Museums of Decadence: Objects Define Audience “Outreach Accessibility”
The external voice of a museum is a direct factor in the accessibility for the public. It is the first and most immediate facilitator in what kind of standards the museum has set and who they are inviting in. A challenge for museums today is to try and extend the reach of the museum beyond their architectural and geographical presence. To use this as a tool rather than a limitation is something that can be exercised through outreach and strategic programming.
In today’s ventures I experienced two art collecting institutions that might fall under the category of “elite museums” based on their origin, location, audience base, and general output. What I noticed was that each museums had its own identity and its own ways of interpretation which reflected on what they were projecting to the public.
The MoMA, located in midtown Manhattan, nestled among the buildings on a busy street offered a very demur presence. Its modern infrastructure blended in with the area while still promoting a hierarchical standard in design. The internal facade was typical of a contemporary art museums. White walls, high vault ceilings, 90 degree edged spaces, and art hung next to brief panels. The space was very modern and twisted like a mousetrap into itself revealing at each layer something new. This museum really let the works speak for themselves. To render this process more accessible there were complimentary audio guides, guided tours, and a variety of languages for map guides. While in the museum there was a clear activated interest stirring in the galleries from the audiences. Everyone was engaged in one form or another and a lot of it was encouraged by the bustling social atmosphere that was present. Certain works that captivated the masses attracted more people around it as well as the traditional works that were more famous among public audiences. The downside was that many of the visitors would take a photo and walk away from the work, its sole function was to exist in their phone and the draw of observation was erased. A part of this seemed to occur as a result of the crowds. While the social dynamic drew some in, it also deterred others as if they weren’t able to share in a private moment with the work due to unspoken pressures from other guests. I must admit, works that I was more drawn to, I walked away from due to the uncomfortable tension of other guests standing near me waiting for clear view to take a photo. In other circumstances the frustration came from a guest who lingered too long, and stood too close, shielding it from others. This frustration was really active in the more popular galleries featuring Picasso, Monet, Kahlo…otherwise buzz word artists. In the galleries that offered more interactive experiences with lesser known creators, the problem was the shear emptiness. The lack of people, and shallow disinterest made these galleries equivalent to “fly over states.” Their attraction was cheapened by underrated marketability and bystander influence.
Somewhere the self motivation and rive to pursue works of art was diminished here, and that even had an effect on me. I plotted out my interests based on what I already knew about works. For instance, the stories of cigarette butts in Pollock’s painting compelled me to seek them out, the tragedy behind Frida’s life and iconic symbolism drove me to see her work, the beauty and biography of Magritte attracted me to seek his works out. I planned my visit based on works by artists that I already knew. It was largely based on familiarity. Had I been introduced to other artists, and had a hook for intrigue I might have dispersed my museum visit more evenly. I think the psychology of bystander accessibility really determines the draw of audiences in a museum. Context lays out the standard for public interpretation and expectation. In the galleries of the MoMA, audiences were fairly diverse: speaking multiple languages, stemming from various backgrounds, having different ages and demographics.
At the Guggenheim, it was a drastically different setting. The space was defined by its impressive and elevated nature. Natural light poured into the space and the feeling of elite status saturated the quality of exhibits. Like an entree plate at a 5 star restaurant there was an abundance of white space and a morsel of art. It was about aesthetic presence and quality versus quantity. Only here, guests had to be inclined to pursue context. They had to have a familiarity with formal art settings and ideas. For younger audiences and possibly those unfamiliar with an art background or museums, this would have been a very unwelcoming place. There needed to be more external input for accessibility to be reached.
Unlike MoMA, the Guggenheim was very open, crowds were more spread out, less dense, the collection unfolded its own narration but guests moved quickly and apathetically with the exception of a few with a driven pursuit for artist intent. Some visitors stopped at works with a stronger appeal, works that forced a question into the space, others bypassed objects as if they were walking down the street, and few made stops at each work to piece together the narrative of the collection. The mission here was quite obviously a contemporary take on modern art in its raw form. It was about artist intent and message, which sometimes was meaningful and in others, obsolete. Some guests would dissect the work searching for meaning, symbols, purpose only to be disappointing by what the artist had conveyed. The space was clearly targeting individuals who would take the initiative to make the works relevant, rather the museum making the initiative to make the education aspect relevant. It was so easy to see why some members of the community might feel excluded here, and how there was no advertised bridge to help convey purpose, intense, raw art, or relevance. As I walked through I felt the tension inside myself: I was an art historian seeking value in art, and I was a pedestrian seeing random items without context that didn’t interest me or encourage me to ask anything. I knew that had I come from a different background, had I not been educated in art, and had I not felt comfortable with the surroundings there this museum would have failed me. I was able to appreciate it because of where I came from, because of my own interests, because of the means that brought me here…in any other circumstance, this would have been a place where I felt lost. As I walked through the galleries which uncoiled like a seashell I thought how could I maintain the eloquence and integrity of this space, and these works but make them accessible to a larger sector of the community. Part of it was location (a high end building in a high end part of town), the other part was communication (small info panels in discreet corners), the other was social presence (things felt elevated and almost irreverent for public standards of understanding). How could this be improved and maintain the same mission and clarity?
I saw this place as a great opportunity for arts enrichment in the contemporary setting. It wasn’t about the objects themselves and the aesthetic power or beauty they held, it was the context and message that the artist put into them. By placing them in this space, by piecing them together, and by attaching ideas with everyday material they were empowered. I thought this was a theme that anyone could relate to; young, old, rich, poor, local, foreign, right brain, left brain. It was the power of what we can’t see being placed inside something we can see. What I was seeing was similar to items that were valuable to me and only me, and only I could translate that value to others. For instance, my favorite pair of shoes, a photo of my grandma, my first diary (only I empowered these). If that could be conveyed to visitors then I think they would have pursued not just visiting but actively engaging and exploring. Through “familiarity practice” it puts the idea of modern art into a thematic context and uses the exhibit on display as the example. Drawing in external audiences would require outreach stimulation but attracting sense of relevance, interest, and purpose would be promulgated by a primary sample approach. Ask a question, and let them answer. Design a space about them, why do we do this? what are you wearing that is important? what is a favorite memory? Tie them together. Art does not always speak for itself, sometimes it speaks on behalf of the artist. What can we learn though the story of objects and object accessibility?
