This month, I want to ask us this question. As a field, who
are we?
I have been thinking about this question at work for the
past few weeks. I had started a rapid research experiment recently. I invite
the whole staff to my office anytime between 2-3 on Tuesdays to answer one
question. They get a cookie, and leave their desks for 15 minutes, interact
with colleagues from outside their silo, and I get a bit more insight as we
build our audience engagement plan. Most weeks, people give me great surprises.
But, recently, one of my colleagues, a man with an impressive assortment of
checked shirts that I consistently envy, said, “I think we can’t do this until
we decide who we are.” It was one of those record-scratches-to-a-stop moments.
I’ve been thinking about it ever since.
Then, I get home, confined to the couch with a terrible
sinus headache, to find ICOM was debating the definition of a museum. A
different sort of ache began. ICOM matters because museums are a global
phenomenon. Is there a country without at least one? Over the years, I’ve
enjoyed interacting with all the international museum folks at conferences,
particularly at AAM. From those scant moments, I’ve garnered that, like many
things, the happenings in America are different than those in the world. ICOM
might not seem to matter to our workdays in American museums, but it does
matter global. Why? For me, it is a sign at a high-level of what bureaucracy of
our field thinks.
I have many thoughts about the ICOM definitions.
Procedurally, I worry that many of the people leading this debate are not
well-verse in practice (thanks for that clarification Suse Anderson) or in what
visitors think. Good leadership is informed by others and on behalf of others.
It is not deciding what is in your own best interest. Sure, some of the people
working on the definition have been informed. But I’d love transparency on the
ways that the ICOM delegates prepared for their role defining museums. As as Katie Eagleton brought up, who is this definition for?
I’m particularly interested in the ways that the possible
definitions by ICOM relate to the ways the people of those nations define
museums. Susan Spero brought up a good point. Our field is more than casual
observers see us, and our future requires us to go beyond the assumptions
people make of museums. Absolutely. Tony Butler offers a publication that also
resonated with Susan’s point. Both of these issues are important. People can only
define museums on what we have now. We as professionals get to define museums
on the future we will make.
But the gaps between the ICOM definitions and their people’s/
visitor’s definitions would be telling. Do these gaps happen because we have
forward-looking, visitor-centered leaders? Or do we have these gaps because our
leaders are not grounded in visitors or practice? The former is my hope, and
I’m sure some of the people at ICOM qualify in this group. My fear is the
latter is all too common, and I know some of the ICOM definitions reeked of
naval-gazing, esoteric stupidity, and backward thought.
Why does it matter to get a definition? Or does it? I don’t
know. I do think a good definition is a good way to show funders and
foundations our collective vision of the field. I also think when museums are
taxed, and in countries with different norms for museums, the definition can be
a positive way to shine a light on the best path. But with all unfunded
mandates, people are not being compensated to change. Should they? The status
quo is the path already cleared. Many people on Twitter talked about how our
actions as a field are a better definition of the future than any word salad a
committee can produce.
But I’m curious: Who are we, museums? (As Sarah May said, we might ask, who is a museum? Who is it for?)
I’d love every answer and all answers. In many ways, our
discussions are the most essential way to move forward. ICOM would be
well-served by invited huge digital debate by museums folks and the folks who
go to museums, by then inviting thinkers to synthesize these thoughts, and then
use that to make something worth voting yes for.
I’ll summarize your answers at the end of the month.
For your enjoyment, the ICOM definitionish:
---Session 5 Doshisha University: Towards a new museum definition. Here is a chart as to how many times specific concepts appear in the 269 answers and are included in the new definition proposal #ICOMKyoto2019 #ICOFOM pic.twitter.com/eM25O6FDha— Museum Studies Hel (@MusStudiesHel) September 5, 2019
Also, I'll put in a plug for my Medium post this week. I don't write there often, just when something feels important. It's an ode to my colleagues.