Wednesday, 24 June 2015
Sunday, 21 June 2015
"Radial" to "Gyroscopic" Museum Model?
Museums have evolved employing new methods to what Wayne LaBar identifies as “four pillars”[1] of engagement which continue to dominate the sector. Objects, their display, relative interpretive information and visitor hosts/guides, he suggests, “are being used in the same way as the original forms”[2] in what he terms a “Radial Museum”[3] or museums that may utilise contemporary technology but continue to control the unidirectional creation, presentation and ownership of information which is generated in and often limited to a particular physical location – the museum. The “Gyroscopic Model”[4], according to LaBar, uses two technological innovations – the internet and mobile telephones to facilitate “communication and personal creation”[5] providing opportunities for museum visitors to easily and quickly respond and contribute to what becomes an exchange of information and content with the museum, and even more importantly LaBar contends, with each other. Mobile devices allow this exchange to happen at any time and in any place providing innumerable new ways for a museum’s mission “to impact people while on their way to work, in school, at the park or in countless other places.”[6] The ability to engage at any time, in any place, with potentially anyone connected is what characterises LaBar’s “Gyroscopic Model”. Opposed to technology’s influence on the “four pillars” of traditional museum practice applied to the methods associated with the display and interpretation of objects, the “Gyroscopic Museum”[7] provides a framework in which the mobility of internet capable devices can impact relationships between people and museums before, during or/and after a museum visit or regardless of whether they ever visit the museum’s physical location.
[1] LaBar,
Wayne. “The Gyroscopic Museum: Liberty Science Center” In Creativity and Technology: Social Media, Mobiles and Museums.
Edited by James E Katz, Wayne LaBar and Ellen Lynch. Museums Etc Ltd,
Edinburgh, 2011:P383.
Thursday, 11 June 2015
Monday, 1 June 2015
The Value of Not Knowing (presented at Museums Aotearoa Conference 2015)
Why are the aspirations of institutions (such
as public museums) and artists often disparate?
The process of making art is fraught with
doubt and uncertainty which is at the very heart of what drives practice-based
research. Intentionally steering oneself from “knowing” to “Not knowing”, Anne
Hamilton states “is a permissive and rigorous willingness to trust, leaving
knowing in suspension, trusting in possibility without result, regarding as
possible all manner of response”[1]
The practice of not knowing, waiting and finding can be perceived Hamilton
purports with suspicion as an “in-between” experience that is not easily
measured or categorised as useful or productive. The truth however, conveyed
she says, in Plato’s Dialogues is possessed neither on one side or another but
is present “in-between”. It is “in-between”, in dialogue or reciprocal exchange
that Hamilton sees part of the answer to the question what is art for. Change
according to Hamilton is achieved through the culmination of an infinite number
of small acts, it is the role of artists, therefore, she says to be at the
threshold, to unsettle, to experiment, to give material form presence in a
social context. Honouring a life of making she says “isn’t a series of shows,
or projects, or productions, or things; it is an everyday practice”[2]
The decision to suspend knowing is freedom to explore, to test, to analyse and
to discover. Actively performing questioning through practice embraces failure
as a vehicle to progress the potential for innovation through working in
uncharted territory. Putting things together that you never imagined could go
together – testing ideas that compel a particular way of working with materials,
processes, communities, spaces and places is the basis of works of art that can
truly challenge, interrogate, expose or delight.
“Doing things differently” said writer, art
critic, museum director and curator, Marcia Tucker, “involves a high degree of
discomfort, which is why most of us prefer not to.”[3]
Tucker agrees that change is a surety but argues that it is a natural reaction
to behave defensively and to even actively resist change which can, she says,
consume considerable energy. Becoming an
expert she explains could be regarded as a way to resist change as one is prone
to develop as a result of ones successes rather than from ones failures. An
expert, she asserts “is someone involved with what they already know”[4]
whereas art practitioners, she says have taught her that concentrating on
process without a defined outcome and “confusion, disorder, mistakes and
failures – all the things that we encounter when we try something new – are
essential to the creative process”[5]
Embracing the notion of the amateur, having multiple personalities Tucker seems
to suggest recognises that we are constantly adapting to our circumstances,
that despite the shock that can be the impetus for change, overcoming fear of
the unknown is preferable to the repetitive assertion of what we already know.
Barbara Bolt
references Heidegger and the notion of “handlability” to describe and reinforce
an orientation towards a “way of being” and working in the world that generates
the potential for seizing possibilities. It is only through the process of
contemplation that follows according to Heideggar that we can begin to
theoretically “know” the world. Don Ihde further supports Bolt’s contention
that an artwork is not “the representation of an already formed idea”[6]
but evidence of an emerging process involving “…materials, methods, tools and
ideas of practice”.[7]
Letting go is positioned as central to Heidegger’s notion of “handlability” for example Francis Bacon’s desire to
intentionally break-away from premeditation by random acts such as “throwing
paint” illustrates Bolt’s assertion of the centrality of the “emerging”,
accidental or unplanned in art practice. In opposition to a premeditated
hypothesis, ‘letting go’, is employed to avoid the kind of planning that leads
to an expected outcome. Such acts are employed to push one out of the comfort
of routine into unfamiliar territory and it is in this ‘new territory’ that the
potential of ‘new knowledge’ emerges. Bolt takes this a step further in referring
to Deleuze’s claim that it is in a “state of catastrophe” that we have the
potential to discover another world in which it is possible to abandon sight or
the intellectual responses that fail to “attend to the rhythms that constitute
the creative process”. It is in the resultant “shocks” or “catastrophes”
according to Bolt that a rhythm emerges that constitutes ‘the new’.
Carter asserts that the value of invention in
creative research “…is located neither after nor before the process of making
but in the performance itself”.[8]
This may be due he says to the catalytic nature of the social relations or
“back-and-forth discourse” that stimulates the testing of ideas and materials
both of which remain in a “state of becoming”. A key concern for Carter is to
reverse what he describes as the “drift” separating knowledge generation from
the “processes that produce it”. This reintegration he suggests requires a
reconsideration of what matters. In the discourses often associated with
institutional activity, inventiveness he says is intentionally removed from
language as if “…truth were the elimination of interest”. A commitment to not
knowing but embracing the discovery inherent in the act or performance of
making should not be viewed as an activity which is disorganised or devoid of
discipline. Artists are questioners of the status quo, every stage of a
practitioners research often frustratingly involves critical reflection &
reflexivity or continually asking why – developing strategies to question
assumptions or habitual actions and working to try and understand the factors which
shape them. Imagine what could be possible for example if the potentiality of
the public museum model could be explored from a perspective of not knowing. We
are all amateurs in imagining where and what our museums might be and do in the
next fifty years particularly considering many museums did not exist or were in
the early stages of development fifty years ago. What if all the options were
on the table? Are decisions on your local museum’s future made via a process
that involves inclusive conversation - exploring all the possible forms and
practices that your museum could take and establish to best serve you and your
community now and in the future? If not, why not? Are all museum staff valued
equally and provided with the tools they need to progress professionally and
personally – is professional development and research time available to staff
members , can all team members contribute ideas and participate in
conversations? Is there any space and time made for risk taking and innovation
e.g. how is change managed in your organisation, who participates in decision
making about the future of your museum? How are hierarchies performed in your
organisation and what purpose do they serve – are they useful?
Most importantly what makes your museum a
public institution – how well does your museum serve its unique community, how
do you know?
[1] Hamilton, Anne. “Making Not Knowing” In In Learning Mind: Experience into Art. Edited by Mary Jane Jacob &
Jacqueline Baas. School of the Art Institute of Chicago, University of
California Press, Berkeley, LA & London,2009: P68.
[3] Tucker, Marcia. “Multiple Personalities” In Learning Mind: Experience into Art. Edited by Mary Jane Jacob &
Jacqueline Baas. School of the Art Institute of Chicago, University of
California Press, Berkeley, LA & London,2009: P35.
[6]
Ihde, Don. As cited by Bolt, Barabara. “The Exegesis and the Shock of the New”
TEXT Special Issue, No 3 April,2004. Julie Fletcher & Allan Mann (Eds).
http://www.griffith.edu/school/art/text/
[7]
Ibid.
[8] Carter,
Paul. “Interest: The Ethics of Invention” In Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry. Estelle
Barrett and Barbara Bolt (Eds). I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, London & New
York, 2007.
Sunday, 31 May 2015
Invercargill City Council LTP Submission Presentation
I believe that the Invercargill City Council
currently has the opportunity to lead a new approach to arts and culture in the
city. On very rare occasions the stars align and reveal the potential of a
previously unconsidered direction. In such exceptional circumstances I propose
that further consideration be given to advancing conversations with the
Southland Museum and Art Gallery, Anderson’s Park and City Gallery to progress
a proposal for a purpose-built, multi-disciplinary, arts and cultural facility
in the vicinity of Wachner Place & Esk St. Given the Southland Museum &
Art Gallery status as a Council Controlled Organization I believe it is
essential for Council to adopt a proactive stance in facilitating an inclusive
and rigorous explorative process that works alongside the big picture issues
impacting Invercargill to determine that measurable value can be determined and
communicated effectively to stakeholders. The city’s public cultural
institutions are as important as the city’s swimming pool, stadium and library
and should receive the same level of council engagement to ensure their
productive development. I propose that the way forward is the implementation of
a visioning process to ascertain what a new museum in the city could be and do.
This vision would form a map of sorts which ensures that the purpose of a
museum is a central driving force in its design.
To provide an example of why a museum
redevelopment should be driven by its purpose, I will talk a little about
museum collections. The protection and preservation of collections is related
to a museum’s core value system. However without a clear strategy, collections
can becoming a drain on a museums resources while providing little evident
value to members of a community. Collections can occupy a significant
proportion of museum buildings and are costly to maintain. Have you ever asked
yourself when collecting ends – history is being made every day so what is
significant and worthy of preservation and what is not? Think about the
potential growth of collections over the next 50 years if there was
indiscriminate and ongoing collecting. In the 2012 year museums in New Zealand
acquired almost 100,000 new collection items, 96% of which were donated or
gifted however well over half of museums have not had their collections valued
as heritage assets.[1]
Much of a museum’s collection is never seen,
typically around 20% or less is accessible to the public via exhibition and
even less online at around 10%. [2]
The reality is that our museums in New Zealand as we know them today are
relatively new. Many museums have transitioned through periods of
indiscriminate collecting and as a consequence have a backlog of cataloging and
may have items which are inadequately documented or not documented at all.
Given the recourses and physical space required to house collections, it should
be clear to communities why and how a museum collects. Without a detailed
analysis of a museum’s collection and a strategic and focused future direction,
any building development can only assume what future space might be required to
accommodate a collection.
Museum practices are changing, the
expectations of publics are changing and the world has been opened up to allow
for greater potential in remote visitation. At this point in time there is an
opportunity to reimagine what a city museum could be and do. I have found some
examples that I believe may be useful in the respect that they are cultural
facilities located in areas with population bases similar to that of
Invercargill. So why does population base matter? Well because the reality is
that any public facility needs to take into account what their relative
communities can afford to expend in terms capital redevelopment as well as and
most importantly on the ongoing operation of their facilities. Amalgamation of
purpose, for example, can provide a consolidation of resources, skills,
volunteer energy, and visitation but should also accentuate the unique
attributes and needs of the community.
·
The New Plymouth District Council amalgamated the
public library, museum and i-site into the institution which we now know as Puke
Ariki. Puke Ariki also has a restaurant, café, retail and capacity for venue
hire.
·
The Porirua City Council amalgamated the Museum and
Art Gallery into the purpose built complex, alongside the library, that became
Pataka in 1998. Pataka has retail, a café and a number of venues for hire
including a performing arts studio.
·
Te Manawa is a CCO in Palmeston North which reinvented
itself as a Museum of Art, Science and History. Te Manawa venues can
accommodate functions of up to 200 people.
·
The Rotorua Bathhouse administered by the Rotorua
District Council is a museum, art gallery and historic place and also has a
café.
·
MTG Hawke’s Bay administered by the Napier City
Council is a museum, theatre and art gallery. MTG also has a reading/research
room.
In closing I will
reference an excerpt from the MTGs vision:
“MTG Hawke’s Bay is more than a museum, theatre and
art gallery; it is realising its ambition of becoming a centre of
thought-leadership through symposiums, conferences, film programmes, talks and
debate. Today MTG Hawke’s Bay embodies much of what its forefathers wanted it
to be. Its William Colenso’s home of ideas, Leo Bestall’s full museum in the
miniature, Augustus Hamilton’s keeper of local taonga, James Munro’s collector
of New Zealand applied arts and crafts. And alongside this rich history, MTG Hawke’s
Bay is a trend-spotter, adroit at reinvention: responsive, smart-thinking and
worldly”
Thank
you for listening
Invercargill City Council LTP Submission May 2015
Submission 2015-2025 Long-Term
Plan Invercargill City Council
I am writing to elaborate on the
omission of an arts and cultural strategy for Invercargill particularly in
reference to the Invercargill City Centre Action Plan (ICCAP), the Southland
Museum and Art Gallery (SMAG), Anderson’s Park and City Gallery from the 2015-2025
Long-Term Plan. The only reference to arts/culture features on page 25 as
follows: “The one-off $4 million grant towards the redevelopment of the
Southland Museum and Art Gallery will be funded by loan rather than rates.” Given
the significant number of recommendations related to arts and cultural activity
and development in the ICCAP and the current challenges facing these organisations,
this is an opportune time for the ICC to consider the potential of an
amalgamation of the current skill base and resources into a single public
entity responsible for the delivery of relevant, engaging and innovative public
programmes that inspire communities to become active participants in telling
the stories of who we are as Southlanders – past, present and future.
Firstly I will provide some
relevant background context as I am aware that there is often confusion
associated with what a museum is and
does. This is significant in understanding that museums are public institutions
that are responsible for serving the needs of their own unique communities
and therefore commonly adopt a
multi-disciplinary approach to encourage new ways of thinking about the world.
In other words museums may utilise for example, performing arts, design, animation,
architecture, music, film, fashion etc. to explore and discuss our stories.
The definition of what
constitutes a museum in New Zealand is broad and includes:
whare wananga, art galleries,
whare taonga, tribal museums, cultural centres, marae, historic places,
heritage sites, science centres, interpretive centres, open-air museums or
exhibition centres, zoological and botanical gardens, aquaria and other
entities that facilitate the recognition, preservation, and management of
heritage resources and the values that are attached to them.[1]
For the purpose of this
submission I use the Museums Aotearoa definition of a museum’s purpose:
A museum helps people understand
the world by using objects, ideas and art to interpret the past and present and
to explore the possible future. A museum preserves and researches collections
of art, taonga, objects and information, which it holds in trust for society
and makes accessible in actual and virtual environments. Museums are
established in the public interest as permanent, not-for-profit organisations
that contribute long term value to communities.[2]
Public museums belong to
communities and therefore it is essential to ensure that communities have an
understanding of the value and relevance of their institutions. Any proposed
redevelopment of a museum must start with a visioning process which facilitates
dialogue between museum staff and the community. An inclusive process should
situate the museum as a centre from which a diversity of arts and cultural
activity is generated repositioning the museum as an integral participant in
the life of the city rather than merely a building that stores collections and
accommodates visitors. For example do members of the community have access to
collections held on their behalf? How are decisions made about what is
collected? How is relevance and inclusiveness addressed? Who decides on what
will be delivered in the way of public programmes? Communities are constantly
evolving, how does your museum embrace these changes?
A museum redevelopment without a
clear vision for the future is a missed opportunity - how does one articulate
how the significant additional expenditure associated with such redevelopments
will benefit and add value to the city and the district? Without a strategic
vision resultant from an inclusive process a redevelopment can provide little
added value. A museum is a community asset and should be treated accordingly. Museums
are primarily charged with serving their communities and therefore provide
visitors to Invercargill/Southland with an insight into what Southland and its
people stand for. In this sense too it is integral that these values are
reflected in the practices and processes that progress change in the city and
district. In 2007 the Museum of Vancouver (MOV) began a visioning process in
order to reflect the changes in their city and to reaffirm its commitment as a
publicly funded institution caring for a collection belonging to all
Vancouverites, to enrich life in the city, to ask important questions and to
connect communities through culture[3].
The museum’s visioning process sought to answer the following questions “who
and what are we; what do we stand for; what will make us unique and compelling
for visitors; and how can we enrich life for every resident of this city?” As a
result the MOV identified the following values:
·
Integrity
and excellence
·
Community
engagement
·
Dialogue and
debate
·
Promotion of
cultural understanding
·
Passionate
Advocacy for Vancouver
Six key themes for change were
also identified and are summarised as follows:
·
Focus: “The Vancouver Museum will train
its focus on Vancouver and make the city our primary subject. We will no longer
attempt to bring the world to Vancouver, but instead reflect and connect
Vancouver to the world.”
·
The power is in the mix: “Our entry point is the material
culture of the city. But we will use a much broader range of disciplines to
interpret Vancouver and unlock its stories. Our toolbox will include the artefacts
and narratives in our collection but we will ‘mix things up’ by incorporating
new ideas of investigation like the visual arts, design, architecture, urban
planning, music, new media, fashion, popular culture and photography.”
·
History in context: “The Vancouver Museum will
always make links between the historical record and the living experiences of
our visitors – what is happening socially, politically and culturally now.”
·
The new commons: “We will become a gathering
place for dialogue. And we will become agents of provocative conversations. The
VM will become a new town hall for a city hungry for connection – a gathering
place that will encourage social engagement and dialogue on issues of interest
and concern.”
·
Opening doors: “We will seek greater
participation and access for all residents…The new VM must go further to meet
our audiences where they live and to reflect their values and interests. This
means more consultation, more collaboration, and more opportunities for involving
citizens in the life of the museum.”
·
Innovative storytelling: “We will creative innovative
environments and events…connecting with our audience through creative
storytelling, leading edge exhibition design, adventurous programming, and a
unique exploration of Vancouver’s resonant images, artefacts, people and
places.”[4]
The Invercargill City Centre
Action Plan provides detail on further issues (below) that should be explored
in reference to any future consideration of a museum redevelopment. Although
the Queen’s Park site currently proposed is attractive, there are wider
concerns associated with the future of the city and district that should inform
part of a ‘big-picture’ decision making process. There are numerous aspects of
the action plan that could, for example, be addressed by a purpose-built museum
facility in the Wachner Place/Esk St area. Consider, based on current
SMAG/i-Site figures, the impact that 250,000 visitors annually could have on
the central business district.
The city centre:
Ø
Is a place
with iconic buildings and institutions
Ø
Is where
people gather
Ø
Is
acknowledged as the primary centre for retailing, business, culture and
entertainment
Ø
Accommodates
uses that are relevant to the community
Priority A.
City centre communication and promotion
Ø
Development
of a promotion strategy for the city
Ø
Development
of an events strategy
Priority B.
Business development and attraction
Ø
Review of
city centre relevant issues in the Spatial Plan, District Plan, LTCCP and other
policies
Priority F.
The improved integration of Tay and Dee Streets
Ø
Investigation
of whether relocation of the Visitor Information Centre and the Southland
Museum and Art Gallery will help overcome, or conversely, worsen the severance
Priority G.
Public spaces
Ø
A public
space in Esk Street
Ø
Improvements
to Wachner Place
Ø
Proposals
for a city centre market space
Priority H.
Arts, culture and interpretation
Ø
Organisational
improvements
Ø
Encouragement
of local art in public places
Ø
Investigation
of an arts centre in the city centre
Ø
Investigation
of the relocation of the Southland Museum and Art Gallery to the city centre
Ø
Encouragement
to owners of vacant or under-utilised buildings to accommodate local artists
and SIT fine arts and music students
Ø
Investigation
of the merits of an arts precinct
Invercargill and Southland are
fortunate to have so many people and organisations dedicated to ensuring the
community has access to arts/cultural activities, however this is presently compromised
by the lack of an overarching strategic vision. A visioning process can be the
impetus for stakeholders to move forward together capitalising on the skills
and resources that could be utilised collectively to articulate and achieve an
outcome that has the capacity to contribute measurable value to the city and
district.
Thank you for your consideration,
I would appreciate the opportunity to speak further to this submission.
Kathryn McCully BFA MFA
202 Lamond Street East
Hargest, Invercargill 9810
Phone: +64 21 105 2230 /+64 3 217 9276
[1] A Strategy for the Museums Sector, Museums Aotearoa, April 2005.
www.museumsaotearoa.org.nz.
[2] A Strategy for the Museums Sector, Museums Aotearoa, April 2005.
www.museumsaotearoa.org.nz.
[3] The Vancouver Story: A Vision for Change.
http://www.museumofvancouver.ca/sites/default/files/MOV%20Vision%20Book.pdf P28
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)