posted 06-22-2014 02:55 PM            

For years I have watched great collections get broken up because museums/institutions are unable to accept the collection as a donation because the institution is unable to accept the donation without it being accompanied by large cash $ donation to maintain the collection.

The loose idea is to have an institution identify a collection they would want to accept as a donation. And then to have the institution explain what sort of long term $ funding they would require to accept the donation.

And now for the idea.

Use Internet public fund raising (like Kickstarter but for non-profits) to see if the collection and institution can raise the money to successfully place, protect, preserve and publicly share the collection.

Well that is the loose idea.

posted 06-23-2014 09:24 AM            

Crowdsourcing, including things like Kickstarter, is a great idea for independent fundraising ideas. But you need to understand that in most museums all of the fundraising is managed by a small staff and that every single effort takes time. My museum raises millions each year just to keep the lights on; the luxury of crowdsourcing is just beyond our current staff's reach. They don't have the time to manage lots of simultaneous fundraising ventures.

Here's the key statistic that has been calculated in the museum industry: every single object that enters a museum, whether by gift or by purchase, costs the museum $1000 in the first year, in terms of staff time, prorated utility and storage space costs. This includes curatorial time, administrative time, and all other related expenses. Bottom line: no gift is without cost.

All museums have issues of storage space today, and "collections" often are most valuable in terms of their research potential, rather than their exhibition potential. More and more museums are rejecting collections that do not have "wow" appeal to potential audiences. Scholarly potential (archives, study collections) has no marketability to audience.

If anyone were to offer me a collection of say 1000 silver spoons (which in fact was just offered to me) I would say no without any hesitation. 1000 anything, pretty much, unless it was 1000 pieces of Faberge or Tiffany jewelry (and then, really??? everything is boring in too much quantity).

posted 06-23-2014 02:03 PM            

....All museums have issues of storage space today, and "collections" often are most valuable in terms of their research potential, rather than their exhibition potential. More and more museums are rejecting collections that do not have "wow" appeal to potential audiences. Scholarly potential (archives, study collections) has no marketability to audience. .....

I would think the "wow" appeal is very important for attracting the casual social media crowd. And it is a way for an institution who is able to be ‘trending’ to get a financial bump. But today's "wow" is tomorrow's "'Ho-hum' Been there, Done that". I would think long term $ supporters and patronage would be the long term institutional goal. Education is a continuum that is often easier to support than just a fleeting "wow".

I feel one of the best implementations is the Henry R. Luce Study Centers appearing in more and more museums/institutions. The concept of 'visual storage' combined with the electronic info terminal is fantastic. I learned things I never knew I wanted to learn. Knowledge is kind of addictive, I keep going back.

posted 06-23-2014 05:37 PM            

Similarly publication of that accumulated knowledge once was free in journals that now require payment. ita scientia decedit

Addendum:

And what of the docents and other volunteers that could perform some of those tasks?

posted 06-24-2014 02:04 PM            

quote:

---

Our audience (every museum's audience) is 99% NOT scholars

---

That is a sad comment on society today. Ideally, museums should be able to inspire scholarship and thus create scholars, rather than simply entertain the masses. Great museums did that for me and others I know. Sadly, the trend seems now to be in the other direction at some (many?) institutions.

posted 06-24-2014 03:28 PM            

But no museum's goal as ever been to make "scholars." Don't kid yourself. Museums have always been there for scholars, but those people have always been a small part of the museum audience. Our goal is to take people who are curious and intelligent and enrich their lives, expand their minds.
"Entertainment" is not what I meant at all, but for curious and intelligent people, learning is entertaining. There's no reason that entertaining someone is not also educating them.

posted 06-24-2014 03:42 PM            

How do we fund museums adequately so that they can do their job to the best of their ability? That's the real question here.

Boy, did we wander off topic!

I've been a curator for 34 years, and a museum director for eight months last year (no, thank you!).