift this radical takes a while to embody, and old habits (reflecting old missions) are often hard to shed. Remuseum’s recent research report (find it with related content at www.remuseum.org) documents that museums may be slow to embrace the degree of public transparency that their public-centered missions call for. And we invite museums to join our open data portal and share more information with the public they are built to serve. What museum data would you like to know? How would it help museums better serve their missions and thrive?

A great article on Remuseum's research work from Abby Schultz at Barron's: Most U.S. art museums have shifted their stated missions to emphasize public service and engagement over preserving objects, yet few institutions openly offer basic information on how they are run, according to a study published on Tuesday. “The fact is, without data, it’s hard for anyone to know what museums are doing or not.” https://lnkd.in/eAx3pYqw

Remuseum has released its first research report on the field of American Art Museums. Through a partnership with I/O Research, Inc., a nonprofit affiliate of Indiana University’s Center for Cultural Affairs led by Joanna Woronkowicz and Doug Noonan, and advised by a Task Force of museum and philanthropic leaders, the report details that almost all American art museums center the public in their mission statements, but not yet in the information they share. An independent project housed at Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art and in partnership Art Bridges Foundation, Remuseum invites museums to join our open portal and share more information, allowing them and the public to evaluate new ways to fulfill their missions and thrive. Visit www.Remuseum.org for more information. We'll also be sharing findings from the report here over the next few days.