Choose
ONE of the two following issues for your next blog post:
1. Over the last decade, a
number of prominent museums have faced dire financial straits, much like the
situation the Delaware Art Museum encountered in 2014. In some cases the
decision was made to deaccession works from the collection, with the plan of
using the proceeds from the sales to pay off a debt, or face certain closure of
the institution. As was made clear in the readings on the DAM, this practice
goes against the AAM Code of Ethics, which states that money from the sale must
"be used for acquisition or direct care of collections." It also goes
against the mission of a museum and its service to the Public Trust.
Informed by the Delaware Art
Museum readings, respond to this particular situation. What mistakes were
made? What could have the museum done differently? Do you think the AAMD was
right in sanctioning the DAM, and do you think there should be exceptions to
the rule when the very survival of a museum is in jeopardy? Answer all
questions in at least 4 sentences, and respond no later than 5 pm, Monday, September 26.
2. In building the museum collection, the National Museum of African American History and Culture's Director Lonnie Bunch wanted to acquire objects related to the life and accomplishments of Martin Luther King Jr. as a way to situate him in the greater historical narrative and museum mission. Curator Rex Ellis made it clear to the family his interest in acquiring two objects: King's personal bible and his Nobel Peace Prize. A meeting ended with no donation, reinforcing the reputation of the family only offering loans of objects and only for a high licensing fee. Bunch decided not to ask for either to be loaned, as the museum prefers to seek out gifted works for the permanent collection. In the end, the museum decided to represent King through photographs, records, and buttons.
Having read the Washington Post article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/museums/why-no-major-martin-luther-king-artifacts-will-be-at-the-new-african-american-museum/2016/09/11/be05624e-75d3-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html
please respond to this
situation. How does this omission of objects affect the overall story being
told by the museum? And the overall function/mission of the museum? In the end,
is it possible to represent such an expansive history fully and fairly for all
visitors? Answer all questions in at least 4 sentences and respond no later than 5 pm, Monday, September
26.
The omission of objects in any museums causes the story of mankind to be incomplete, missing pieces, and not a perfect depiction. This is saddening, especially in the African American History Museum with the exclusion of Martin Luther King Jr.’s Bible and Noble Peace Prize. However, no museum will ever be able to perfectly tell the story of mankind. The omission of these objects will cause the museum employees to be innovative and use the resources they have access to in order to function to their full mission. They will have to rely more on the photographs and artifacts that they do have to tell his life story and the ultimate history of the Civil Rights Movement. In the end, I do not believe it is possible to represent such an expansive history fully and fairly for all visitors. This is simply because history is endless and limitless. Personally, I am most saddened by the King Estate’s struggle to be a unified family, corrupted by money, and suffering from personal connections to pain, death, and grief. Overall, I am confident that the curators of the African American History Museum will be able to successfully depict the Civil Rights Movement in a truthful and inspiring way for each visitor.
ReplyDeleteSeveral mistakes were made by the Delaware Art Museum during their decision to deaccession works from their collection. Their first mistake was refusing to accept the advice that the AAMD was giving them during their financial struggle, which included private funding and fundraising tactics 6 months prior to the sale of the works. Instead, the DAM decided to use the money from the sales of particular works in their collection to pay off their 19.8 million dollar debt. This, of course, backfired on them when they thought the pieces in the collection would sell for more than they actually did. Further, these sales sacrificed the public trust and makes the museum look as though they would rather sell cultural objects than receive donor support and private funding. I think the DAM should have tried to hold more fundraising events or at least let the community know that they were struggling instead of trying to hide the fact. I believe if the community was aware of this issue, many people who appreciate the cultural heritage within the collection would have come to their support. However, they were clearly under a poor director, Michael Miller, who had no true appreciation for or knowledge of art. Yes, I think the AAMD was right in sanctioning the DAM, especially because of what is stated in their Code of Ethics. I don’t think there should be exceptions to the rule. Museums should fulfill their mission and purpose in displaying cultural works and be able to figure out other ways of increasing their income while safeguarding their objects so that they never are even considered to be a financial gain.
ReplyDeleteWithout objects, it is very difficult for a history museum to reach its visitors in the most affecting and memorable way possible. As such, the story has to be affected by there being a lack of objects present. Without objects, the museum must rely on the public to have an intense interest in what they’re looking at; photographs, vinyl records, and buttons are not gripping in the same way that true Martin Luther King memorabilia would be. As some of the individuals quoted in the article indicate, Martin Luther King is a vital part of the story the people at this museum are trying to tell. It seems like a shame that the part of the exhibit that focuses on one of the most important people in African-American history (and U.S. history) is going to be reduced to having the intrigue of a textbook page (photographs, few memorable, tangible experiences). People want to go to museums to see the mind-blowing, real-deal objects that they wouldn’t be able to see anywhere else, so not having those could be a real blow to the museum experience. It seems like a vital part of the story is getting short-changed. For a museum with a mission statement including the goal of being “devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, history, and culture,” it seems that the mission is not being met in this case. Martin Luther King is an undeniably important part of the stories of life, history, and culture that the museum is highlighting. Having him be underrepresented in this context is extremely unfortunate. Relatedly, trying to meet and live up to such a broad mission is never going to be an easy task. With so many different interpretations and perspectives that can be taken on this subject, it is unrealistic to hope to please everyone. Whether it be for financial, spatial, or ideological reasons, there are certain aspects that cannot be given as much attention as others. I believe that the museum staff must do their best to reach the mission, but I don’t think it’s possible to include everything as fully and in as much detail as every visitor would hope to see.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s very unfortunate that King’s personal bible and his Nobel Peace Prize won't be featured in the National Museum of African American History. These items are two symbols of King’s lasting legacy and the omission of these items creates a gap in the historical narrative set forth by the museum. Since Martin Luther King Jr. was a major figure in the African American Community, it is a shame that certain aspects of his life will not be represented through artifacts. Many visitors love to come to a museum to view objects that were an important part of history, so omission of important objects creates a less impactful visit to the museum. Although it is important for a museum to try to have an impactful experience for the visitor and represent an expansive history fully and fairly for all visitors, sometimes it is almost impossible because of the difficulty of owners of historic artifacts parting with items that may have been passed down for generations. Since the National Museum of African American History was only seeking to add objects to their permanent collection and the King family didn’t want to part with the objects that the museum was seeking, I think they dealt with the situation the best they could by representing King through photographs, records and buttons.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther King Jr.’s personal bible and Nobel Peace Prize would have been two pretty monumental acquisitions for the museum, as they’re both symbols of what was so paramount in the movement he encouraged. Yet despite that omission of those objects, I think that the mission of the museum is still clear and relatively unharmed: to give insight into an enormous range of African American experiences. As influential a part of that history as Martin Luther King Jr. was, there are many, many other stories being told in that museum; I feel like the lack of his bible and Nobel Peace Prize could not weaken those other stories or the larger message the museum is trying to put forth through its display of the civil rights movement, which involved so much more. The overall story told by the museum is a tale of many, many people who faced so much; I think that the absence of a couple personal possessions from one of the many won’t be terribly detrimental to the whole.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, it’s just not possible to perfectly and completely represent any big history such as that given in the National Museum of African American History & Culture. In general, I think museums can give a decent broad summary of a snapshot in time, but there could never be a space big enough to accommodate every single artifact that fits into such a great picture, let alone a way to even gather together all of the pieces that should be included to devote equal attention to all aspects of the story.
While the omission of Martin Luther King Jr.'s personal Bible and his Nobel Peace Prize, I find, seem to leave a hole in the museum's exhibit, I believe it doesn't inhibit the overall storytelling of Dr. King and what he accomplished. They are two monumental pieces of his legacy that yes, if the museum could acquire them could take the collection to a whole new level, but in the end, there was more to Dr. King than his Bible and his Prize. I think the museum will be fine without them and not having them won't go against their mission because they are not the National Museum of Martin Luther King Jr; they are the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Their focus and mission is on all African Americans' cultures and histories. King is just a part of that. As long as they teach the legacy of King and are able to show his legacy, they are representing that era of time fairly.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don’t agree with the decision of Martin Luther King Jr’s family on the omission of his most important artifacts, I believe it doesn’t affect the story being told by the museum. The purpose of the NMAAHC is celebrate African American culture as a whole and how it altered American history. It is not a museum dedicated to the life of Martin Luther King Jr. He was known as a religious man and an advocate for non-violence, so those items define him and are a great representation of what he believed in. Yes, the presence of his bible and Noble Peace Prize would heighten the experience associated with Martin Luther King, but their absence won’t be crucial because the museum still has numerous items dedicated to him. Most people know the story of Martin Luther King and through objects this museum shares his and the stories of many others. It stirs up interest and facilitates conversations between people about topics they wouldn’t normally address; and I feel like since the National Museum of African American History and Culture covers a wide range of topics every visitor will have an experience with one thing that they won’t forget.
ReplyDelete'The Delaware Art Museum (DAM) made several mistakes prior to it being sanctioned by the AAMD. First and foremost, the DAM did not budget correctly, as the $19.8 million debt was attributed to a "building expansion and [replenishment] of its endowment." While the latter is unavoidable, they should have made sure they had the money prior to building an expansion. Second, while the DAM said they had no other options - citing several means of saving money like cutting staff and refinancing - the one article makes it clear that the AAMD "offered alternatives" to help, without having to sell the paintings. I believe the AAMD was right in sanctioning the DAM. I think the NPR piece says it best, when the Michigan attorney general said that museums cannot sell art because it is a public trust. These works may have roots in specific museum spaces (like the Mona Lisa in the Louvre) but it is not just the property of a museum, and it cannot to whatever it likes with it. Museums are trusted to take care of these pieces, in order to provide them to the public. I believe the AAMD would have set a dangerous precedent if it had pardoned the DAM; it was right to not condone this kind of action, and hopefully museums in the future will remember this case, and seriously consider alternative options before selling art. There could be exceptions to this rule, I believe especially if the museum is in jeopardy. Pieces can already be deaccessioned if they're fakes. However, the rules need to be very strict - including being sold to institutions that will take care of them, and the process should be extremely difficult, so that museums cannot do it all the time. But sometimes there are too many pieces in a collection, or they want to trade works (or have money to buy new ones). I'm not sure what kind of rules should be in place, but I believe there is an ethical way to make exceptions to this rule, especially if the museum is in trouble.
ReplyDeleteI think there were many mistakes the Delaware Art Museum made. First of all, they had a wrong expectation of expanding the museum. They should have made a careful assessment and a thorough survey to see whether the expansion of museum can bring more visitors. They should have known their financial situation before having the operation. Moreover, they sold the art work too rashly instead of thinking of alternatives to solve the financial problems. They should seek help from the AAMD, who can provide great financial help to them. Maybe the Delaware Art Museum could also cooperate with other museums, lending some art works to other museums to earn some money. It can disseminate their name to other places too, attracting more people to come to visit the Delaware Art Museum after the works come back. Moreover, the museum should have thought of a way to make good use of the new space to attract visitors or earn money. They could have different and novel exhibitions, holding the educational programs, or lend the spot where some businesses or the community can hold activities. I think the AAMD has right in sanctioning the DAM because the DAM sold the art work without thinking over other possibilities. The chief executive doesn’t know much about art and he didn’t talk to the curators. What the AAMD did is to alert other museums not to deaccess works carelessly. I think museum still can deaccess art works if they really have big financial issue and can’t find other ways to solve it. However, the decision of deaccession should be made carefully by curators, connoisseurs, and the director to make sure that the work is really out of the scale and mission of the museum.
ReplyDeleteWith every object that is displayed in a museum, that is one more step to a fuller and more complete story in history. There is a gap missing with the omission of Martin Luther King Jr.’s Bible and Nobel Peace Prize in the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Though these items would enhance the collection, their absence won’t take away from the mission of the museum. The museum works hard to inform and involve the public with telling the story of the African Americans’ history and culture. It is in no way possible for any museum to collect and display every important and historical artifact to ever exist, so the audience is not necessarily being deprived of a lack of history. The National Museum of African American History and Culture still owns important artifacts related to Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement. The Bible and the Nobel Peace Prize would have been a phenomenal acquisition for the museum, but the audience is still getting a rich and fulfilling experience by entering the museum and learning about African American history.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBased upon the articles read for class this past week on the museum-world scandal of the Delaware Art Museum’s deaccessioning, several mistakes were made as the institution attempted to rectify poor financial straits by essentially liquidating assets. To include violating what appears to be a binding ethical agreement with the AAM in an act of hubris, the DAM (Delaware Art Museum) reacted to their financial situation in an unnecessarily hasty manner instead of a) taking precautionary measures against over-budgeting or underfunding certain areas, or b) actually asking the AAM for financial or legal assistance on the matter. Apart from presenting the DAM with a stiff, legally-binding warning against another violation via some form of penalty, I don’t believe that anything short of sanctioning the institution could clearly reemphasize the AAM code of ethics after this infringement. In relation, I do not personally believe that an exception should be made for any type of museum for whatever legally-binding contract they make with regard to acting in the Public Trust. This stands particularly in cases wherein that contract guarantees some form of tax-exempt status as a major institution recognized by the federal government. I simply don’t believe that the institution’s attempt to ‘save-face’ via not seeking external financial aid was worth jeopardizing its public image as well as its non-profit or not-for-profit status.
ReplyDeleteThe omission of Martin Luther King Jr.'s Bible and Nobel Peace Prize is a loss for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, but it is a loss that Curator Rex Ellis took in order to stay true to the Museum's mission. The NMAAHC stands for collaboration of people through the challenges faced in the past and those we continue to face today. To have been permitted these objects by the King family would have been an honor for the NMAAHC and they would have greatly added to the collection. I don't understand why the family wants to keep the Bible and Nobel Peace Prize locked up in a bank vault when it could be on display, receive the proper care it needs, and serve as one of the many lenses that this Museum will provide and use to educate visitors of African American history. However, I do admire the Museum's decision to respect the time the King family seems to need to work out their own conflict over the preservation and ownership of their Father's items. Also, I like that the curators went into this meeting with the family knowing that they probably would not be given these items permanently. They used this as a building block to a, hopefully, eventual strong relationship with the family that may or may not lead to acquisition. As of now, though, I do not believe the omission of these objects negatively affects the NMAAHC because it aims to cover African American history in its entirety and although the Civil Rights Movement is a major contributor to progression, there are many other stories told here that will teach visitors something they amy or may not have known before, and may or may not help them better understand how impactful the work of Martin Luther King Jr. was and and still is today.
ReplyDeleteThe AAMD was right in its decision to sanction the Delaware Art Museum, an organization that clearly defied its mission to uphold public trust. Rather than focus on carefully building and preserving their collection for public use, the museum expanded its building without carefully predicating the cost it would have on the financial stability of the institution. They gambled incorrectly that a renovated building would increase their attendance and in doing so they entered a budget deficit. To correct this crisis they violated their mission by selling objects they were entrusted with as stewards. The AAMD highlighted in their press release that the Delaware Museum of Art ignored or at least did not substantially investigate alternatives to deaccession. If there is absolutely no alternative to saving an institution, other than by deaccessioning some pieces, I believe that there should be an exception to the AAMD's policy to preserve the majority of the collection, rather than fracture it as happened when the Corcoran dissolved.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the first mistake that the Delaware Art Museum made was hiring a person without a degree in either Art or Art History as a chief executive. I see this complicated situation at the museum as a result of giving power to a person without the training in the art field and who seems like not being able to fully appreciate every single object in the museum’s collection. As a result, the chief executive made a few mistakes, which resulted in the AAMD sanctioning. One of the biggest mistakes that he made was not consulting with the AAMD about what should be done in such situations. Another mistake that he made was not trying to raise funds or find donors in order to help pay the debt. Instead he chose an option that should be absolutely the last resort, when trying to save the museum from closure. I believe the museum should have contacted the AAMD about it, consulted with them about the procedures of the museum that was in the situation like that. Also, they should have tried to raise money, including trying to find donors and using social media to try to get at least some money from common art lovers. This is a rather different situation that took place in one of the major world museums, but I remember a few years ago the Louvre museum launched a big campaign, raising money for acquisition of the Cupid Testing One of His Arrows by Jacques Saly. Even though, it is impossible to compare the Delaware Art Museum with the Louvre, I think if I’d seen on social media that the museum in my area was trying to raise money in order to keep paintings in the museum’s collection, I would’ve tried to help them in any way I could. I think the AAMD was right in sanctioning the DAM because for me it seems like when museum sells artworks, especially for half the low estimate, it’s only downhill all the way from there. The collection is the essential part of the museum and even though, the DAM was trying to save itself from closing down, I don’t believe it’s the right solution. By doing so, not only they decreased the museum’s collection but they also undermined the public trust. I can see some people not wanting to attend the museum that has already sold a painting and is planning to sell more. Moreover, by sanctioning the Delaware Art Museum, the AAMD signaled to other affiliated museums not to make the same “mistake.”
ReplyDeleteDeciding to leave the personal items of Martin Luther King Jr. out of the museum I believe will have adverse effects for a personal connection with audience. Telling a story of history with photos and documents will get the point across however it is the personal connection the draws people in and they feel they can relate to the story. The function of a museum is to tell the public the story for what it is showing and a personal attachment to the story via documentation is crucial for the museum to uphold its function. I do believe you can represent the story being told in the museum to the public with photos and documents, however it does not carry the same caliber as personal artifacts.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the omission of the physical objects of Martin Luther Kind Jr. very much takes away from the entire point of a museum. Having pictures of the historical figure and of the things he did and earned is interesting, but it also creates that barrier between history and the viewers. Having pictures of objects instead of the actual objects themselves defeats the entire purpose of coming out to a museum to see an artifact that was actually there. By displaying on pictures of Martin Luther King Jr. and his items, his legacy is not appropriately represented. The whole function and mission of a museum, especially in the historical context, should be able to put the audience in the whole of which the item came from.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest problem in the DAM situation was that the people in charge during this time were not individuals devoted to the mission of the museum itself, but rather people simply trying to save the museum in the black-and-white sense by creating financial stability. By selling a few expensive painting they could save the museum and would still have numerous other expensive painting to show. But because museum’s rest in the public trust it’s not that easy. By selling those painting, the museum was taking them away from the local community without permission. I think the AAMD was right to sanction them. The DAM didn’t seem too apologetic about it; they took the easiest route they found without trying to find a more ethical solution and the AAMD claims they didn’t come to them for help first. The man speaking for the DAM in the article reminded me a lot of the people in charge of the Corcoran that caused it to go under.
ReplyDelete