If there’s ever a time we need museums it’s now. They provide solace, relaxation, fun, conversation, discussion and inspiration. They take us out of the everyday; give us a break from reality. Yet these experiences will be a thing of the past when museums reopen post-COVID-19, at least in the short-term. While the majority of museums globally are still under lockdown, we can look to Europe and Asia to get a glimpse of what to expect as they prepare to re-open retail businesses and museums later this month (May). A handful of museum leaders within the US have also shared insight giving hints into what we can expect upon reopening.
Unfortunately it doesn’t look pretty, in fact it looks brutal—impersonal, restrictive. Not conducive to a fun, engaging or connected experience. Masks will be a given, there’ll be plexiglass barriers between museum staff and visitors, markings on the floor and signs with directions to enforce social distancing and the flow of visitor traffic. In Asian museums temperature checks will be standard.
Museums Opening Soon…
In Belgium, museums have the green light to open on May 19. The Royal Museums of Fine Arts, a collection of six museums in Brussels shared its guidelines:
Museums in Germany are able to open now so long as government guidelines for social distancing are followed. Most are making plans to reopen shortly, some have already including a group of museums in the state of Brandenburg. The Brandenburg’s Museum Association published its guidelines:
In Beijing, China restrictions are more rigorous. Philip Tinari, director and CEO of the UCCA Center for Contemporary Art shared UCCA’s shared planned guidelines for the museum reopening on May 21 in a podcast on the Art Newspaper. They included mandatory masks, strict social distancing, temperature checks for visitors, and scanning of an app that provides details of a person’s travel history.
In the United States restrictions will look similar to those of European museums. An article published in the Wall Street Journal on May 2 shared insight based on interviews from museum leaders. Highlights:
The (Brutal) Museum Experience
Based on the insights shared here, the museum experience doesn’t look at all welcoming, in fact it looks pretty grim. Here’s how I see it:
As a museum-lover, I’ve missed frequenting museums since the lockdown. I miss the escapism, the feeling of being removed from the real world. I miss the connection. I'll be reluctant to visit museums once they reopen if the experience is anything like the current shopping experience for essentials. I struggle with the face masks, barriers and signs for social distancing—it’s disconcerting. Let’s hope when museums reopen they can overcome the social disconnectedness these barriers create and deliver an experience where people feel welcome, engaged and connected. Time will tell. I hope it will be sooner rather than later.
The idea of what a museum IS, is changing. Recent openings (and popularity) of museums such as Museum of Ice Cream in New York City and San Francisco, and the Egg House, an egg-themed pop-up museum in New York City among others push the boundaries of our concept of what a ‘museum’ is. But what’s challenging the status quo even more than ice cream museums are controversies facing museums like donation sources and board members corporate affiliations. Most recently we have the Sackler Family controversy; the family who have donated millions to museums worldwide, yet the funding is now viewed as tainted given the family’s wealth stems from Purdue Pharma, the company charged with exacerbating the opioid crisis. Museums have been scrambling—strategizing how to respond. Though protests over museum funding sources is not new, it’s front and center now with social media and public sharing platforms.
The changing face of museums and the public’s responses to high profile issues has put forth challenging questions for the museum community—what is a museum? What place do they have in our culture? What are the roles and rights of visitors?
A Proposed ‘New’ Definition for Museums
These weighty issues no doubt contributed to the International Council of Museums (ICOMs) decision to create a new definition for its members this year. The ICOM is a global membership association that represents 40,000 members from 141 countries. Its overall aim is to establish professional and ethical standards for museums; its website states that it’s the “voice of museum professionals an international stage”.
Yet there was lots of drama when the ICOM put forth its new definition that differs drastically from its existing one which was modified in 2007. More so since the ICOM (initially) didn’t solicit feedback from members. And though a new definition is needed—agreed by the majority of ICOM members, the new one is deemed “too political”, “too idealogical”, reaching beyond the scope of museums’ purpose (Noce, 2019). It reads:
“Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.
Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.”
It’s long, full of grandiose language. It’s also too rigid, it doesn’t give enough flexibility for small museums to work with.
The Visitor is Left in the Dust
But seriously folks, the ICOM’s existing definition needs to change—it’s outdated, it’s inwardly focused, it’s institution-centric. The visitor is left in the dust. It barely acknowledges the public. It’s all about them (the museums). This is not going to fly in today’s experience culture, where people want be part of of something.
ICOM’s Existing Definition:
“A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.”
See what I mean? Note the emphasis on the actions of the museum—acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits. Where is the visitor in all of this? How is the visitor involved, or invited to participate and/or contribute? Granted it says ‘service to society’ but what does that mean? The visiting public is viewed as passive. Even the new definition is not much better in acknowledging, let alone involving visitors.This needs to change, big time.
There’s a similar museum membership organization based in the United States, the American Alliance of Museums (AAM). It aims to champion museums and nurture excellence in partnership with our members and allies with a network of members and resources. I was curious how AAM defined museums. But I couldn’t find one on their site other than the section ‘core standards for museums’.
I reached out to AAM asking what its stance was on a museum definition. Their emailed response was a prepared statement as follows:
“The International Council of Museums' (ICOM) proposed new definition of a museum includes many of the American Alliance of Museums' (AAM) long-held values, including commitments to serving diverse audiences and functioning as inclusive spaces. Definitions can create common understanding and clarity, and this proposed definition is undoubtedly inspiring in many ways. However, definitions can also be used to divide and exclude which is why AAM does not strictly define a museum. Our society and communities are constantly changing, and with that museums need to be nimble and agile to best serve their communities. Setting limitations on the core identity of what a museum can and can't be interferes with that flexibility. We are proud and grateful to have a membership base and global Alliance that is incredibly diverse and know that their diversity makes it impossible to create a single definition that covers all of their needs and identities”
It’s certainly a safe statement. They might be lucky and pick up some disgruntled ICOM members. But it really mirrors the AAM’s decision not to have a definition in the first place. It’s risk averse. Perhaps it’s the best way to move forward; let each individual museum decide.
Not surprising ICOM’s proposed definition was not approved with 70% of members voting against it at the September 2019 conference. Back to the drawing board.
But I suggest there needs to be change that goes beyond a new definition for ICOM; what’s really needed is a new mindset and approach within the museum community—a different view on their collections, purpose and visitors. I like how museum scholar Stephen Weil described it in a paper in 1999, ‘it’s time to shift away from being about something towards being about somebody’. Twenty years later—it’s time.
You may have heard about the painting that sold for $400 million ($450 million with fees) last November; the largest sum ever paid for a single artwork at a public auction. Astounding. The sale was for the 'Salvator Mundi', believed to be a long-lost painting by Leonardo da Vinci. The auction lasted for nineteen minutes. Some say it was like an intense theatre performance, with gasps, thunderous applause and cheers when the final gavel announced…’sold [to the anonymous bidder on the telephone] for $400 million’.
The 'Salvator Mundi' sale shattered the previous record of $179.4 million for a Picasso in 2015; it created tsunami-type waves in the elite art community. But for regular people, an art enthusiast and museum-goer like me, it seemed inconsequential, far removed from my world. But when listening to a podcast with Ben Lewis, art critic and historian discussing his book The Last Leonardo: The Secret Lives of the Word’s Most Expensive Painting, and after reading his book, I changed my mind.
The painting’s story, as told in The Last Leonardo from its humble discovery in 2008, to clandestine meetings, two restorations, to an exhibition at London’s National Gallery, to a smashing sale, reveals much about art and museums. I see the story as a catalyst for us to think more about arts value and role in society, and about what cultural institutions say, promote and stand for. There’s a need for us to be more objective, to ask more questions, consider and discuss what institutions are telling us about their collections and exhibitions. The trust we have in cultural institutions is high, yet we need to consider how they influence and shape our perceptions about art, historical events, people and ideas. Below I share three ideas about what we can learn from the sale of the most expensive painting in the world.
A Brief Background
In The Last Leonardo, Lewis writes of the 'Salvator Mundi'’s tumultuous journey from it’s discovery by two unassuming art dealers who found it (in disastrous condition) in an online auction catalogue and bought it for $1,175. Lewis then takes us back in time, untangling the painting’s complicated ownership history. That’s the crux of story—is the 'Salvator Mundi' a Leonardo or not? It’s complicated ownership has made it difficult to determine conclusively whether it was by Leonardo, or by one or more of his workshop assistants. Lewis also writes of the lack of consensus among Leonardo experts. Yet, despite the inconclusive accreditation, Christie’s promoted it as a Leonardo, and the “greatest artistic rediscovery of the 20th century” (Rodriguez, 2017).
London’s National Gallery Involvement is Key to the Story
A critical part of the story is the role London's National Gallery played. In 2008 curator Luke Syson invited five leading Leonardo scholars to view and discuss the 'Salvator Mundi' off-the-record. At this point the painting had already undergone the first of its two restorations. Nothing was formally recorded of the meeting or shared publicly, but three years after the meeting the National Gallery issued a press release stating that experts had met and verified that the 'Salvator Mundi' was indeed by Leonardo. Yet Lewis’s research determined that “The final score from the National Gallery meeting seems to have been two Yeses, one No, and two No Comments”. One of the experts at the meeting, Dr. Carmen Bamabach was quoted in National Gallery’s exhibition catalogue that she was among the scholars who had attributed the work to Leonardo; however after its publication Bamabachpu stated publicly that she had never endorsed the painting, nor was formally asked to (Alberge, 2019).
After the press release, the National Gallery launched a Leonardo exhibit in 2011- 2012 featuring the 'Salvator Mundi' as unequivocally a signature work of Leonardo. This exhibition turned out to be instrumental in its two sales that followed. The first to Dmitry Rybolovelev, who bought the painting via an art dealer who said, “if it hadn’t been in that exhibition it would have been impossible to sell the painting” (Lewis, p 169). And the second at Christie’s, which would not have ever transpired had it not been in the National Gallery’s exhibition.
Three Takeaways from the Marketing & Sale of the Most Expensive Painting in the World
1) We’re Targets of Marketing
Christie’s launched an uncharacteristic splashy, sexy, “multi-pronged [marketing] campaign” to sell the Salvator Mundi. It seemed similar to what a car company might do for a new car model launch. The auction house spared no expense for what they labeled “the Last da Vinci” including an international multi-city tour, a slick show for the press preview, a polished youtube video and more.
Christie’s strategy is a reminder that culture and the arts are not insulated from sales and marketing. It means that we are part of an institutional marketing system—we are the target customers, the ones being influenced, persuaded. Museums, cultural sites, zoos, parks, music, dance and theatre venues, are all marketers vying for our time and money. They need our attendance, our participation, our resources.
But this doesn’t mean these institutions are bad, evil or underhanded—marketing and promotion are necessary strategies for any public-serving organization. They need to communicate what they offer, describe how they can meet a need of their target audience. Branding, another aspect of marketing is also critical to cultural institutions; they need to project an image that represents their values in order to attract visitors, potential members, donors, employees, even scholars. To that end, institutions carefully craft what they communicate to the public in press releases, on websites and social media, in newsletters, catalogues, also within the museum—museum labels, signs, and other media used to describe objects and exhibitions.
As part of a system then, we as customers on the receiving end need to be aware of what’s going on—that cultural institutions use strategies just like any other business or organization to influence, persuade. Sometimes there is bias, or there’s a narrow, one-sided perspective. Sometimes there is missing information that is key to a deeper appreciation or understanding. This suggests we need to be aware, ask questions, consider multiple points of view, and consider information that might be left out, intentionally or not. We need to question or challenge institutions about what they present and messages they convey—more so if it’s controversial, appears biased, or seems wrong. We are part of the conversation; we’re not passive recipients who trust blindly.
2) We need to Demand More Transparency From Cultural Institutions
In keeping with our marketing discussion we could argue that the 'Salvator Mundi' featured in the National Gallery’s Leonardo Exhibition in 2011-2012 was a marketing tool for the museum and perhaps unintentionally for Christie’s. The National Gallery had a blockbuster show—tickets were sold out (the museum extended their hours to 10 pm to accommodate the demand) and they likely made a considerable sum in Leonardo-themed merchandise sales.
Did London National Gallery Abuse our Trust?
What’s critical is to consider how the 'Salvator Mundi' was presented to the public. The public’s trust in museums is higher than for newspapers or government agencies (see chart below), yet the National Gallery despite the painting’s questionable attribution and several red flags about the paintings origins, presented the painting as an authentic Leonardo. The museum didn’t give any of the backstory, the possibility that its authenticity was in question. They didn’t give visitors an opportunity to engage in discussion or dialogue that the art community was having. It short-changed the visitor—they abused the inherent trust museums-visitors have in cultural institutions. They also missed an opportunity for deeper engagement, for discussion and visitor involvement. This is what museums should do, encourage dialogue, thought and consideration.
I suggest there needs to be more transparency in our cultural places. There are other examples of museums withholding information from visitors, like the Elgin Marbles saga at the British Museum, others who have (or had) items in their collection that may be stolen goods or obtained from questionable sources, or still others that present one-sided viewpoints about historical events and fail to include visitors in the discussion. Progress has being made, but there’s a way to go. We need to demand more from our cultural institutions.
3) Market Value of an Artwork Doesn’t Equate with Enjoyment and Meaning
If a painting sells for $400 million does that make it ‘better’ than a painting that sells for $1 million? What about a work by an unknown artist versus a Picasso? It’s an interesting question especially when a work or works by an artist are shown in a museum and highlighted as a masterpiece(s). The Louvre Abu Dubai museum for instance had planned a show around the Salvator Mundi (but it was cancelled). These types of exhibits send a message about value—that a work that is purchased for a hefty sum, or a work is by an artist who’s work commands high values in auctions, or even an artist that a celebrity likes for instance, is inherently better. Which is why we need to separate art from external factors—make it about our own experience—to view and appreciate art from the perspective of how it makes us feel and think.
I was reminded of this on a visit to the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York city two years ago. I was in the gallery showing works of artists of the 20th century. There were works by Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso in the same room; there were text labels describing the paintings by Picasso—quite in-depth descriptions, yet there were no descriptions on labels of Braque’s work, except for the work’s title and date. I thought it strange; it sent a message--that Picasso’s works were more worthy than Braque’s.
As readers already know, art has value not measured in dollars—how an artwork affects individuals is unique, personal. That makes it a challenge for museums to walk the line between highlighting artists who’s work is highly valued on the market versus those who are not—this is more applicable to large art museums who have access to more robust collections. Yet the majority of museums, do do an excellent job of featuring artists who are not as well-known, who highlight work that is unique and interesting—which is what cultural institutions need to do more of, to help people see that art is about how it makes you feel—to experience and consider an idea or message in the work.
I’m grateful for Ben Lewis for the work he did on this story, for his comprehensive book The Last Leonardo. It reads like an art thriller, but more importantly he pulled a curtain back to reveal behind-the-scenes events that go on in museums and the art world. It’s also a reminder of our role in the story, how we need to challenge, question and think what institutions of all types present to us, and how we need to enjoy art on our terms.
References/More to Explore
A blog sharing experiences and ideas to make museums more welcoming, relevant, engaging and real!