Museums and Money : The Impact of Funding on Exhibitions, Scholarship, and Management

Table of Content

Acknowledgments

Preface

Introduction

I. Museums and Money: Understanding the Effects of External Forces on Cultural Organizations

II. From Philanthropy to Funding: Changes in Museum Patronage

III. Pictures at an Exhibition: The Impact of Funding

IV. From Scholarship to Management: Changes in Museums as Organizations

V. Conclusion: Museums and Mammon?

References

Methodological Appendix

Index


Reviews

You can guess the fun a sociologist might have if turned loose in the museum world. Be warned - analyzing motivation and money is tricky business, especially with non-profits. Museums & Money is an interesting overview of art museum exhibit funding from 1960 1986, but only some of its conclusions survive into the 21st century.

Sociologist Victoria Alexander devoured enormous amounts of information in sociological studies of organizations, and in annual reports from 36 American art museums. She carefully coded information on exhibit topic, format, funder type, stakeholder and frequency, searching for patterns in exhibit funding at art museums. The difficulty interpreting this book is not in the math, but in determining if differences between her discoveries and todays funding environment come from the books age (published in 1996), the highly individualistic experiences of museums, or a bias for wounded curators.

Her research demonstrates that from 1960 through 1966, exhibit support came primarily from wealthy individuals. From 1966 on, the donor matrix began to include organizational givers, developing by 1974 into a mosaic of individuals, corporations, foundations and governments. Thats clearly todays experience.


Alexanders demonstration that types of donors exhibit patterns in funding, but in format, not content, is interesting. For example, as corporate and government funding becomes more prevalent, so do traveling exhibits. Scholarly formats increase with government and foundation funding along the timeline. Her research indicates that organizational donor interests may overlap, but not usually with individuals funding interests. Not coincidentally the decrease in single-collector exhibits matches the decreased influence of individual philanthropists over the study period.


There is a significant increase in the number of museum exhibitions during the study, with the average doubling to 17 annually by 1986. In that larger pool of exhibits, Alexander writes, the frequency of externally funded exhibits increases while internally funded ones decrease comparatively. There is no information to explain the cause, yet somehow she concludes that, because museums self-fund exhibits of more esoteric art, past and present, these and other unfunded exhibitions represent true curator desires.curators most likely value exhibitions that are internally funded (they would not be mounted otherwise)... . Somebody values the exhibition, curator or not. I believe Alexander underestimates the talent and professionalism of museum staff. Many resources, in addition to money, must be available to support an exhibit: art or artifacts, space, research, staff, and time; and many people make an exhibit happen: registrars, preparators, educators, writers, directors, not just curators.


Alexanders mistake is setting aside her statistical research for museum analysis. She errs by interviewing museum staff, not funders, to learn about funders interests. She meets with just twelve museum staff at only eight northeastern institutions. They are not randomly selected targets, but people whom [she] knew through personal contacts. That small sample cannot make a case for what she calls tension between curators pursuing scholarly work and directors chasing money ostensibly primarily available for broader-appeal formats. Still, she concludes that two institutional logics have collided. The first logic is the art historical, conservation and collection-oriented vision of museums held by curators. The second is the logic of business and of modern capitalism whichis maintained by administrators, board members and, to a large degree, by museum directors. These conflicting institutional patterns lock their adherents into pitched battles, where participants vie for ascendancy of their view.


She protests too much.

Each museum operates idiosyncratically, balancing unique internal and external challenges as funders and exhibit opportunities change. Alexanders perception of an internal struggle of scholarship versus showmanship is far more dramatic than current conditions indicate. While museum professionals agree there can be a struggle between scholarship and broader appeal, pitched battles ensue primarily at institutions with traditional top-down management cultures. Organizations with more collaborative internal cultures (and staff) suffer less from Alexanders perceived tension. Internal resource shifting is an antidote: money gets moved from where it isnt needed (a funded project) to where it is needed (an unfunded project), a coping mechanism she identifies near the end of her study -- another trend that has continued into the 21st century.


There is some very interesting historical information here, but Alexander allows her bias, a willingness to see internal conflict, and a far too limited interview pool to guide her to poor conclusions. At least for her sake she discovers that the evolving funding environment provides more money for a wide variety of exhibits, whether the curators choice or someone elses. Now we need a new survey of funding conditions in museums one with a museum professional as co-author. ---Charity Channel