Art Camp in Pictures

I took a bunch of pictures at Art Camp last week and have been meaning to post them, so here they are, in all of their ridiculous, messy glory:

Creating creatures and environments

Painting pink penguins

Chatting with Mr. Byron

This fold-out chalkboard divides the two studios.  Cool.

A giraffe in Africa

Mixing colors can get messy...

 Thank goodness we have plenty of aprons to go around!

Working hard on her imaginary roller coaster

It all culminates with an art show for parents and family on day 5

Parents, admiring their students' work

Learn more about the DIA's summer art camps and see pictures from better photographers than myself at http://www.diaartstudio.wordpress.com/ and www.flickr.com/photos/diaartstudio.

The Drama with the Custer Flag

It's why we pay lawyers to represent us in court and doctors to cure what ails us and exterminators to take care of those ants that keep coming back.

We trust these people to take care of our needs because they are skilled in their professions and are more or less experts at what they do.  They have a mastery of a profession that others do not.

So why are museums so freely criticized by those who do not understand the laws and processes surrounding museum operations?

I think a lot of it has to do with the idea that museums hold the public's objects and promises to take care of them... forever.  On the one hand, I am pleased when the public feels a sense of ownership for the objects in the museum.  On the other hand, I hate it when the people feeling ownership are completely illogical.

I think it must be common knowledge that people who rant on message boards and leave irate comments IN ALL CAPS at the bottom of web articles are not people to be reasoned with.  But darn it if I won't try!

This rant stems from a civil war (or, "war of northern aggression", as I've learned it's called down in Florida) flag that has ties to Custer (from Monroe, MI) and is owned by the DIA... but now the museum has plans to sell it.

The flag, complete with commemorative Custer illustration.

So, here's the story:

On June 25, 1876,  George Armstrong Custer, the pride of Monroe, led the 7th Cavalry into battle against the Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne near the Little Bighorn River in Montana. It was not, shall we say, Custer’s finest hour. All 210 men under his immediate command died in the massacre. So did Custer.

As a burial detail surveyed the carnage a few days later, Sgt. Ferdinand Culbertson discovered a tattered swallow-tail American flag, known as a guidon, hidden beneath a dead soldier. He picked it up, folded it and squeezed it into his pocket. Four years later, according to an 1895 Free Press report headlined “Memento of a Massacre,” the first written document of the flag’s history, Culbertson gave it to Rose Fowler, whose husband was a military man. After Mr. Fowler died, his wife married another soldier and retired to southwest Detroit.

Eventually, Rose sold the flag to the DIA for about $50.  Now, the DIA has decided to put the flag up for auction at Sotherby's, where they expect it will sell for somewhere between 2 and 5 million dollars.

Currently, the DIA's collections budget (their budget for buying new art) is about $3 million.  If the flag sold for the expected amount, it could more than double that budget.

Fantastic, right?

Well, some people aren't so thrilled and they're even writing goofy letters to the editor about it.

There are so many ridiculous things in this article, I don't even know where to start...

"This isn't a piece of surplus artwork; this a priceless piece of history"
Exactly.  It's not art!  I agree that the flag has value, but so does all of the "surplus" art in the museum.  The flag doesn't fit within the mission or collections policy, so it simply has no place in the DIA.  There are no civil war historians on staff, thus there is no one to interpret the work.  There are no other civil war objects in the collection, thus there is no context in which to display it.  Should the flag remain in the DIA, it will stay in storage; unseen and unexplained.  Forever.

"give the people of Michigan time to donate and raise money so that the flag could stay here"
Seriously?  There have been countless fundraising campaigns over the years to support the DIA.  Did you donate then?  At the risk of sounding cliche, I will ask, given the economic troubles in Michigan at the moment, is raising $5 million to keep a single flag really at the top of everyone's priority list?

"I highly doubt that the soldier who gave his life protecting this flag had this in mind as he tucked it under his body."
Well, I guess we'll never know.  An art historian probably can't tell you much about the circumstances under which this flag was salvaged.

I know I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I mean, I worked at a historical museum for several years. I am not one to try and devalue historical objects. However, historical objects belong in historical museums, with experts than can interpret them correctly.

"Imagine if this flag ends up in Russia, China or the Middle East"
Wait... what?  Is this guy for real?

On other message boards and comment threads, people are all up in arms about the idea that there may be blood on the flag.  I've seen a lot of civil war flags (our historical museum had a hugely impressive collection of them) and many of them do have blood, dirt, grass stains, etc. from the battles-- so it is very possible that this flag does indeed have some blood on it.
 
So here's what people are saying about that:

"If this is Native American blood, wouldn't this fall under the various repatriation acts that require the flag to be returned to Native American tribes involved with the battle?"
Now, I don't claim to be a NAGPRA expert, but I know what the acronym stands for, so I feel that qualifies me enough to comment on this.  The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act exists to (rightfully) protect Native American graves, remains, and funerary and religious artifacts.  I don't believe that blood spattered on a flag qualifies as any of those things.

"If this is the blood of an American soldier, shouldn't it be returned to the family of the soldier who died possessing it?"
We don't know who that soldier was.  We only know who picked it up and put it in his pocket-- and that guy willingly donated it to Rose, who willingly sold it to the DIA for $50.  Why is nobody mad at Rose Fowler?  There was no DIA curator at the battle of Little Bighorn, going around and ripping flags out from under fallen soldiers. 

"If this was a flag used during a U.S. military operation, isn't it the property of the U.S. government?"
I can't say for certain that the flag was not, at one time, government property.  What I do know is that enough time has passed that the DIA does legally own the flag and can do with it what they please.

There are also many comments lamenting the sale as the DIA's "shameful" way to "make a buck".  I know I don't need to say this to any of my peers, but the money earned in the auction of the flag will not pay anyone's salary, nor will it keep the lights on in the galleries.  That money will be used exclusively for the purchase of great art-- art that will enrich the DIA's collection and serve the museum's mission of "creating experiences that help visitors find personal meaning in art".

The value of this flag comes from the story it can tell-- yet that story will not be heard and meaning will not be garnered if it remains in storage at the DIA.

2010.26

Yes, yes, I know. Some of my peers may be thinking, "Jess, you're an educator... why are you always ranting about accession numbers, relative humidity, exhibition planning and other things that are outside your chosen realm of museum work?"

Well the answer is that I simply enjoy museums as a whole. I see most functions of the museum as being interrelated. If the art is not cared for and understood, then how can I be expected to educate the public about it? What do I say when a kid asks me, "Why is it so cold in here?" or "What are those little numbers for?" or "Why can't we touch anything?" I think it's important to know about all aspects of the museum if I am to speak confidently as an educator and representative of the museum.

On that note; today I was working with some labels.

As a part of the 125th Anniversary Project, labels need to be fabricated to accompany the repro paintings that will be installed around Metro-Detroit. Thus, I was charged with making a draft of the text for these labels (which will later be approved by a curator).

We have selected 40 paintings to be reproduced, so Michelle and I went into the museum's database (The Museum System, or TMS-- which I must say, is a lot cooler than ARGUS, which is what I used at the history museum) and printed out the information on each of our 40 pieces. This document contains all of the information that one would find on a wall label, but it's in a much different format. So my job today was to reformat all of the information into labels that mimic those used in the actual DIA galleries.

This would have been fine, if I had any idea what format the DIA uses for their labels. I looked on our website and found nothing, so I had to sneak down into the galleries. The DIA is closed on Mondays and Tuesdays, so all of the lights were off, and the galleries were technically "closed", but I have a little ID badge that says "Staff" so just let them try and stop me!

I managed to snap a quick picture of the first label I saw. It was for this work of art:

I've come to really love this painting over the last two months. I don't recall ever seeing it before, but now I spend a few minutes looking at it every day as I wait for the elevator. I can see it from the third floor balcony and it has grown on me.

Anyway, I used this label as a template, eliminating the interpretive text below the tombstone information.

It's not a pretty picture, but it served the purpose of showing me how to format my labels. I thought I was being pretty clever.

So with my example established, I began rearranging the information about each of the 40 paintings. As I was going through the list, I was struck by a few entries that I found particularly interesting.

The first piece ever accessioned by the DIA (Detroit Museum of Art, at the time) was Reading the Story of Oenone, 1883

The accession number is 83.1... which means the museum bought the painting the same year it was made. What was so great about this painting that the DIA decided this is what will start their collection? And why not a great classic masterpiece? Why a contemporary (for the time) piece? I find this very interesting.

There were several others that the DIA bought shortly after their completion.

A Day in June was purchased in 1917, just four years after it was made. I can't help but think that perhaps the Detroit Museum of Art began as a rather progressive institution, willing to invest in controversial impressionist paintings and contemporary artists.

Every art history student I've spoken to hates this painting:

But it's a Detroit treasure. Visitors love it and it may very well be the most visited and most recognized painting in the museum. I think its only competition would be the Van Gogh self portrait. So I was a little surprised that it was only accessioned in 1954. That seems so recent! As a citizen that has patronized the DIA for many years, it is difficult to fathom that The Nut Gatherers has not always been at the DIA. I mean, there was a time in my parents' lifetime when they could not go see the Nut Gatherers. I mean... my dad would have been 2 years old when it was accessioned, but still!

In the early 90's, it seems like a there was a change in the collections policy. Granted, I am looking at an extremely small sample from the collections database, but around 1993, suddenly the credit lines (list of people who gave money to purchase-or donated--an artwork) grew from one or two lines to some that are a whopping 15 lines of text! Dozens and dozens of donors are suddenly being listed on labels.

I have a theory on this.

Perhaps, as the museum's collections policy became more refined, the DIA began to deaccession donated works and sell them (of course, putting the resulting funds into an account exclusively for the purchase of more art). As the account was used to pay for new art, ALL of the names of ALL of the people who contributed must then be present on the label.

Of the 40 works on this list, those with the longest credits were accessioned in 1977, 1993, 1995, and 2002.  To me, that points to a more recent change in the collections policy and some deaccessioning and redistribution of funds.

And speaking of  deaccessioning and redistribution of funds... have you heard about the drama with the Custer flag?

Mummies and Daddies

For Fathers Day this year, I took my dad to the Detroit Science Center to see The Accidental Mummies of Guanajuato.
Sure, he drove… and paid… but it was my idea, so I’m still saying that I “took” him there.

The Accidental Mummies of Guanajuato is a traveling exhibition by The Detroit Science Center and The Accidental Mummies Touring Company LLC, along with Manuel Hernandez/Firma Culturato. The exhibition will begin touring nationally after its initial stint in Detroit. It features 36 accidental mummies from the Museo de las Momias de Guanajuato. While there is an entire museum in Mexico that is dedicated to their care, this is the first time that any of the mummies have ever been seen outside of Mexico. The exhibition opened in Detroit in October of 2009 and will begin touring before the end of 2010 until 2012.

The Detroit Science Center is directly across the street from the Detroit Institute of Arts. Every day, as I am leaving work and driving up John R, I am taunted by the creepy yet exciting posters and flags that hang around the science center. I have wanted to see this exhibition since I came back to Detroit in May!

After all of that hype, I was not disappointed.

I love mummies. I have loved mummies for as long as I can remember. As I kid, I had giant (taller than me, at the time) cardboard books about Egyptian mummies, books about the bog mummies, sarcophagus pencil cases, mummy activity books, King Tut masks, huge inflatable mummies, and I even made a canopic jar in art class (I was a weird kid but my parents supported my interests). So when the Guanajuato mummies came to town, I was ready!

I was told not to take pictures inside the exhibition, so being the respectful museum professional that I am, I urge you to go to http://accidentalmummies.com/photo-gallery.php and see the exhibition photos.  They're better than what I would get with my camera anyway.

My dad has been to lots of museums with me and has seen the great and the not-so-great exhibitions, but we were both floored by the first gallery and found the rest of the exhibition equally as impressive and enjoyable.

I was impressed by several things:

1.) The respect with which the mummies were displayed.  It's a tough thing to display deceased human beings.  It even sounds weird as I'm typing it... "display".  But the Science Center did a nice job with it.  They weren't on rotating platforms or set up to look like they were playing poker with each other.  The displays were simple, informational, and still engrossing.

2.) The design of the exhibition.  The first room, made to look like the cemetery in which they were found, was simply fantastic.  Being the nerd that I am, I thought to myself, "I bet the exhibits department had a ball fabricating this!"  The second room was the more simple, respectful display, and the third was made to look like a research lab-- complete with CT scanner and video of research methods and forensic facial reconstruction.  That was my dad's favorite part. 

3.) The interpretive texts.  Each panel was in English and Spanish and they were all well written.  They provided information that was easy to understand, and served as a valuable reference while we were in the exhibition.  Dad and I even went back to a few text panels in previous galleries to double check our facts.  It is unusual for me read every text panel in an exhibition, but it's also unusual for every text panel to be informative and useful.

I was also less-than-impressed with some others:

1.) Inventive histories.  This was a tricky one for me, and I'm still trying to decide what I think.  While the text panels about how accidental mummification occurs, Mexican history, etc., were very well done, I had an issue with some of the "stories" inside the cases with the mummies.  Many of the stories seemed to be fabricated with the intent of tying these mummies in with some middle school social studies.  A lame attempt to comply with the GLCEs and HSCEs.  I saw right through it.  These stories said things like, "This is a mummy of a woman who died in 1850.  Women often played music for Spanish settlers around that time.  This woman many have played music for Spanish settlers."  Really?  I mean... really?  This poor woman may have been the most talented chef in town and lived her entire life without touching a musical instrument... but because she is a woman, and the Science Center is desperate to hit those Social Studies GLCEs, suddenly she played guitar for Spanish settlers.  That irked me a little bit.

2.) Dumb parents.  This is not the Science Center's fault, but when Dad and I were reaching the end of the exhibition, I suddenly heard a blood curdling scream from the entrance.  It was clearly a terrified child, discovering a mummy.  These accidental mummies became mummified because the cement of the mausoleum wicked the moisture out of their bodies.  When bodies dry out like this, the mouth often opens.  Thus, almost every mummy looked like it was screaming.  To a kid, that could be pretty intense.  I've already touched on my lifelong affection for mummies... but I'm not sure how I would have reacted to a "screaming" mummy when I was young.  It's tough to say.  I mean, I really liked mummies.  Anyway, perhaps the visitor services rep should have advised this parent that this exhibition is not for children, but I think it's really the parent's decision-- and this parent made the wrong one.

However, those two minor issues did not noticeably detract from my overall enjoyment of the exhibition.

When I was taking my first undergrad course in museum studies (Introduction to Museum Work), my advisor (and professor), Lynn Fauver told us, "Taking this course will ruin any museum visit you have from now on."  He seemed to think that knowing about museums would suck the enjoyment out of the visit.  I have now come to disagree.  I really liked Lynn.  He was a great and fair advisor, an enthralling lecturer and he was incredibly knowledgeable about the museum field.  But in this respect, I think he's full of it.

The more I learn about museum work, the more I am able to enjoy a museum visit on multiple levels.  I am excited to see the exhibition itself, but I am also excited to see how it was produced and what choices the museum staff made.  It's gotten to the point where I just want to know everything I can about how and why museums do what they do.  I am able to walk into an exhibition like The Accidental Mummies of Guanajuato and be awestruck by the mummies-- imagining their stories, thinking about the science of mummification, looking at their clothing, etc.-- while also checking the temperature and RH inside the cases, looking at the mounting hardware, lighting, layout, interpretive texts, and so on. 

I am honestly and truly interested in all aspects of an exhibition like that.  I may be alone on this, but knowing there is 44% RH inside of the mummy's case does not ruin the magic for me.  (Sidebar: Some mummies were displayed laying on their backs, while others were mounted upright.  Those laying down had 23-26 RH in the case, while the upright ones had 44-46 RH in their cases.  My theory is that those who were laying down were so fragile that not only could they not be mounted in an upright position, but that they also needed drier conditions.  Thoughts?)

So, if you like sausage and you respect the law, you shouldn't watch either one being made.  Instead, spend your day at a museum.  You'll like that better, I promise.

Mummies aren’t real and neither is Santa Claus!

Today was Art ‘n Action Camp for 5 – 8 year olds. Actually, camp goes all week long, but today was the first chance I had to sit in and watch. Tomorrow, I hope to observe the older kids (9 – 12) at Camp Art Exploration.

For as loud and ridiculous as this morning was, it turned out to be a lot of fun! I really like the methods that Miss LaVern and Miss Liz use to run their classroom. And it does run very much like a classroom. There is a certain amount of discipline necessary in a room with 11 5-8 year olds, but I think the idea is to keep the atmosphere fun and light, at which Liz and LaVern are highly skilled. I did have to laugh at one point, when a little boy wouldn’t stop rocking his stool back and forth (risking a head injury) Miss LaVern simply confiscated his stool and let him stand for the next few minutes. It seemed a little stern for “art camp” but I understand that if the instructors aren’t able to project some aura of authority, then chaos will ensue.

I came to camp a little late, so as I was arriving, the group was finishing up one project and getting ready to take a museum tour.

Back when I worked at the historical museum, I spent much of my usual day giving 4th graders an “orientation” (or snorientation… borientation… as we would sometimes call them) to the museum. The orientation included a recitation of the rules of the museum—though we weren’t supposed to call them “rules” so much as “guidelines”. Anyway, sometimes kids would listen intently… and other times I was practically peeling them off the walls while I ran through my 2 minute speech. It was not the most effective way to communicate museum behavior to the kids, but it was the most efficient. And on days when groups were coming in every 15 minutes… efficiency is next to godliness. I think I can still recite it in my sleep.

But I liked the way Miss Liz prepared the campers for their gallery visit. While they were seated at their tables, she said that we would be going into the museum and asked, “What are some things you think might be important in the museum?” Immediately, the kids came up with “Don’t run and scream!”, “Stay with the group”, and “Don’t touch anything”. For the record, these were the three things that I spent 2 minutes explaining every day at the historical museum. These exact 3 things. But the kids came up with them right off the bat. It was great. And because they came up with them on their own and Liz wrote them on the board, they seemed to remember them pretty well. I should have timed how long it took the campers to come up with those rules. I bet it was less than 2 minutes.

While I observed this, I took a moment of silence to reflect on all of the snorientations happening at the historical museum today. I still have good friends working there, and I know they appreciate a well presented orientation.

Speaking of the historical museum; I can remember some of the most frequently asked questions I heard over my 2.5 year tenure there…

1.) Where’s the bathroom?
2.) How do I pay for parking?
3.) Do you have dinosaurs?

Well, #3 reared its ugly head again today! After the list of rules, the next comment was, “Are we going to see dinosaurs??” To which Liz said, “There aren’t any dinosaurs… but we have mummies… and mummies are… umm… old… like dinosaurs… kind of.” Nice recovery Miss Liz.

So of course, our second stop (after petting Artie) was the Egyptian exhibition. I heard a kid yell “Mummies aren’t real and neither is Santa Claus!” before he stopped dead in front of the case with the mummy. “Is there a person in there??”, he asked me. I pointed to the accompanying X-ray, which clearly shows the skeleton within the wrappings, and he was awestruck. I managed to impress an 8 year old, and I felt SO cool. Though I’m not sure there was much I could do about his opinion of St. Nick.

When we got back to the studio, I was then able to observe the kids do a project from start to finish. It was really interesting and I liked the way LaVern presented the project.

The kids would be making family photo albums. But the books were really cool—they were made of all kinds of paper and cut into crazy shapes and stuff. LaVern showed the kids a few examples of books that others had made, including some by herself and Liz. After which she said, “You don’t have to do what Miss Liz and I do. You probably have other ideas, but we are here to help you.”

Miss LaVern

I had mentioned before that these workshops provide structure with room for creativity, and I think LaVern’s comment really exemplified the teaching philosophy of the DIA art studio. By the time camp was over for the day, photo albums were taking the shapes of sharks, stars, and rocket ships of all colors, sizes and arrangements. Yet they were all still photo albums. Perfect.

Making memory boxes

For this age range, attention span is always an issue. To combat this, each segment of camp is only about 15 or 20 minutes. A 15 minute museum tour, followed by a 20 minute snack time / run around the lawn, then 20 minutes to finish yesterday’s project and another 15 or 20 to get started on the photo albums, and so on. It keeps the kids from getting burnt out on any one project, and also—kids work fast. They don’t usually take much time to sit and consider their project. If you put paper and scissors in their hands, they are cutting immediately. 20 minutes is often all they need to complete a project.

Havin' a great time at art camp

(Photos can also be found at diaartstudio.wordpress.com)

Camp Art ‘n Action is just another example of all the things the DIA is doing right. The kids were having a great time, they were being creative and making some really neat stuff. How much more can you ask for from a 3 hour art camp? I used to do art classes after school at a community center (every Wednesday, I believe) for several years and I remember loving it. But there is such a benefit to doing these kinds of classes IN the museum! It adds another dimension of enjoyment and education to the class.

Well, that and the kids get to be messy and look at mummies. I call that a win.

Ranked

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…

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.