Most everyone wants to see museums do well. We want culture to be readily available. We want our public to be educated. We want a new wave of thinkers to be inspired by the geniuses of the past. But most of all, we want these institutions to stay around.
The problem is that, in our quest to improve these institutions, we often overlook the very important aspect of feasibility. Getting an expansion is great, until the museum is bankrupt from paying for it, for example. Take a look at this article, where a new study shows that expansion, while an avenue for increased success, is a big risk and, many times, detrimental to the general well being of the institution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/arts/design/study-shows-expansion-can-be-unhealthy-for-arts-groups.html?_r=1&ref=design
I think this is a great point. We always hear about building building building to improve the culture of a city. Big public art, big purchases by museums, big buildings...all are supposed to improve a city's culture...but no one seems to stop as say "is this sustainable? Does this make sense?" Is there a more practical way to go about it?
To use a religious analogy, the building doesn't matter, it's what's being done by the people that makes religion work. If you build the fanciest cathedral in the world and use it to scam people out of money, you're not doing anything better than the guy down the road who's got nothing but a rosary...
Sometimes a huge addition is great and works just as you planned. But sometimes you need to take a step back, and instead of asking what you want, ask what the most basic need is. If the answer is "art-education" or "improving cultural heritage", you're solution doesn't require a $40 million dollar addition....it could work...but it shouldn't be your first step.
No comments:
Post a Comment