Main menu

Skip to content
  • HOME
  • LEADERSHIP
  • CURATORIAL
  • PRESENTATIONS
  • WRITINGS
  • ACADEMIA
  • PERSONAL
  • CONTACT

SUSANA SMITH BAUTISTA, PH.D.

ARTS LEADER – MUSEUM EXPERT – CURATOR – SCHOLAR – CONSULTANT- LATINA

DECEMBER 28, 2020

REMEMBER ALL THE FALLEN MUSEUMS
YourCentralValley.com/CBS47

As we near the end of 2020 and ponder all that we have lost this year to COVID-19: jobs, beloved friends and family members, businesses small and large, and any semblance of our “normal” life, I would like for us to take a moment to remember all the museums that we have also lost.

Earlier in the pandemic (July 2020), the American Alliance of Museums reported that 1/3 of museums have a “significant risk” of closing permanently. Below I have listed 28 museums around the world that have permanently closed between April and December this year, all related to COVID-19 to some degree. This might not seem like a huge number (if we consider that just the United States has around 35,000 museums), but each museum represents a significant loss for its community. Many of these museums are small museums in small communities that depend on their services, their preservation of historic artifacts and collections, their educational programs, and their jobs. Unfortunately let’s not forget that we are in the midst of what many call “the third wave” of COVID-19, with still more deaths to come.

Most of us will probably not have heard of these museums, even when they were operational, which is why we must recognize them at this time and thank them for their years of vital public service, and for their tremendous efforts to survive in the face of a devastatingly difficult year. RIP.

1. Royal Canadian Legion Branch Museum, Regina, Canada: December 2020

2. Museum of disABILITY History, Buffalo, New York: December 2020

3. Newfoundland Railway Coastal Museum, Halifax, Canada: December 2020

4. Riga Ghetto and Latvian Holocaust Museum, Riga, Latvia: October 2020

5. KGB Espionage Museum, New York City, New York: October 2020

6. Tahoe Maritime Museum, Lake Tahoe, California: October 2020

7. Weather Discovery Center Museum, North Conway, New Hampshire: October 2020

8. Camp Grant Museum, Rockford, Illinois: October 2020

9. Living Computers: Museum + Lab, Seattle, Washington: October 2020

10. Southwest Florida Military Museum & Library, Cape Coral, Florida: September 2020

11. Hanford Carnegie Museum, Hanford, California: September 2020

12. Farmall-Land USA, Avoca, Iowa: September 2020

13. Foosaner Art Museum, Brevard, Florida: September 2020

14. Mt. Rainer Railroad & Logging Museum, Mt. Rainer, Washington: August 2020

15. Bellingham Railway Museum, Bellingham, Washington: August 2020

16. Concord Heritage Association, Concord, Michigan: August 2020

17. Stockton House Museum, Flint, Michigan: August 2020

18. Songbirds Guitar Museum, Chattanooga, Tennessee: August 2020

19. Binalong Motor Museum, Canberra, Australia: July 2020

20. Young at Art Museum, Davie, Florida : July 2020

21. Musja Museum, Rome, Italy: July 2020

22. Yale Center for the Arts, Portland, Oregon: July 2020

23. Annenberg Center for Photography, Los Angeles, California: June 2020

24. Orpheum Children’s Science Museum, Champaign, Illinois: June 2020

25. World of Speed Motorsport Museum, Wilsonville, Oregon: May 2020

26. Morro Bay Skateboarding Museum, Morro Bay, California: May 2020

27. Children’s Museum of the Sierra, Oakhurst, California: April 2020

28. Indianapolis Contemporary, Indianapolis, Indiana: April 2020

*Thanks to @Adam Rozan for his help in adding some museums to this list.

August 10, 2020

WHAT IS A MUSEUM?ICOM 2019, Kyoto, Japan

I think it’s very exciting that nobody can agree on a definition for museums at ICOM – International Council of Museums. The field is at such a significant time now in its history that it is almost impossible to explain what museums do, because they are trying to do it all: repositories of history, research centers and libraries, schools and community centers, places for respite and contemplation, as well as for discourse and inquiry, social justice, racial equity, and restitution. Museums can be ALL of this and more.

What’s in a Name?

Does a museum have to be called a museum? Not necessarily. While some museums have changed their names to include the word “museum” (Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens in San Marino, CA in 2019), others are moving away from the word “museum” (Craft and Folk Art Museum became Craft Contemporary in 2019, and the Santa Monica Museum of Art became the Institute of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles in 2016).  Perhaps both these museums had an idea (or thought that their visitors had an idea) of museums as being institutional, historic, and collections-focused (both have no permanent collection), yet both continue to refer to themselves as museums in conversation.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a museum as: an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value, also: a place where objects are exhibited. This description could refer to any number of spaces and organizations.

Definitions create limitations, so why do we need them anymore? I urge ICOM to stop trying to define museums, and let each one define itself through its mission, actions, and community. Instead, focus on providing guidance, resources, and strong leadership for the museum field.

MAY 11, 2020

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY PLACE TODAY?

Now that museums are closed and relying on their websites to keep serving the public, there is an influx of virtual gallery tours, studio visits, public programming, online exhibitions, collections database, and more. I have been reading lots of comments about “real” versus “virtual” museums, lamenting the loss of “authentic” museum experiences that are more social and meaningful. “A screen is not the museum,” says Maria Chiara Ciaccheri in her recent article on Medium, yet she proposes that we plan and evaluate virtual tours with the same Visitor Studies’ rigor as physical tours and public programming. 

I also propose a holistic over a binary view of museums, and I’d like to take this opportunity to share an excerpt from my 2014 book, Museums in the Digital Age: Chapter 2 (Framing a Changing Museology in the Digital Age), pp. 9-13.

What do we mean by place today? Does place imply physicality? Not if you consider the validity of places in Second Life, or even when considering common Internet terminology such as “landing on a Web site.” Does place imply locality? James Clifford (1997) gives the example of the great world’s fairs starting in the nineteenth century (London, Paris, and Chicago) where the local was always global. And even more so today with synchronous digital communication technologies such as Skype, chat, web conferencing and the latest, telepresence videoconferencing where place becomes that indeterminate point of intersection within a global network of users; what Casey (1997) refers to as the “omnilocality” of place. Finally, we can ask if place implies permanence? For this answer, we turn both to theory and technology. Feminist theorists such as bell hooks (2000) write about the marginality of women in democratic society, philosophers such as Deleuze and Guattari (1980) write about nomads inhabiting a “special kind of place,” and cultural theorists such as Stuart Hall (1997a),  Homi Bhabha (1994), Nestor García Canclini (2001), and Seyla Benhabib (2002) write about the causes and consequences of the migration of classes, races, and ethnicities from the periphery to the center, and the fluctuating nature of that new center. Similarly, developments in mobile and location-based technologies, including virtual and augmented reality, allow us to talk about the transference of place in the digital age. “We are where our devices are,” claim Gordon and de Souza e Silva (2011). To describe this portable nature of social connectedness due to online and mobile technologies, Mary Chayko (2008) uses the term portable communities, which are “groupings that use small, wireless, easily transportable technologies of communication (portable technologies) to facilitate interpersonal connectedness and to make and share a collective identity and culture” (p. 8).

There are two main reasons why place has receded for the modern museum; one is due to technology and the other due to the primacy of experience. Both are related, however, as new digital technologies allow for new kinds of experiences, a rather continuous cycle of dependence. In her book on public art, philosophy professor Hilda Hein (2006) argues that the primacy of experiences in the mid-twentieth century served to displace the museum’s collection, coining the term the “experiential museum.” As museums became about experiences–“process over stasis”–they became less connected to place; objects became “vehicles for the delivery of experience rather than as ends unto themselves” (Hein, 2006, p. x). Nevertheless, Hein acknowledges that in our modern society saturated with opportunities for experience and entertainment, the museum is distinguished by the authenticity and materiality of its objects. Visitor experience can still be place-based as museums and other institutions offer experiences within their physical spaces, but ultimately experiences are defined by the individual that receives the experience in a unique manner, and less by institutional intentions. Experiences subjugate the place because they can be taken away by the visitor, stored in memory, and often recalled through various strategies (analog and digital) that may no longer relate to the original place-based experience.

Falk and Dierking (as cited in Tallon & Walker, 2008) concur with this idea that museum experiences detach visitors from the physical museum place.

Since visitors do not make meaning from museums solely within the four walls of the institution, effective digital media experiences require situating the experience within the broader context of the lives, the community, and the society in which visitors live and interact. (p. 27)

While museums certainly are not intentionally trying to drive visitors away from their physical buildings and collections, they have largely come to accept the constructivist notion of how learning and meaning are created by visitors within the context of their personal backgrounds, interests, and lives. Based upon this modern museology is a growing awareness that the emergence of personal mobile technologies allows visitors to experience the museum wherever and whenever they choose. With mobile tours (such as Art on Call at the Walker Art Center), visitors can call a number to hear more about work they are standing in front of–either inside museum galleries, outside in museum gardens or exteriors, or even throughout the city–or visitors can call the number from their home at a later date and time, perhaps never intending a physical visit to the museum. Another new feature called bookmarking creates a stronger connection between the physical museum experience and a pre- or post-museum experience at the visitor’s home (or wherever they may have Internet access). For example, Getty Bookmarks at the J. Paul Getty Museum is a way for visitors to select their favorite works of art and then save them on the museum website in a personal gallery. There are many variations of bookmarks, with functions on audio and handheld tours where visitors are sent e-mails with links to their bookmarks; visitors can access their bookmarks or personal galleries at physical kiosks inside the museum, or through their own smartphones. A few more examples of such personal spaces on museum websites include My Collection at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, My Art Gallery at the Seattle Art Museum, My Scrapbooks at the Art Institute of Chicago, and Art Collector at the Walker Art Center and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts.

If place in the digital age no longer implies physicality, locality or permanence, but rather a different form(s) such as those suggested by the scholars mentioned above, then its reemergence in the digital age permits a symbiotic relationship with experience rather than a contradictory one. Furthermore, the proposal of place/experience allows for fluid movement through space and time as well as through society and community in general. In Mobilities of Time and Space, Marita Sturken (2004) refers to the term “nonplaces” first discussed by Marc Augé in 1995. She writes that,

If modernity was characterized by a separation of space and place, in postmodernity, there is an emphasis on the proliferation of nonspaces–airports, freeways, bank machines. The postmodern concept of the nonplace thus bears a contiguous relationship to the modern sense of space as compressed, traveled through, removed from actual places. (p. 79)

This thesis does not negate or reduce place, as in the postmodern concepts of nonplace or nonspace, but proposes the additive, post-Postmodern concept of place/experience that acknowledges its new form(s). Casey similarly suggests that “A place is more an event than a thing to be assimilated to known categories” (as cited in Feld & Basso, 1996, p. 27) and James Clifford (1997) writes about location as “an itinerary rather than a bounded site–a series of encounters and translations” (p. 11).

Ethnographers and anthropologists have long been aware that places are socially and culturally constructed–contact zones–in turn influencing philosophers such as de Certeau, Lefebvre, and even Albert Camus who stated in 1955 that “Sense of place is not just something that people know and feel, it is something people do” (as cited in Basso, 1996, p. 88). This socio-cultural process, however, does not serve to transform place into space, but rather remains an overriding and uninterrupted influence of space, place, and locality throughout their digital transmutations. Gordon and de Souza e Silva (2011) suggest that, “Now that our devices our [sic] location aware, we are much better positioned to be location aware ourselves” (p. 54). As we pay more attention to place and location today, we must remain conscious of their socio-cultural contextual framework. Referring to the idea of place-based education, David Gruenewald (2003) uses the term place-conscious education to demonstrate the need for the educational field to pay more attention to places. Gruenewald also believes that places are social constructions, calling this term “the new localism” that emerged in response to globalization. As the field of education extends itself outwards towards places, it becomes more relevant to the lived experience of students and teachers that consequently become more accountable so that “places matter to educators, students, and citizens in tangible ways” (p. 620).  A consciousness of place, Gruenewald argues, is accordingly a consciousness of ourselves as “place makers and participants in the sociopolitical process of place making” (p. 627). This call for active participation–for place making–is associated with recent calls for increased civic engagement (Putnam, 1995; Asen, 2004) and a recognition of the participatory culture of the digital age.

When places are actively inhabited, created, and shared–like the practiced place of DeCerteau (1984) or the representational space of Lefebvre (1991)–they become public spheres. Jürgen Habermas (1962/1989) expounded on the bourgeois public sphere in his influential book. The public sphere of eighteenth-century Europe united strangers together, requiring only that one pay attention in order to become a member. The more active acts of deliberation, argumentation, and ultimately agreement were also necessary to form the ideal citizen that avoided violence by engaging in reasoned discourse. Directly opposed to Habermas’ bourgeois public sphere is the proletarian public sphere, as first proposed by Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge (1972/1993). The most important distinctions are that there is not merely one public sphere but multiple public spheres, and that the concept of community should be replaced with that of counterpublics (Fraser, 1990; Warner, 2005). Today’s public sphere is more accessible and democratic than its predecessors, but discourse remains its defining factor. Museums can be considered public spheres as critical places for individual development because they reflect societal norms and values; they are places where public opinions are formed and presented, and where participation and discourse are encouraged both by peers and authority figures. Museums embrace the idea of the public sphere today; they offer free days to ensure accessibility, free wifi to facilitate connectedness, they host lectures to encourage dialog, create social groups (onsite and online) for their members to interact, and solicit comments from visitors to publicly share.

While the public sphere is a useful concept to emphasize the need for individual discourse, participation, and engagement on a macro level, it is still possible to talk about place, or place/experience, as socio-culturally generated without needing to transform it into other terms like public sphere, space, or public space. Public space is a more contemporary notion of the public sphere that is used in fields such as urban design, public policy, public art, and geography. Gordon and de Souza e Silva (2011) describe public space as “a collection of minor social contracts” and refer to the urbanist William Whyte’s description of “good” public space as the Seagram Building in Manhattan that encourages casual conversation.  Places have not disappeared (Castells, 2001; Lefebvre, 1974/1991), but have certainly been transformed by their inhabitants through changing cultural practices, social relations, and through the developments of digital technology and the ways in which such technologies are culturally adapted.

MAY 4, 2020

by dahuvariable

HOW CAN MUSEUMS PLAN FOR PERMANENT CLOSURE

While everybody is talking about when and how museums will reopen, not many people are talking about museums that will never reopen. Nina Siegal wrote an article last week in The New York Times entitled “Many Museums Won’t Survive the Virus. How Do you Close One Down?” Europe is also talking about closure after a 41-country survey revealed that 10% of European museums may not reopen (Network of European Museum Organisations, April 7, 2020). Perhaps it’s our famous American Optimism that makes us believe (and hope) everything will be all right. Everyone is certainly doing everything they can to save museums, from the federal government to major foundations, community foundations, municipal agencies, and museums themselves that are asking their members and communities for help.

But if I learned one thing from closing down a museum – yes, I actually did, the Pasadena Museum of California Art in 2018 – it’s that there is only one way to properly close down a museum, and that is with a plan. I know this because my experience did NOT include a plan, which contributed to a closure that was chaotic, expensive, and traumatic for everyone from board to staff. Closure was the last resort, as it usually is, but it almost never takes people on the inside by surprise. There are warning signs, there are reports, and there are always difficult times preceding a closure.

We recommend that museums have succession plans, disaster preparedness and emergency response plans and strategic plans, but what about a closure plan? I was heartened to read in the aforementioned article that the Netherlands has a 35-page “Guideline for Disposal of Museum Objects” and the British Museums Association has a “Museums Facing Closure” handbook.

So far, I have only heard of two museums that have permanently closed due to COVID-19: Indianapolis Contemporary in Indiana on April 3; and The Children’s Museum of the Sierra in Oakhurst, California on April 7. I sincerely hope there will be no more, but as I was once told by a development director, “Hope is not a plan.”

I am putting together a Museum Closure Plan to help those that do find themselves in this unfortunate situation, and for those that might want to consider that prospect, among others. Consider me a resource if you are planning to close, or if you just find yourself suddenly in this position; I understand.

APRIL 9, 2020

A DIGITAL AWAKENING

Last week one of my arts colleagues asked me how I thought the art world would be different after the pandemic – she had been polling different people. I had already been thinking about this, and my answer was all about technology.

I believe that this pandemic will result in museums and arts organizations having a better appreciation for digital content. They will understand that it’s not rocket science to put together online exhibitions or archive multimedia content, or even to live stream events and workshops. They will discover that their staff have hidden talents or are quick learners. Digital components will become a standard part of every exhibition and project, included in the budget as part of marketing, public engagement, interpretation, and evaluation, and included in funding proposals describing how essential they are to a successful project. I’m not just talking about large organizations, but mostly the small and mid-sized ones for whom the digital might have always seemed out of reach or just not a priority.

Funding for digital technology has been commonplace for years now. The Institute for Museums and Library Services provides grants for expanding digital access, digitizing collections, and facilitating open research, the National Endowment for the Humanities has an Office of Digital Humanities that provides grants, major foundations including the Annenberg Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Andrew Mellon Foundation fund digital preservation and other projects, and many technology corporations also provide grants, including Best Buy, Adobe Corporation, Sony Corporation, Samsung, and AT&T.

One of the most important digital projects was launched (and funded) in 2009 by the Getty Foundation, in partnership with the J. Paul Getty Museum and eight other major museums in the U.S. and the U.K. The Online Scholarly Catalogue Initiative had the goals of “rethinking the museum scholarly collection catalogue for the digital age and helping museums work together to transition to online publishing.” They collaborated with the Indianapolis Museum of Art (now Newfields) and the IMA Lab to offer an online publishing toolkit with open-source software to be used for free by other museums. The Getty’s final report from 2015 can be read here: www.getty.edu/foundation/osci-report

To shamelessly quote from my 2014 book Museums in the Digital Age,


“How museums conceive of their ‘place’ in the digital age determines the extent to which they comfortably integrate online and onsite information, experiences, and objects, as well as local and global members into their holistic (and often nebulous) museum community.”


I believe that this terrible tragedy we are currently experiencing that has completely transformed our lives and how we conduct business, will cause museums to reconsider the notion of “place” as both virtual and physical and to re-imagine their websites as places that can similarly serve and bring together communities, make connections with their larger networks, and support their missions.

How do you think that museums will change when they re-open?

OCTOBER 10, 2019

I’m very excited to announce that I have just started as the Lead Consultant to help bring TeenTix Seattle to Los Angeles!

Los Angeles is extremely rich in culture, yet it remains out of reach for so many. At the same time, arts organizations endeavor to engage new audiences and connect more with youth. Public data reports that the Youth Vulnerability Index for Los Angeles County is 3.5%, higher than the state average of 2%. This statistic counts the high school dropout rate, teen birth rate, foster care entry, and poverty rate. We also know that over 60% of teens in the county are Latinx. Arts organizations that provide services to schools report that students in their programs stay in school more, graduate from high school more, and improve their grades. We can also cite numerous studies on the benefit of the arts to youth, including greater confidence, improved self-image, regulating emotions, and learning social skills such as empathy, cooperation, and compassion. TeenTix LA is designed first and foremost to support teen access and engagement, but it also provides a valuable benefit to arts organizations by creating entry points and connections, ultimately supporting a vibrant and diverse arts community by building both audiences and organizational capacity.

TeenTix was founded in 2004 by Seattle Center in partnership with 10 resident arts organizations on the Seattle Center campus. In 2006, TeenTix began adding partners outside of Seattle Center. Currently, 75 arts organizations throughout the Puget Sound region participate in the TeenTix program, including Tacoma Art Museum, Seattle Symphony, Seattle Art Museum, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Seattle Opera, Pacific Northwest Ballet, Seattle Repertory Theatre, Seattle International Film Festival, Tacoma Arts Live, Museum of Pop Culture, 5th Avenue Theatre, and ACT Theatre. To date, TeenTix has facilitated the sale of over 125,000 arts tickets to teens.

The mission of TeenTix is to “build a bright future for our region by empowering young people to take an active role in shaping their arts community as audience members, critics, influencers, advocates, patrons, and leaders.”

www.teentix.org #teentix

Blogroll

  • Documentation
  • Plugins
  • Suggest Ideas
  • Support Forum
  • Themes

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Piano Black by Mono-Lab.