Art Basel Conversation

The Evolution of Museum Missions

“How do we keep museums relevant and essential to our cultural landscape and life?” This was the fundamental question driving the Art Basel Conversation “The Evolution of Museum Mission” between four contemporary art museum directors on Friday December 2nd in Miami. Author and Arts Consultant András Szántó moderated the four female directors (including Studio Museum Director Thelma Golden), stating that there has been more change in the art world and museum institutions in the past 10 years than in the past 100 years. This notion is especially applicable for contemporary art museums: given their topical focus, they encompass perhaps the most sizable and accelerated evolutions in terms of not only art representation, but also mission.

Szántó initiated the conversation by presenting each director with her museum’s formal mission statement, and asking what she believes are the highest principles and goals of a contemporary art institution. Margarita J. Aguilar (Executive Director, El Museo del Barrio, New York) asserted that addressing history is of utmost important: her museum seeks to tell a story that is often untold – that of Latino, Caribbean, and Latin American cultures – to create comprehensive scholarship and inclusive representation. Madeleine Grynsztejn (Pritzker Director, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago) explained that the MCA takes on a 50:50 approach, focusing equally on artists and viewers to achieve a standard of excellence in both art quality and audience experience. Beatrix Ruf (Director, Kunsthalle Zürich, Zurich) works in the kunsthalle tradition which is dedicated to mounting temporary art exhibitions and thus doesn’t maintain a permanent collection. Accordingly, she outlined her main goals as engaging future audiences by framing the museum as an active archive and site of memory.

For those who may not be familiar with the specific wording of our mission statement here at the Studio Museum, you may be interested to discover that it was by far the most concise of the bunch: “The Studio Museum in Harlem is the nexus for artists of African descent locally, nationally and internationally and for work that has been inspired and influenced by black culture. It is a site for the dynamic exchange of ideas about art and society.” Thelma Golden, our Director and Chief Curator, elaborated upon this statement to emphasize that we seek to reflect possibility and change – especially due to our nimble scale, we are reactive and responsive. The “Studio” element of the museum is distinctly artist-centered, and thus the physical exhibition space functions as a platform to present works by artists of African descent to a diverse audience. Golden also stressed the importance of site-specificity, citing our constant and fluid engagement with the urban and cultural landscape of Harlem.

A clear trend expressed by all of the directors is a greater focus on the role of the museum audience. This goal distinctly breaks out against the history of western art museums as institutions that endowed viewers with passivity, sending the message that inside the prestigious walls of a museum one should not touch, not talk… not think? While these first two “rules” may often still apply in more traditional art installations, the latter sentiment is wholly undesired in all four of the museums that were represented. Rather, as expressed by these innovative directors, museum curation and education now seeks to activate and empower viewers, facilitating meaningful personal experiences with art that provoke visceral responses and inspiring impressions. Indeed, if there is one thing any audience member attending this talk probably walked away with, it is that the dynamic interactivity between art and viewer is the most significant cultural necessity of contemporary art museums today.

This conclusion, however, initiated a thoughtful interrogation of how “accessible” art museums truly are. We are confronted with a timeless paradox in the museum world, comprising institutions that are expected to be sophisticated houses of knowledge with open doors to the public: essentially, and ironically, elitist yet democratic. It is imperative in our globally conscious and evolving world today, however, that we ask the subversive questions of not only which stories are being presented in museums – but by whom and for whom are they being told? Golden addressed the implicit hurdle in museum accessibility by introducing the option of just not charging guests, or at least finding creative and practical ways to lower entry hurdles – such as our Target Free Sundays. Other solutions offered by the directors included free public and educational programs as well as website development.

Yet in regards to this latter suggestion, there is a tangible disconnect between what museum authorities and audiences may sometimes desire. While often the public yearns to have full online access to a museum’s artworks, archives, and publications, all four of the directors were hesitant to support this endeavor. Grynsztejn maintained that there’s “a difference between information and knowledge,” and it is important to present a museum’s resources thoughtfully and with a distinct point of view – in other words, “curated.” An even stronger critique of the move towards virtual representation was offered by Ruf, who claimed that art is inherently visual and its physical visceral experience should be prioritized.

Another element to consider, of course, is funding. Museums, whether public or private, are largely restricted in financial capacity, and thus priorities have to be made regarding what are their most monetarily and culturally lucrative goals. Many audience members at the Art Basel Conversation seemed audibly bitter of this inevitable commercialization, yet all of the directors re-asserted that museums are institutions: they need to be funded, maintain business models, and develop successful branding. Commercial support endows sustainability and stability for museums to function to the best of their abilities in the future. With this conclusion we are brought full circle: in this day and age, what should we be expecting from contemporary art museums? Where are those funds most needed? And the ultimate question: what do museums achieve that is ultimately indispensible?

Aguilar emphasized that they teach and tell a story that endures; Grynsztejn stated the mantra that museums “create citizens, not consumers;” Ruf reflected that they directly engage, shape, and inspire the public; while Golden affirmed that museums reveal how art shapes our social and cultural dialogue, and ultimately provide cultures with a voice to claim their place in a local and global community.

While personally reflecting on the many ideas expressed, heralded, and challenged throughout the conversation, it became clear to me that one of an art museum’s greatest tasks is to create a critical dialogue between the past and present. I believe it is as much of a plight as an opportunity to acknowledge history while forging contemporary landscapes of not only visual, but also discursive and digital landscapes. Thus a museum’s mission should push the boundaries of art representation and viewer engagement while always adhering to the integrity of the subject itself: the creation and exhibition of visual arts. The solutions to this endeavor are indeed endless – for example, just imagine a wholly virtual museum! How exciting and frightening all at once: a new conception of time and space capable of threatening a museum’s physical limits and elitist restrictions… yet, with just as much potency to jeopardize the integrity and meaning of a museum’s structure and purpose as we know it. We must ask ourselves: how much and what facets of a museum’s meaning and function do we seek to evolve? Ultimately, the unique perspectives offered by all four directors prove that there is no one solution: there is no one right construction of a contemporary art museum, and certainly no one perspective with which to perceive contemporary art.

The Studio Museum in Harlem is unique in that our scope is both hyper-local and global. The way we relate to the representation of a cultural identity is to provide it with many voices that are not only evolving, but also in a direct dialogue with its historical and contemporary environment. Our mission is sensitive: it is sensitive to the artists we represent and diverse audiences we seek to engage. Yet simply, we are sensitive to change.

To watch the full Art Basel Conversation: The Evolution of Museum Missions please click here.