Over the last forty years museums have been experiencing a paradigm shift and giving creative authority to more departments within the museum beyond just the curator. Through very deliberate efforts by museum educators and exhibit designers, significant change has evolved in the goals of the museum. Nowhere is this more apparent than in science centers like the Saint Louis Science Center was transformed from a natural history museum to a more hands-on, education led museum. Increased authority of museum educators has not come without tradeoffs. Currently, the thousands of collection items which once adorned the walls of the museum now sit in the back rooms of the Taylor Science Community Center; a smaller building located a street away from the main museum building. These collections are priceless items which include giant crystals worth tens of thousands of dollars and innumerable animal remains which are unlike any others in existence. Unfortunately, these collections remain closed to the public and in some cases entirely uncataloged. The Saint Louis Science Center is not alone in this phenomenon. Science centers have caught on across the nation, in many cases, at the expense of the traditional object based natural history museum and their collections. This in some cases has led to decreased care for collections, and certainly a closing off of collections from public view.
Part of the solution to this dilemma may come through technology. In recent years the field of collections management has seen several new innovations in technology from web based cataloging to open storage concepts. These innovations may provide broad public access to collections expanding the scope of access further than it has ever gone.
II. A brief look back at the paradigm shift to education
Thomas Kuhn, in seeking to understand the history of science, observed that change did not happen progressively over time, but instead quick (relative to the timeline) dramatic shifts occurred. This is a concept similar to the idea of punctuated equilibrium in the evolution of species. Kuhn described this period of dramatic like seen in the shift from Toloman to Copernican astronomy as a paradigm shift[1]. We, in the museum community today, are going through a paradigm shift which is expanding the scope of participation for groups inside the museum. Daniel Spock in his April 2006 article The Puzzle of Museum Educational Practice said:
The [museum] field witnessed the expansion of the curatorial role: now it would include not only selecting objects and writing didactic scripts, but also a sense of how to better orchestrate the process to make exhibitions that enhance museum-based learning. Museum educators for their part, began to be included in exhibit development as never before-if they weren’t simply subsumed into the new exhibit developer role altogether. The Old regime- in which museum educators were consigned to bringing up the rear-devising tours and lesson plans after all the important exhibit decisions had already been made has given way in many leading institutions to a mere inclusive model of exhibit program development with a concern for education at its core[2]. Pg 168
Spock is echoing a point which is seen and heard clearly throughout the museum field: one that says the paradigm shift we are experiencing is undoubtedly one which provides a broader focus for curation and places larger importance on the work of museum educators. This is an important innovation within the museum that can be seen by growing budgets for museum education departments. At the Saint Louis Science Center, the community programs department has become the best funded department in the museum[3]. We can also point to the emergence of the Museum Education Roundtable in 1969 and their publication The Journal of Museum Education whose voice on issues bears almost as much clout in the museum field as any other professional museum association[4]. The educator has become a pivotal part of exhibit design reshaping how museums are used and as a result what is put inside of them.
III. Science center as the embodiment of shift and costs
The educational paradigm shift, which many types of museums are experiencing, is most clearly embodied by the creation of the Science Center. One of the first science centers, the Ontario Science Center (OSC), opened in 1969 and has been described as “not collections based, but designed to actively engage the visitor through hands-on, interactive experiences”[5]. This focus on the hands-on, moving away from collections, as the museums primary focus is the heart of the changes that museums are experiencing.
Unfortunately, the focus on education and hands-on museums comes at a cost. When the growth of one area of a museum comes, it comes by weaning museums of those funds and focus from other parts of the museum. Most of the resources have been taken away from collections. The Saint Louis Science Center, while an outstanding institution, clearly is an example of this process. Most of its collections, which came from its former existence as a natural history museum, are stored a street away from the museum and closed to the public. This type of situation was the concern of Michael Mares when he said:
Today that irreplaceable storehouse, which has been protected and cared for at such great cost and sacrifice for centuries, is being threatened by people who do not understand it, cannot appreciate it, and are unable to shoulder the enormous responsibility of caring for it. pg 85
Mares attributed this decline in collections funding and focus to “bean counters with advanced degrees” who are trying to run museums for profit[6]. Museums with hands-on components may be more profitable as the Commission of Museums for a New Century hints at when they stated in their 1984 publication that “in competition with more visible public programs and popular special exhibitions, which offer immediate, tangible rewards to museums and for which funding is often available, behind the scenes activities can often be pushed to the side.” In fact, a museum survey reported in Museums USA showed that of the museums surveyed, directors estimated an increase of 58% in spending was needed for collections in their institutions in order to adequately care for maintenance and revitalization of museum collections[7].
Collections are fundamentally important not only for museums, but for humans. If it were not for the collections of core samples collected over decades we would not have been able to detect a layer of iridium which aided the theory of the dinosaur’s destruction by a giant asteroid[8]. This is not to say that we can’t over-collect or collect erroneously. Stephen Weil’s case study of the National Toothpick museum (NTM) is testament to the fact that collecting can go too far[9], but it remains fundamentally important. Therefore, a balance must be derived within the museum community to ensure its proper support.
IV. Technology as part of the answer
Part of the answer in creating this balance in museums may come from technology. Innovators in the museum community have been perfecting tools and ideas which offer some hope that they will provide museum collections that have been closed to the public the ability to increase access and care for their collections. The innovations are many and the possibilities unlimited as technology constantly expands. Several of these innovations deserve notice for the breadth of possibilities they represent.
A. Open Exhibits (online exhibitions)
Open exhibits is an open source project being developed by a partnership of Ideum, an organization which creates online exhibitions, social networking sites, and various other web applications for nonprofit organizations [10]and the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC), the premiere professional organization for Science centers. In their own words Open exhibits:
“Will develop a library of extensible software modules for all major platforms that exhibit developers can configure in almost unlimited ways. Built using the popular Adobe Flash and Flex authoring tools, museum professionals will be able to creative innovative floor and Web-based exhibits more easily and inexpensively.”[11]
The overall goal of Open exhibits is more than simply creating software for online exhibitions; the Open exhibits team wants to create a “community of practice” so that the ideas and innovations of all users can be democratized throughout the museum field. They plan to do this through forums, wiki’s, and research findings all surrounding the base software[12]. This concept of software sharing has been dubbed open source. Open source has come to define software which is made to be openly and freely used by all. The Linux operating system, one of the early examples of open source, had the effect of popularizing and expanding the idea as did the hacker culture. Open source has been described as “a bazaar” as opposed to a “cathedral” which describes the traditional software model[13]. The benefit of open source according to the Open Source Initiative who Open exhibits cites is “is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in”[14].
Because of the structure, and unique mission of the Open Exhibits project, it provides museum collections with possibilities which can be of help in dealing with the limitations they are faced with due to the educational paradigm shift. First, because of the Open source concept that this project employs, it allows for museum collections departments who are dealing with limited monetary resources to maximize the funds they do have by using free and open software. The financial savings are quite relevant as high quality software can cost in the thousands. What is more, due to the creation along with the software of a “community of practice” and free templates, museums can avoid the costly employment or contracting of web design experts.
Secondly, it can help by opening up collections objects to the public who we hold them in trust for. Traditionally, only ten percent of collections are displayed for the public, and those that are displayed are only visible to those within a reasonable geographic proximity. Open exhibits and online exhibitions in general allow for those collections to be visible globally. What is even more incredible is it allows for innumerable objects to be observed regardless of the limits of the museum building. The limits of museums ability to make collections available to the public disappears under this scenario. Now, critics may argue that viewing objects online is not equivalent to experiencing the object in person. We have all seen pictures of the Mona Lisa, but people still travel from all over the world to view it on display at the Louvre. This is a fair point, but if we take Open exhibits as only part of a more comprehensive solution we can all appreciate its value.
B. Open Storage
Where open exhibits and online exhibitions generally falls short, the Open storage concept can compensate.
[15]
Look at the picture above this may appear to be just another museum gallery, a cluttered antique shop or some cross between the two, but this is actually what you would see if you visited the Brooklyn Museums Visible Storage and Study Center. The idea is simple; most museums rarely display more than ten percent of the collections[16] they have as mentioned before, and with the pendulum swinging toward an increased focus on education it is unlikely that this will change in the traditional museum setting. The option employed by the Brooklyn Museum was to take 5000 square feet of storage space and essentially enclose it in glass, and display it to the public. If we in the museum field are holding these objects in the public trust why shouldn’t they be able to see them? The Brooklyn museum says they can! In the Brooklyn museum itself only about 350 objects can be displayed at anytime, but the open storage concept allows them to display an additional 2000 of those objects[17]. That is a net increase of more than 400% in public access.
What does this do in allowing museums to maximize resources in regard to collections? It first allows museums an added source of revenue potential. As mentioned in the discussion of the apparent paradigm shift happening in museums generally and science centers specifically, part of the advantage garnered by educational hands-on programs as opposed to collection-rich ones is the presence of direct monetary rewards and superior funding. The ability for collections to have independent capital being garnered through open storage will increase collections departments’ abilities to handle decreases in funding from the museum in general.
The open storage concept has the secondary benefit of widening public access to collection items expanding the resource of space which along with funds, has diminished due to the educational paradigm shift. It has this positive effect in common with online exhibition ventures like open exhibits, but while the online exhibition can be viewed by anyone regardless of geographic location, open storage allows the visitor to see the real thing, which the above example about the Mona Lisa demonstrates, there is no substitute for.
C. Digital Databases
The open storage concept is a theoretically profitable way for museums to expand the dimensions of interaction that visitors have with museum objects. However, unlike a traditional exhibition, collections must be organized according to specific guidelines, not just according to visitor desires. Technology may provide resource saving methods of accomplishing this task. The innovation that technology provides is the digitalization of collections. Like open storage and open exhibits, the resource of access can be increased by using digital databases as they can easily be transferred online. The way that digital databases would be used differs significantly from how an online exhibition like open exhibits would be used. An online museum catalog or database would allow researchers and experts mainly, as well as some entrepreneurial educators, to access information and in some cases pictures of objects. In fact, software like QuickTime VR allows 3d digital recreations to be made for users to browse through.
A digital database can also increase monetary resources by taking advantage of open source software from the same ideological camp as open exhibits. Collective Access is one such option which allows reduced cost by using free and open software. Collective Access created by Whirl-i-gig is a real and fully-functional alternative to expensive proprietary software. In many ways, it is superior as it provides a free support forum and wiki as well as provides you the ability to modify the software as individual museums please to meet the unique needs of different institutions[18].
The final benefit that digital databases provide is time. If museum collections departments are going to capitalize on the possibilities of open storage and online exhibitions they will need man hours to put toward those pursuits. A functional and simple digital database may provide that time.
V. Conclusions
It is paramount for society to view the preservation of collections as important and make all due effort to support that pursuit. The paradigm shift toward a more hands-on museum has drawn the pendulum away from collections. It is fundamentally important that we find ways to balance the need for hands-on learning with the preservation of the “real thing”. Technology can help us in this pursuit by maximizing the use of scarce resources like access, money, and time for collection managers. Online exhibitions can expand access beyond geographic restrictions and save money through the use of open source software. Similarly, digital databases can take advantage of open source alternatives and maximize the time of collections employees by making collection management simpler. Finally, open storage provides the possibilities for independent revenue and public access to objects in person.
In this pursuit museums are only beginning. As of 2006 only 63% of museums had technology funding. In addition, some 60% of museums found the technology funding insufficient. Even if museums have technology, 76% don’t have the required skilled staff to employ that technology. Digitalization efforts are equally early in development. Of all museums only 40% receive funding for this purpose. Of those that do only 55% make any available to the public via the internet or on-site[19]. The early state of museum adoption of technology should not be looked at as a weakness, but an opportunity for growth, and an increasing ability to deal with the changing paradigm in the museum world.
VI. Works Cited
Commission on Museums for a New Century. "Stewards of a Common Wealth." Museums for a New Century. American Association of Museums, 1984. 35-51.
"Exhibitions: Visible Storage. Study Center." Brooklyn Museum. Brooklyn Museum. 2 Dec. 2008
Lewis, Lesley, and Jennifer L. Martin. "Science Centers: Creatig a Platform for Twenty-first Century Innovation." Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Altamira, 2006. 107-16.
Mares, Michael A. "Moral Obligations Incumbent upon institutions, Administrations, and Directiors in Maintaining and Caring for Museum Collections." Museum Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Altamira, 2006. 79-98.
"Open Exhibits." Open Source Software for Museums. 2008. Ideum. 2 Dec. 2008
OSI Board. "Home." Weblog post. Open Source Initiative. 13 Mar. 2007. 2 Dec. 2008
Raymond, Eric S., and Bob Young. The Cathedral and the Bazaar : Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Danbury: O'Reilly Media, Incorporated, 2001.
Robinson, Cynthia. "Museum Education Association." The Museum Education Roundtable. 10 Apr. 2007. Museum Education Roundtable. 2 Dec. 2008
Rounds, Jay. "Foundations of Museology 1." Lecture 11/17/08. University of Missouri St. Louis, Saint Louis. 17 Nov. 2008.
Spadaccini, Jim. "About Us." Ideum. Ideum. 2 Dec. 2008
Spock, Daniel. “The Puzzle of Museum Educational Practice: A comment on Rounds and Falk” Curator April 2006. 167-180
Status of Technology and Digitization. Rep.No. Institute of Museum and Library Servicies. 2006.
Weil, Stephen E. "The Proper Business of the Museum: Ideas or Things?" Rethinking the Museum. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution P, 1990. 43-56.
Whirl-i-gig. "Overview." CollectiveAccess- The Open Source Collections Mangment System for Museums and Archives. 2008. Whirl-i-gig. 2 Dec. 2008
[1] Rounds
[2] Spock
[4] Robinson
[5] Lewis
[6] Mares
[7] Commission on Museums for a New Century
[8] Mares
[9] Weil
[10] Spadaccini
[11] Open exhibits
[12] ibit
[13] Raymond
[14] OSI Board
[15] Brooklyn Museum
[16] The Commission on Museums for a New Century
[17] Brooklyn museum
[18]Whirl-i-gig
[19] Status of Technology and Digitalization
No comments:
Post a Comment