A number of CultureGrrl readers have responded to my call for a list of emerging museum-related ethical issues that I should bring to the table in my role as “oracle” for the American Association of Museums’ new Center for the Future of Museums.
A week ago, I outlined my own ideas, which I sent to the CFM. But as soon as I submitted my survey response, I realized that I had omitted one crucial concern that I’ve written about recently and exhaustively.
Happily, Elizabeth Reiss, director of development at the Albany Institute of History & Art, raised the issue for me:
Are the culture wars over and who won?
Indeed, the conundrum of how to balance political pressure and professional judgment, which came to the fore in the recent “Hide/Seek” contretemps, is far from solved.
Reiss also identified some economic issues that have ethical implications:
The economy has forced salary cuts, which is translating to lower starting salaries. We are back to days when only the brave or family-funded can enter the field. Also, with less funds, we are examining every expense and trying to keep as close to mission as possible. Was doing multicultural programming and hiring staff from diverse backgrounds a luxury of higher funding, and has the lack of funding permitted some museums to withdraw into their ivory towers?
Senta German, associate professor, classics and general humanities, Montclair State University, who specializes in the Greek Bronze and Iron Ages, writes:
Fakes! What about issues of authenticity? How much did the Metropolitan Museum pay for that totally questionable Duccio [my link, not hers]? Never mind the Cycladic Harper [discussed near the end of this NY Times Magazine article].
Steve Miller, adjunct professor, Seton Hall University’s M.A. Program in Museum Professions, citing the cautionary examples of two financially struggling institutions—the American Folk Art Museum and the Ohr-O’Keefe Museum, Biloxi, writes:
I have been wondering about how ethical it is for trustees to make major financial decisions for museums, such as expanding and/or borrowing money then walking away to let the place fend for itself. Unfortunately, when museums are created to be attractions, they inevitably run into trouble. Building, expanding, growing, etc., with the idea that the costs of doing so, both immediate and in future operations, will be covered by earned-income, is almost always a falacious expectation in the museum world.
But the comment that gave me the biggest kick came from New York attorney John Sandercock, who shares my distaste for the CFM’s use of “surface” as a transitive verb (as in my headline for this post):
I am going to be teaching a graduate course in legal writing for foreign lawyers this fall at Fordham Law School and will be trying to keep the students from doing things like using “surface” as a verb (unless they are writing about submarines).
Instinctively, I agree with your dislike of “surface” as a transitive verb, but see this [which cites the Oxford English Dictionary].
One thing’s for sure, art-lings: CultureGrrl readers are an erudite bunch!
If you want to bypass your Oracular Representative, you can go straight to the CFM with your suggestions about emerging ethical issues for museums.