Visitors on the Rampage
First I'll apologize for the unexpected and unannounced hiatus from posting. I'm hoping to continue posting with some regularity soon.
Back to business...
Two recent acts of visitor damages to works of art in museums have been covered by the media. The first involves a special event gone awry at the Milwaukee Art Museum that left a trail of booze, food and vomit throughout the museum, which purportedly included damages to works of art. For reasons including security and the general welfare of art, I am typically very against these types of events at museums. Unfortunately, they provide a significant portion of the museum's annual revenue and potentially bring in an otherwise untapped population of visitors with the hope that they will return as a paying customer in the future. Ideally, museums will open themselves up to large corporations or very wealthy individuals when they allow their spaces to be rented, the expectation being that the attendees are an intelligent and responsible group. Other methods of limiting who attends special events include attendance by invitation only and ticket prices that might deter undesireable crowds. The Milwaukee's biggest mistake was opening the event up to a younger crowd which paid a mere $30 to get in for unlimited martinis (Ok - New Yorkers, do the math).
The other damage occurred at the sticky hands of a 12 year old school kid who decided he had to take his gum out of his mouth and stick it on a painting at the Detroit Institute of Art. As annoying as school groups may be, it is good that kids are getting exposure to art and museums and are encouraged to think about the visual arts. That said, educational programming is a tremendously expensive endeavor for art institutions and they cost far more money than they might ultimately generate. They are provided by museums, in part, with the hope that encouraging an appreciation for the arts at an early age will plant a seed that will further develop into their adulthood. They are a privilage, not a right. Although most museums provide them, there is no requirement, as a non-profit institution, that they must. As dumb as some kids may be, its hard to come down on them entirely when something like this happens (and it does happen, more often that you think). This incident is the result of poor supervision. The Detroit Press felt that "boys will be boys," essentially shrugging off the seriousness of the situation. The boy is 12, not 6. A 12 year old boy knows exactly where he should put his gum and where he should not. Improper supervision around extremely valuable, if not priceless, works of art is inexcusible.
Back to business...
Two recent acts of visitor damages to works of art in museums have been covered by the media. The first involves a special event gone awry at the Milwaukee Art Museum that left a trail of booze, food and vomit throughout the museum, which purportedly included damages to works of art. For reasons including security and the general welfare of art, I am typically very against these types of events at museums. Unfortunately, they provide a significant portion of the museum's annual revenue and potentially bring in an otherwise untapped population of visitors with the hope that they will return as a paying customer in the future. Ideally, museums will open themselves up to large corporations or very wealthy individuals when they allow their spaces to be rented, the expectation being that the attendees are an intelligent and responsible group. Other methods of limiting who attends special events include attendance by invitation only and ticket prices that might deter undesireable crowds. The Milwaukee's biggest mistake was opening the event up to a younger crowd which paid a mere $30 to get in for unlimited martinis (Ok - New Yorkers, do the math).
The other damage occurred at the sticky hands of a 12 year old school kid who decided he had to take his gum out of his mouth and stick it on a painting at the Detroit Institute of Art. As annoying as school groups may be, it is good that kids are getting exposure to art and museums and are encouraged to think about the visual arts. That said, educational programming is a tremendously expensive endeavor for art institutions and they cost far more money than they might ultimately generate. They are provided by museums, in part, with the hope that encouraging an appreciation for the arts at an early age will plant a seed that will further develop into their adulthood. They are a privilage, not a right. Although most museums provide them, there is no requirement, as a non-profit institution, that they must. As dumb as some kids may be, its hard to come down on them entirely when something like this happens (and it does happen, more often that you think). This incident is the result of poor supervision. The Detroit Press felt that "boys will be boys," essentially shrugging off the seriousness of the situation. The boy is 12, not 6. A 12 year old boy knows exactly where he should put his gum and where he should not. Improper supervision around extremely valuable, if not priceless, works of art is inexcusible.
posted by Corey Wyckoff at 9:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home