Even very casual readers of this blog have seen numerous mentions of Nina Simon, her blog Museum 2.0, and references to her work at The Museum of Art & History in Santa Cruz. There are at least two reasons for that. First, she writes well and often in her blog. Second, and more important, her work puts into practice a deep belief in community engagement as a key to successful arts organizations. Having spent my life in academia, I have a tendency to be enamored of theory. In moments of excessive candor I have been known to mutter “I hate reality.” Theory, at least for me, is fun; reality is messy, gritty, . . . and ultimately the only thing that truly matters. The MAH has become a laboratory for in-the-trenches walking the talk of engagement.
There is a risk in highlighting success stories. Today’s successes can quickly become tomorrow’s cautionary tales. (Remember the dot com boom?) However, it is with considerable pleasure that I read a recent post on Museum 2.0: Yes, Audience Participation Can Have Significant Value. In it, Ms. Simon (who has been at the Museum for eight months) shares, with justifiable pride, the results of the MAH’s transition to a focus on engagement.
In the summer and fall of 2011:
- attendance increased 57% compared to the same period in 2010
- new membership sales increased 27% compared to the same period in 2010
- individual and corporate giving increased over 500% compared to 2010
I have for years been touting the theory that engagement is not unpleasant medicine for arts organizations to swallow but is key not only to sustainability but to health and growth. Here is the reality. Ms. Simon has taken some heat for the lengths to which the Museum’s engagement practices have gone. Complaints have been lodged that, at least in some instances, a focus on participation distracts from the art. I don’t doubt there is at least some truth to that. If the only purpose of participation was getting bodies in the door, that would run counter to any arts or community service mission. It would be a cynical, values-free effort. But the Museum sees itself differently. Its vision is to be
a thriving, central gathering place where local residents and visitors have the opportunity to experience art, history, ideas, and culture. Engaged members and visitors are increasingly passionate and knowledgeable about contemporary art and local history that celebrate our diverse community.
Its mission is to promote
a greater understanding of contemporary art and the history of Santa Cruz County, through its exhibitions, collections, and programs, for the benefit of residents and visitors to Santa Cruz County.
While I might argue for a mission that more directly states the public good sought (beyond “benefit”), the MAH is clearly pursuing engagement for the purpose of building a better community.
Also, in transitioning to a focus on engagement, excesses will undoubtedly occur. Mistakes will be made. In the arts establishment there is much need for experimentation with engagement. The failures will be illuminating, the successes thrilling.
What have the MAH and Ms. Simon learned? She cites three factors in the success. First, as with virtually every successful organizational enterprise, is focus. Museum programs have simple, understandable core elements: a comfortable environment, participation, and partnerships. Second is community support. Although she does not point this out, this is a result of the first factor. Ms. Simon does say that, “This community was ready for a museum that reflected the unique creative identity of Santa Cruz.” However, the support they have experienced comes from MAH recognizing this readiness and providing the opportunity for the community to act on it. The third is support from long-time constituents. This is the most difficult aspect for most arts institutions considering engagement as a core value. “What will our donors say?” This is an element about which I’d love to hear more. How did the MAH’s Board and supporters get comfortable with the new vision? Ms. Simon says
They are excited to see new people in the museum and to hear their friends talk about the museum in a new way. Almost to a person, our donors understand that we are reaching people with a variety of modalities and that they don’t have to personally like every experience or element to feel great about the service the museum is doing in the community. We’re starting a new campaign based on the “renewed ambition” of the museum and we feel confident about the future.
I suspect that the apparently dire straits the Museum experienced before Ms. Simon’s arrival played a large part. Understanding how this third factor gained traction is a vital lesson for other institutions considering change.
Santa Cruz’s Museum of Art and History is not the only arts institution in the country that has committed itself to community engagement. Many have done so and more will as we move forward. There are many success stories and many lessons from efforts that are less successful. I will try to keep highlighting both. For the moment, congratulations to MAH and best of luck going forward in the New Year.
Engage!
Doug
Ballot Box Photo: 
Some rights reserved by USDAgov