During today’s All Staff meeting, Graham was asked a question about how the DIA ranks, nationally. It has often been said that the DIA is one of the top 6 museums in the country.
I have always thought this was an odd phrase—that we aren’t quite in the top five, but we’re better than museums 7-10, so saying we were in the “top ten” didn’t do us enough justice.
To me, it indicated that we were the 6th best museum in the country, on a list of what I imagined to be 100 or so museums.
Not surprisingly, I was wrong.
The DIA is classified as a “universal museum” because our collection spans all space and time. There are 6 “top” universal museums in the country and they are: The Met, The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, The Art Institute of Chicago, The Cleveland Museum of Art, The Philadelphia Museum of Art, and of course, The Detroit Institute of Arts.
Other museums like The MoMA or the National Gallery are excluded because they are not universal.
These 6 universal museums are not usually ranked, but when they are, it’s on a bias. If you like Impressionist art, then Chicago is #1… but if you like European Art, then the DIA is probably #1, and so on.
Thus, the clout in this phrase is really that we are among the six (as there are only six) best universal museums in the country.
I suppose one could liken it to being a “Big Ten” school—there isn’t School #1 or School #2—they’re all just in the Big Ten.
Actually, that might be a terrible reference. Once football or basketball season takes off, they are very clearly ranked.
Maybe it’s more like American Idol, once contestants reach the top 12 or top 5. Within that group, no one is individually ranked, but they are each one of the 12 best singers in the country.
I wonder if Simon Cowell has ever been to the DIA…
Showing posts with label Graham Beal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Graham Beal. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
All Staff Meeting
Today I had to be at the museum before 9:00. I kind of hate being anywhere before 9:00 but it turned out to be well worth the trouble. It was the All Staff Meeting!
More than 100 DIA employees gathered in the auditorium (which I had never seen before, but is very nice!) to hear the Director and various other managers discuss projects and initiatives within the museum. I asked how often All Staff Meetings occur and was told that they try to have them quarterly, but that's not always the case. Either way, I was pleased to be present for this one.
Perimeter Heating Project: Elliott, Museum Operations
We are now in Phase II of the perimeter heating project (I must have missed Phase I), which involved closing a number of galleries on the second floor for repairs to the heating system. Last winter, some galleries with exterior walls had NO heat beyond the forced air system (I don't know enough about heating and cooling to tell you why we need more than forced air heat, but apparently we do). Fortunately, last winter was mild enough that there were few to no complaints from visitors, and of course, the artwork was unharmed.
Elliott, from Operations, attempted to list the second floor galleries that would be closing but admitted to not knowing the official gallery numbers. At this point, he asked for some “audience participation”, saying that he would tell us what is in each gallery, and someone in the audience should yell out the gallery number. It went something like this:
“It’s that gallery with the painting on the ceiling…”
“W 234!”
“It’s got that piece of furniture with all the inlaid stone… umm… it also has The Wedding Dance…”
“W 230!!” “BINGO!!
Ok, nobody yelled out “Bingo”, but I think it would have been appropriate.
After Gallery Number Bingo, Director Graham Beal talked about some stuff that was not on the agenda, but proved to be pretty interesting.
New AAMD Environmental Standards: Graham Beal, Director
The AAMD has decided to relax its environmental standards for galleries. The gold standard for relative humidity levels in the galleries was generally between 40% to 50%. Yet, for various reasons, the range of acceptable RH has been expanded to 40% to 60%.
I did some quick Internet research and it seems like most museums were already doing this anyway. But now the AAMD is making this the official standard, which really only changes one thing; loans. As Graham explained it, some museums were having trouble acquiring loans because when they would submit a facilities report, their hygrothermograph output would read 56% or something that the loaning institution would find unacceptable. Graham even told stories of institutions submitting a blank hygrothermograph output sheet with a ruled pencil line drawn through the whole thing at 45%. In other words, some museums, desperate for loans, would forge their RH reports. Seriously?
The other benefits of this greater flexibility are that it saves the museum some money, reduces energy consumption and carbon footprints, and generally streamlines the loan process (so people can stop lying!).
Apparently it has been suggested for a while that most works of art will not sustain damage from incremental RH fluctuations, and can thus withstand a greater range. My peers that watched “The Rape of Europa” with me last semester can attest that many works of art that hung out in caves, barns, and other locations without climate control for the duration of WWII were returned to the museums without much (or any) damage. I am not suggesting that galleries be converted to reflect the barn environment in the name of reducing our carbon footprint, but I can certainly see the merit to allowing RH to reach 60% +/- 3.
Graham also noted that it is extremely difficult to retain a consistent RH % in the Midwest (especially in those dry winter months). So this change in the standards will end up saving the DIA quite a bit of money. In the winter the DIA will heat the museum less, thus reducing the need to add humidity to the air; and in the summer we will cool the museum less, thus reducing the need to remove humidity from the air.
During this briefing, a representative from the conservation or registration department stood up and assured the crowd that the collections were not being put at risk in any way by this change and that there simply won’t be much difference to the state collections.
To prove that I’m not making these numbers up, here are some articles I found about the change:
http://blog.conservation-us.org/blogpost.cfm?threadid=2227&catid=175
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=38716
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Climate-control-time-to-change-the-settings/20913
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Revising-the-gold-standard-of-environmental-control%20/20549
And if any of my information is way off base, I certainly hope that my newest reader, Dixie, will set me straight.
Millage Campaign: Annmarie, Executive Vice President
I mentioned before that the DIA plans to launch a millage campaign in an effort to establish a more stable source of funding for the museum and that the initial poll results for the campaign were overwhelmingly positive.
Today, Annmarie presented a more detailed account of the poll results, which I found very interesting. I was asked not to share the details of the results, but I will discuss one thing that struck me about the poll and that was how many people reported a very positive image of the DIA. In one question, people were asked “Who goes to the DIA” and the common response was “Everyone”. I found this to be so encouraging. In a previous post, I said myself that I recognize museums (art museums, in particular) as having to struggle with that public perception of elitism. I think this just speaks to how many things the DIA is doing RIGHT. There are a lot of words that describe the City of Detroit (resilient, soulful, diverse, historic…) but I don’t think “elite” is one of them. Which is why I was so struck by the apparent perception of the DIA as being the people’s museum—a place where everyone goes. I think that this is a perception that most (all?) museums strive for and I am just so happy to see the community embrace the DIA as their own, just as I have for so many years.
But then again, I claimed ownership of Lake St. Clair when I was in preschool so I’m not sure I’m the best barometer of the community’s investment. I get attached easily.
More than 100 DIA employees gathered in the auditorium (which I had never seen before, but is very nice!) to hear the Director and various other managers discuss projects and initiatives within the museum. I asked how often All Staff Meetings occur and was told that they try to have them quarterly, but that's not always the case. Either way, I was pleased to be present for this one.
Perimeter Heating Project: Elliott, Museum Operations
We are now in Phase II of the perimeter heating project (I must have missed Phase I), which involved closing a number of galleries on the second floor for repairs to the heating system. Last winter, some galleries with exterior walls had NO heat beyond the forced air system (I don't know enough about heating and cooling to tell you why we need more than forced air heat, but apparently we do). Fortunately, last winter was mild enough that there were few to no complaints from visitors, and of course, the artwork was unharmed.
Elliott, from Operations, attempted to list the second floor galleries that would be closing but admitted to not knowing the official gallery numbers. At this point, he asked for some “audience participation”, saying that he would tell us what is in each gallery, and someone in the audience should yell out the gallery number. It went something like this:
“It’s that gallery with the painting on the ceiling…”
“W 234!”
“It’s got that piece of furniture with all the inlaid stone… umm… it also has The Wedding Dance…”
“W 230!!” “BINGO!!
Ok, nobody yelled out “Bingo”, but I think it would have been appropriate.
After Gallery Number Bingo, Director Graham Beal talked about some stuff that was not on the agenda, but proved to be pretty interesting.
New AAMD Environmental Standards: Graham Beal, Director
The AAMD has decided to relax its environmental standards for galleries. The gold standard for relative humidity levels in the galleries was generally between 40% to 50%. Yet, for various reasons, the range of acceptable RH has been expanded to 40% to 60%.
I did some quick Internet research and it seems like most museums were already doing this anyway. But now the AAMD is making this the official standard, which really only changes one thing; loans. As Graham explained it, some museums were having trouble acquiring loans because when they would submit a facilities report, their hygrothermograph output would read 56% or something that the loaning institution would find unacceptable. Graham even told stories of institutions submitting a blank hygrothermograph output sheet with a ruled pencil line drawn through the whole thing at 45%. In other words, some museums, desperate for loans, would forge their RH reports. Seriously?
The other benefits of this greater flexibility are that it saves the museum some money, reduces energy consumption and carbon footprints, and generally streamlines the loan process (so people can stop lying!).
Apparently it has been suggested for a while that most works of art will not sustain damage from incremental RH fluctuations, and can thus withstand a greater range. My peers that watched “The Rape of Europa” with me last semester can attest that many works of art that hung out in caves, barns, and other locations without climate control for the duration of WWII were returned to the museums without much (or any) damage. I am not suggesting that galleries be converted to reflect the barn environment in the name of reducing our carbon footprint, but I can certainly see the merit to allowing RH to reach 60% +/- 3.
Graham also noted that it is extremely difficult to retain a consistent RH % in the Midwest (especially in those dry winter months). So this change in the standards will end up saving the DIA quite a bit of money. In the winter the DIA will heat the museum less, thus reducing the need to add humidity to the air; and in the summer we will cool the museum less, thus reducing the need to remove humidity from the air.
During this briefing, a representative from the conservation or registration department stood up and assured the crowd that the collections were not being put at risk in any way by this change and that there simply won’t be much difference to the state collections.
To prove that I’m not making these numbers up, here are some articles I found about the change:
http://blog.conservation-us.org/blogpost.cfm?threadid=2227&catid=175
http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=38716
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Climate-control-time-to-change-the-settings/20913
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Revising-the-gold-standard-of-environmental-control%20/20549
And if any of my information is way off base, I certainly hope that my newest reader, Dixie, will set me straight.
Millage Campaign: Annmarie, Executive Vice President
I mentioned before that the DIA plans to launch a millage campaign in an effort to establish a more stable source of funding for the museum and that the initial poll results for the campaign were overwhelmingly positive.
Today, Annmarie presented a more detailed account of the poll results, which I found very interesting. I was asked not to share the details of the results, but I will discuss one thing that struck me about the poll and that was how many people reported a very positive image of the DIA. In one question, people were asked “Who goes to the DIA” and the common response was “Everyone”. I found this to be so encouraging. In a previous post, I said myself that I recognize museums (art museums, in particular) as having to struggle with that public perception of elitism. I think this just speaks to how many things the DIA is doing RIGHT. There are a lot of words that describe the City of Detroit (resilient, soulful, diverse, historic…) but I don’t think “elite” is one of them. Which is why I was so struck by the apparent perception of the DIA as being the people’s museum—a place where everyone goes. I think that this is a perception that most (all?) museums strive for and I am just so happy to see the community embrace the DIA as their own, just as I have for so many years.
But then again, I claimed ownership of Lake St. Clair when I was in preschool so I’m not sure I’m the best barometer of the community’s investment. I get attached easily.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Our Business Model is Badly Broken
Graham Beal gave a speech at the volunteer program today, for which I was pleased to be present. I had been hearing a lot of things, second hand, and was interested in his thoughts.
He spoke primarily (and apologetically—this is supposed to be a celebratory occasion, after all) about the DIA’s financial situation and stated that “our business model is badly broken”.
For many years, 16 million of our 22 million dollar budget came from the State of Michigan. Last year, $10,000 of our now 32 million dollar budget came from the State of Michigan.
Mr. Beal expressed that what the DIA would really like is stability and believes this can be achieved by setting up an unrestricted endowment. The endowment the DIA is currently working with has something in the ballpark of $70 million. At around 3% interest, that would generate about 2.1 million per year (remember-- the budget is 32 million).
To establish this endowment, what the DIA intends to do is launch a millage campaign, proposing a 10 year property tax, which would then be used to build the endowment—ensuring the DIA some long term financial stability.
A poll was conducted in the community and the response was overwhelmingly positive. A similar campaign for the Detroit Zoo was launched a few years ago, and was accompanied by billboards that tugged at the heartstrings in all the right ways. The Zoo millage passed with incredibly high numbers.
It was a concern that the DIA millage would not be as successful because art museums and zoos are perceived so differently by the public. Zoos have very family-friendly amenities like sno-cones and stroller parking. Art museums are not always perceived as being a place for families to spend a Saturday afternoon. Thus, there was concern that the DIA would not receive the same support from its surrounding communities. However, the polling company was stunned by the data they collected, which showed great support.
Interestingly, the original millage proposal had multiple cultural institutions on the ticket. However, the polls showed that people did NOT show the same support for the shared millage. Thus, the DIA dropped the other institutions, in favor of going it alone because it could so drastically increase their odds of winning.
And nobody minds.
Graham Beal expected the other institutions to be a little miffed when he announced that the DIA would be the only institution on the ticket (and thus the only one benefiting from this property tax). Yet, he claimed that his colleagues handled this news graciously. I found this incredibly hard to believe until he explained why.
Mr. Beal reported his colleague at the Detroit Symphony Orchestra as saying, “A strong DIA helps every cultural institution in the city”.
Also, I think I should be featured on a billboard, feeding something to Artie and giggling. Millage accomplished.
He spoke primarily (and apologetically—this is supposed to be a celebratory occasion, after all) about the DIA’s financial situation and stated that “our business model is badly broken”.
For many years, 16 million of our 22 million dollar budget came from the State of Michigan. Last year, $10,000 of our now 32 million dollar budget came from the State of Michigan.
Mr. Beal expressed that what the DIA would really like is stability and believes this can be achieved by setting up an unrestricted endowment. The endowment the DIA is currently working with has something in the ballpark of $70 million. At around 3% interest, that would generate about 2.1 million per year (remember-- the budget is 32 million).
To establish this endowment, what the DIA intends to do is launch a millage campaign, proposing a 10 year property tax, which would then be used to build the endowment—ensuring the DIA some long term financial stability.
A poll was conducted in the community and the response was overwhelmingly positive. A similar campaign for the Detroit Zoo was launched a few years ago, and was accompanied by billboards that tugged at the heartstrings in all the right ways. The Zoo millage passed with incredibly high numbers.
Who Doesn’t Love Giraffes?
It was a concern that the DIA millage would not be as successful because art museums and zoos are perceived so differently by the public. Zoos have very family-friendly amenities like sno-cones and stroller parking. Art museums are not always perceived as being a place for families to spend a Saturday afternoon. Thus, there was concern that the DIA would not receive the same support from its surrounding communities. However, the polling company was stunned by the data they collected, which showed great support.
Interestingly, the original millage proposal had multiple cultural institutions on the ticket. However, the polls showed that people did NOT show the same support for the shared millage. Thus, the DIA dropped the other institutions, in favor of going it alone because it could so drastically increase their odds of winning.
And nobody minds.
Graham Beal expected the other institutions to be a little miffed when he announced that the DIA would be the only institution on the ticket (and thus the only one benefiting from this property tax). Yet, he claimed that his colleagues handled this news graciously. I found this incredibly hard to believe until he explained why.
Mr. Beal reported his colleague at the Detroit Symphony Orchestra as saying, “A strong DIA helps every cultural institution in the city”.
Wow. That is gracious.
But the gentleman at the symphony has a good point and another colleague is reported as noting that if the millage passes, “that will be a major institution that is no longer asking for money, and that helps everyone”.
These are both excellent points. If the DIA can be self-sufficient, then it will be sucking significantly less money from donors around the city, who will then be able to donate to The Detroit Symphony Orchestra, The Detroit Historical Museum, The Science Center, and every other cultural institution in Detroit. Sounds good to me.
"Artie" The Donkey
The 48th Annual Volunteer Council Meeting
Held in the Detroit Film Theatre Auditorium, The Annual Volunteer Council Meeting was quite a production. I would really like to be involved with volunteer management sometime in a future career, and with volunteer management comes volunteer recognition. So I was interested in seeing what the DIA does to recognize the efforts of their many volunteers.
The DIA Volunteer Council is comprised of 6 individual committees, with a total of 697 volunteers. These volunteers put in 63,000 hours this year, which is equivalent to 30 full time employees.
Think about where you work or go to school. Pick 30 people that are around you and make them disappear. While I’m sure some of us wouldn’t mind making a few choice individuals disappear, the overall result would be devastating. With the cuts that the DIA has taken over the last several years, having 30 people work for free (actually, they pay a fee to volunteer) for 63,000 hours is invaluable.
Each volunteer is given 4 free guest passes to the DIA. If every pass is used, that will bring 2,500 visitors to the museum. That's a heck of a lot. In my Volunteer Management class last fall, we identified volunteers as being one of the biggest sources of publicity for their insitution and it appears as if the DIA has recognized their potential as well.
During the various speeches, there was much emphasis placed on being “ambassadors” to the DIA. Today’s speakers and presenters spoke of representing the museum with pride and talking about it with anyone who will listen. It reminded me a lot of being a tour guide…er… “campus ambassador” at CMU. And I find it interesting that in the half dozen staff meetings I have attended, no one mentioned this to the employees. Could it be that the museum volunteers are under more pressure to positively represent the DIA than the actual paid staff are? I wonder if this is simply because volunteers are often the ones interfacing with the public.
Anyway...
Director Graham Beal also spoke and discussed the state of the museum this year, but I will go into more detail about that later. However, I thought it was great that the director was at this event. His presence underlined the importance of the DIA’s volunteers.
Like many museums, pins are given out to recognize those who have dedicated years of service to the DIA. I counted how many people received each pin. (Why? Because I care about stuff like this, that’s why.)
15 years: 15
20 years: 6
25 years: 2
30 years: 5
35 years: 1
Honestly, I expected more 35 year pins to be handed out. I have spoken with so many volunteers who have told me their stories of first coming to volunteer at the DIA in the 60’s, I expected them all to be lined up to receive their pins. But then, I guess lots of them have been here more than 35 years, and already have their pins.
Today is day 12 for me (I’m technically a volunteer), so I’m .002% of the way to my 15 year pin!
The DIA Volunteer Council is comprised of 6 individual committees, with a total of 697 volunteers. These volunteers put in 63,000 hours this year, which is equivalent to 30 full time employees.
Think about where you work or go to school. Pick 30 people that are around you and make them disappear. While I’m sure some of us wouldn’t mind making a few choice individuals disappear, the overall result would be devastating. With the cuts that the DIA has taken over the last several years, having 30 people work for free (actually, they pay a fee to volunteer) for 63,000 hours is invaluable.
Each volunteer is given 4 free guest passes to the DIA. If every pass is used, that will bring 2,500 visitors to the museum. That's a heck of a lot. In my Volunteer Management class last fall, we identified volunteers as being one of the biggest sources of publicity for their insitution and it appears as if the DIA has recognized their potential as well.
During the various speeches, there was much emphasis placed on being “ambassadors” to the DIA. Today’s speakers and presenters spoke of representing the museum with pride and talking about it with anyone who will listen. It reminded me a lot of being a tour guide…er… “campus ambassador” at CMU. And I find it interesting that in the half dozen staff meetings I have attended, no one mentioned this to the employees. Could it be that the museum volunteers are under more pressure to positively represent the DIA than the actual paid staff are? I wonder if this is simply because volunteers are often the ones interfacing with the public.
Anyway...
Director Graham Beal also spoke and discussed the state of the museum this year, but I will go into more detail about that later. However, I thought it was great that the director was at this event. His presence underlined the importance of the DIA’s volunteers.
Like many museums, pins are given out to recognize those who have dedicated years of service to the DIA. I counted how many people received each pin. (Why? Because I care about stuff like this, that’s why.)
15 years: 15
20 years: 6
25 years: 2
30 years: 5
35 years: 1
Honestly, I expected more 35 year pins to be handed out. I have spoken with so many volunteers who have told me their stories of first coming to volunteer at the DIA in the 60’s, I expected them all to be lined up to receive their pins. But then, I guess lots of them have been here more than 35 years, and already have their pins.
Today is day 12 for me (I’m technically a volunteer), so I’m .002% of the way to my 15 year pin!
Friday, May 21, 2010
The DIA is the Best Museum in the World. Here's Why:
I heard a quote today that supposedly comes from the director of the DIA. It would never hold up in court, and would be classified as "hearsay" but I think it's an important quote-- regardless of who actually said it.
The DIA is the best museum in the world. It is even better than the Louvre. It's the best museum in the world because not only do we attract 500,000 visitors every year, but we do it in Detroit. Getting 500,000 people to venture into downtown Detroit these days is no small feat. It's easy to get 500,000 people to go to the Louve, The Smithsonian, or The Met-- people are already IN those thriving cities. People stumble into The Met because they're already vacationing in New York, and need to kill an afternoon. People come to the DIA because they have chosen to travel to the DIA based on its superior reputation in collections and programming. And that's why the DIA is the greatest museum in the world.I have to say... I don't disagree.
Monday, May 10, 2010
This Isn't Just ANY Nonprofit-- this is the DIA!
So today was my first official day as an intern at the Detroit Institute of Arts-- and it was fantastic!
My day began with a tour of the DIA. I didn't see much art, but what I did see was just as interesting... to me, anyway.
As we were walking past the loading dock, I found myself standing on my tippy toes to look through every window out onto the dock. I had a repress a delighted giggle as I thought about how much Dixie would love this loading dock. It had multiple doors, complete with a huge overhang (to protect artworks from the elements), a great looking staging area, and a great big open space-- large enough for semi trucks to maneuver. It was so cool.
My "office" is upstairs on the third floor. All offices are on the third floor-- pretty much everything else is museum space of some kind. I'm right up there with the director, Graham Beal. His office is right around the corner from me. It was a little depressing to look around the third floor and see how many empty desks and workspaces there are. About a year ago, the DIA had a major staff cutback, and it seems that almost all receptionists and administrative assistants were eliminated. As a result-- I have ample workspace to call my own.
The bulk of my mapping project can't begin until I have several meetings with other departments, which will happen later this week. So Sondra, my supervisor, gave me a few things to read and review while I was waiting around this afternoon. After some thought, she pulled an article off of her bookshelf and turned to me saying, "Have you ever read any Stephen Weil?" I felt a rush of blood to my skull as I said, "You know, I have." (I had major issues with a Weil article I read this past semester, in which he invented fictional museums (toothpick museum, anyone?) and then tore them apart for lacking in their relevance to visitors). But the article Sondra gave me was actually much less infuriating.
Next, Sondra gave me an article that she said was a description of the educational methods used at the DIA. It was a basic outline for teachers and docents about VTS or Visual Thinking Strategies. My final paper for Art Education last semester argued that VTS was the future of museum education, and far superior to other methods of art criticism used with students in informal learning environments. I was thrilled.
The third article... I haven't read yet. But I'll be sure to give a full report when I do read it. And I will... eventually.
Finally, I was handed a copy of the DIA's strategic plan. I was really turned off to strategic planning after my fall semester. I had the impression that they were done to placate administrators and board members, but this document was really well organized, and a lot of the goals and objectives seemed reasonable.
By the end of the afternoon, I had a phone number, a DIA email address (jbelcoure@dia.org) and access to the DIA network. With these things established, I sat down at my very large workstation and ventured on to the DIA website, where I found something that stopped me dead.
My final paper for Dr. Willumson's museology seminar argued for the inclusion of historical and cultural context when displaying works of art in a museum. I turned in this paper less than three weeks ago, so it is fresh in my mind. Anyway... this is what I found:
Is art just art? What was influencing the artists?
I love this ad. Not only does it support the argument in my final project, but I think it sets up this exhibition to be really accessible for general audiences. It gives a very general context, which I'm sure is expanded within the exhibition itself. I haven't seen it yet, and I can't wait.
The title of this post says a lot. It's something I overheard in the office, during a discussion about the dress code, but I think it could be applied to pretty much any aspect of the culture within this museum. I've taken classes and read articles about working in the public sector and what it's like to work for a nonprofit organization... and none of that seems to fit the DIA. This museum, while struggling in its own right, still has a massive budget, and a slick operation. There are more people working on the third floor of the DIA than worked in the entire Department of History Arts and Libraries (which has since been disbanded). Everything looks new and clean, and well maintained. I had the feel of being inside a large, profitable company-- not a nonprofit cultural institution.
After all, it's not just any nonprofit-- it's the DIA.
My day began with a tour of the DIA. I didn't see much art, but what I did see was just as interesting... to me, anyway.
As we were walking past the loading dock, I found myself standing on my tippy toes to look through every window out onto the dock. I had a repress a delighted giggle as I thought about how much Dixie would love this loading dock. It had multiple doors, complete with a huge overhang (to protect artworks from the elements), a great looking staging area, and a great big open space-- large enough for semi trucks to maneuver. It was so cool.
My "office" is upstairs on the third floor. All offices are on the third floor-- pretty much everything else is museum space of some kind. I'm right up there with the director, Graham Beal. His office is right around the corner from me. It was a little depressing to look around the third floor and see how many empty desks and workspaces there are. About a year ago, the DIA had a major staff cutback, and it seems that almost all receptionists and administrative assistants were eliminated. As a result-- I have ample workspace to call my own.
The bulk of my mapping project can't begin until I have several meetings with other departments, which will happen later this week. So Sondra, my supervisor, gave me a few things to read and review while I was waiting around this afternoon. After some thought, she pulled an article off of her bookshelf and turned to me saying, "Have you ever read any Stephen Weil?" I felt a rush of blood to my skull as I said, "You know, I have." (I had major issues with a Weil article I read this past semester, in which he invented fictional museums (toothpick museum, anyone?) and then tore them apart for lacking in their relevance to visitors). But the article Sondra gave me was actually much less infuriating.
Next, Sondra gave me an article that she said was a description of the educational methods used at the DIA. It was a basic outline for teachers and docents about VTS or Visual Thinking Strategies. My final paper for Art Education last semester argued that VTS was the future of museum education, and far superior to other methods of art criticism used with students in informal learning environments. I was thrilled.
The third article... I haven't read yet. But I'll be sure to give a full report when I do read it. And I will... eventually.
Finally, I was handed a copy of the DIA's strategic plan. I was really turned off to strategic planning after my fall semester. I had the impression that they were done to placate administrators and board members, but this document was really well organized, and a lot of the goals and objectives seemed reasonable.
By the end of the afternoon, I had a phone number, a DIA email address (jbelcoure@dia.org) and access to the DIA network. With these things established, I sat down at my very large workstation and ventured on to the DIA website, where I found something that stopped me dead.
My final paper for Dr. Willumson's museology seminar argued for the inclusion of historical and cultural context when displaying works of art in a museum. I turned in this paper less than three weeks ago, so it is fresh in my mind. Anyway... this is what I found:
Is art just art? What was influencing the artists?
I love this ad. Not only does it support the argument in my final project, but I think it sets up this exhibition to be really accessible for general audiences. It gives a very general context, which I'm sure is expanded within the exhibition itself. I haven't seen it yet, and I can't wait.
The title of this post says a lot. It's something I overheard in the office, during a discussion about the dress code, but I think it could be applied to pretty much any aspect of the culture within this museum. I've taken classes and read articles about working in the public sector and what it's like to work for a nonprofit organization... and none of that seems to fit the DIA. This museum, while struggling in its own right, still has a massive budget, and a slick operation. There are more people working on the third floor of the DIA than worked in the entire Department of History Arts and Libraries (which has since been disbanded). Everything looks new and clean, and well maintained. I had the feel of being inside a large, profitable company-- not a nonprofit cultural institution.
After all, it's not just any nonprofit-- it's the DIA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)