Reinventing the business model for museum operations should consider the level of accountability of its leadership.
In last week’s post, I considered what a hyper-capitalist, fully market-driven museum might resemble as a way of launching a dim sum of new ideas to run a museum. This topic originates in the bosom of discontent pertaining to dirty donor money and the public funding to pay the bills. This method of operation has ramifications for institutional accountability. For whom is the museum and who has a say in its content?
The question lies between the Scylla and Charybdis of public versus private funds to support these institutions. When we question the use of public funds, it seems that the reigning powers seek to put their thumb on the scale of public values. My interest in this topic has to do with the accountability that results from each form of funding and the infinitely broad spectrum in between.
The recent outcry when Neil Young and many other artists and podcasters very publicly pulled their content from Spotify in protest of the music streaming platform’s contract with the Joe Rogan Experience podcast and its legitimization of anti-vaccine ideology metastasized spurred cries of “censorship” and “cancelling” of the most popular podcast in the United States. The point, however, has been made repeatedly that an artist pulling his own content is not censorship – it is their choice and not necessarily imposed on them. Just as Spotify have the right to release it, Neil Young et al have the right to pull it: the give and take of accountability.
It was clear when Spotify chose to give Joe Rogan a contract worth $100,000,000 that the media star would continue to supernova and essentially print money for all parties, but the added attention to his show resulted in the pulling of more than 70 episodes due to the continued use – i.e. not a slip – of racial slurs and racially inappropriate anecdotes. That made it clear that Spotify did not even listen to the show before they paid for it. They pulled those episodes on their own and not because the public demanded it; after all, those episodes long predate the move to Spotify.
This scenario played out in a rather appropriate way because Spotify, as a public company, bears responsibility to its stockholders in addition to its customers: exactly the reason it signed up Rogan in the first place without fully understanding what it contained (or, if they did, they did not care). What decision would it make were it a museum?
The American Library Association continuously tracks the banning of books across the United States and has for decades. Agree or disagree with the bans, but the fact that public libraries receive criticism and threats comes from the use of public funds and demonstrates that ideas of freedom vary wildly. Who makes these decisions though? We do not take a vote about the inclusion or exclusion of each book in the local library. Accountability here derives from elected officials.
The practice does not stop with books. We have a very long and very distinguished history of censoring exhibitions and public monuments both in the United States and around the world. Rudy Giuliani, as mayor of New York City, trying to close the Brooklyn Museum as a result of the Sensation show in 1999 is possibly the most egregious example.
Joe Rogan’s show got more popular as a result of the attention Neil Young’s protest drew and so did Sensation. Then the scale tipped the other way for Rogan as the newfound public microscope revealed his bigoted past and forced the removal of some 70+ episodes. Still, he is accountable to Spotify who is accountable to its stockholders with as many as 19% leaving over the debate. Apple Music has spiked as a result.You could say the correct public discourse ensued and drew a line in the sand for the public and the company to reassess and/or galvanize their own values.
The Brooklyn Museum, however, has no true method of public input to determine its stance. Most museum income originates in the wallets of donors and only single-digit amounts come from ticket sales. In other words, you cannot “cancel” a museum by not attending, you are at the mercy of its leadership to represent you. Perhaps we should vote for our local museum director or for seats on the board of directors.
In 2010, however, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery eventually caved to public pressure to pulled a piece by the artist David Wojnarowicz over its depiction of ants crawling over a crucifix. A handful of elected officials and the museum leadership decided this, not the public. Protests over the action ensued. To whom is the public museum responsible.
Obviously, the Brooklyn Museum is still open as Giuliani lost his court case. But, similar to Spotify, the spotlight on the show revealed that Charles Saatchi, the mega-collector at the heart of the Sensation show paid over $160,000 to fund the show. That is a small outlay to exponentially raise the value of his overall collection as well as to make him and his collection a household name. He could recoup that tenfold in the sale of one Chris Ofili work. Clearly, this show was both public and private.
Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary (1999) generated a firestorm of controversy when it appeared at the Brooklyn Museum's "Sensation" exhibition in 1999.
Artists can have some say in where they exhibit their works, but science and history museums raise similar controversy and spawned an entire movement to “decolonize the museum”. And, as previously mentioned, the fight over the display of public monuments calls into question to whom do they belong?
All of these opinions lack, however, a vision of what their utopia looks like and a goal to march toward. Protestations highlight the discontent around museum content, but I do not know of the vision of the perfect museum.
Personally, neither choice satisfies me, nor do I think that they are or even should be the only choices. Naturally, reality reveals a diverse spectrum of possibilities that thwarts the publicly portrayed binaries. Is it Amazeum and its hyper-efficient way of reducing prices through data analysis, ad sales, and the monetization of literally everything. Or, is it total government funding that strives for a pure learning experience? Your version of museum utopia likely depends on the accountability trade-offs you can personally live with. Whatever the case, the only thing we know for sure is that it is complicated.
