[I’d like to apologise in advance for how long this post is. I just have a lot of feelings! Well, that and Tumblr doesn’t allow ‘Read More’ breaks on photo posts. Foiled again.]
So for the past few weeks, I’ve had these two gems printed out and propped up on either side of my computer monitor at work. I know, you’ve all already seen them, and think they’re awesome - I think they’re awesome too, but that isn’t the reason I keep them there. Not the only reason, anyway. I like to have them there as a sort of moral lesson in Letting Go.
If you’ve read the story of how these came about (of which you can find more here), you know that they were created by artist Jenny Burrows and copywriter Matt Keppler as part of a portfolio project - the idea being to devise an advertising campaign for the Smithsonian Museum that would appeal to a high school and college-aged demographic. Somebody stumbled across their online portfolio, submitted the posters to Reddit, and the rest is history.
Or, not quite.
The posters went viral. Like, really viral. Front-page-on-Reddit viral. Phonecalls-from-Washington-DC-news-outlets viral. Great, right? Not exactly. See, the posters you’re looking at above aren’t the ones that spread so rapidly across the internet, and garnered such great acclaim. Remember, they were created as a mock Smithsonian advertising campaign; where you see a general ‘Museums’ logo now, the originals sported the logo of that venerable institution. And they weren’t too happy about all the attention.
After contacting the Smithsonian, Jenny Burrows replaced the logo on the posters. The only problem is, that’s precisely why they went viral in the first place. To quote from the artist’s own blog:
Our goal was to reach high school and college students, to try and engage them in a subject that many of them find extremely boring. To encourage them to learn more about people who they might have disregarded as stiff and dull. I think I can say without a doubt, if this had been a real campaign, it would have been immensely successful.
I have seen so many people commenting, saying things like “I want to go to the Smithsonian now!” and “History is awesome! I want these on my wall!” (Seriously, I have.)
People were excited - not only by the cleverness of the posters, but to see an institution as capital-R Respectable as the Smithsonian engaging so playfully with pop culture. To see them talking to young people without trying to patronise them, and without sounding forced. To see the Smithsonian just plain not taking themselves too seriously.
Naturally, the Smithsonian couldn’t be having with that.
Okay, I’m not exactly being fair. The Smithsonian is a massive entity, after all, and government-run to boot. For every person there who was unhappy at having lost control over their image, I’m sure there were a dozen who loved the posters and would have been just as happy to endorse them. But them’s the breaks, not just for the Smithsonian, but for any institution paid for out of somebody else’s pockets.
Still. This is nothing if not a demonstration of people-power - the very people the Smithsonian, like all museums everywhere, has no doubt struggled to engage. Sometimes you can harness that people-power… but sometimes it just happens. And putting your foot down never works half so well as letting it happen. As letting go.
This campaign was created for free, by people with an obvious affection for the Smithsonian. All this publicity was generated for free, by internet denizens who were excited and energised by the Smithsonian’s willingness to take risks; to poke fun at the perceived stuffiness of museums with a wink and a tip of the hat. Now, when I read recaps of the whole affair on this blog or that, it’s a different story altogether. Nobody’s ranting and raving at the Smithsonian, to be sure but there’s a distinct whiff of resignation whenever the story arrives at its inevitable conclusion.
We’re not angry, Smithsonian. We’re just disappointed.
Museums like to talk the talk about letting go - but that’s a far cry from walking the walk. And if we mean it when we say that we want to let go, to democratise knowledge and create a collective, participatory ownership of culture and history, should we be doing the same when it comes to our image? If we want it to become Their museum instead of Ours, do we contradict ourselves if we insist on controlling how They see Us?
To end on a lighter note (and one that won’t have Marketing coming after me in the night), I’ve been scratching my head trying to think of what a British answer to these terribly American posters might look like. Anybody have any ideas?
Reblogging my own thinky thoughts once again; this is one I’d like to keep for the record. And, you know, generate discussion on as widely as possible.
I’m just saying.
(via theherbert)
In retrospect, downing a seventh pint of liquid courage before challenging Lt. Bowley to a bout had been ill-advised.
Everyone knew that a seaman on skates was not to be trifled with.
I know, I know, I’m reblogging myself, how declassé. But this photo still makes my day, so as they say on the internets, haters to the left.
(Er. I suppose this might also be a good time to mention that I’m currently trial-Tumbling for Coventry’s Herbert Art Gallery & Museum over at herbertinterns, which is why this blog has been a little quiet. What can I say - I’d feel a little guilty for spamming the internet from two professional Tumblrs at once.)
Bat-art of the day: The Dark T-Rex Rises
In honor of The Dark Knight Rises, the Art Institute of Pittsburgh dressed up their beloved T-rex in a bat-cape and cowl. Surprise movie villain? SH*T YEAH.
A little bit of light-heartedness this morning, as I catch up on much grimmer news from around the country. More museums should be willing to play with pop culture like this (cf. the faux-Smithsonian ‘Historically Hardcore’ spoofs, which they totally should have adopted on the spot).
I want to understand the reality of the impact that having interactive interpretation can have within a museum – it’s all very well saying that it is useful for engaging audiences but what I want to know is how does it do this and are all museums and visitors a fan? When I talk about ‘new media’, my mind is mainly focusing on, touch screens, videos, computer generated games – things that focus on a screen, I know that ‘new media’ can contribute to many factors of a museum and is a much wider scope than what I have described, but for now I shall focus on those. […]
Museum Diaries: Interactive Interpretation
Thought-provoking post. I’m certainly against incorporating interactives and technology in museum galleries Just Because (excepting, of course, trials and pilot programmes where sometimes the entire point is simply to see what happens). However, I think it’s also important to remember that not every interactive has to do everything. To take the example of the ‘God’s Top Trumps’ game, whether or not it’s effective depends on what you expect it to accomplish. If you want it to give visitors a nuanced and contextualised introduction to ancient religions, then no, it definitely fails on that count. But if all you want is for younger visitors to come away knowing a little more about the variety of different gods worshipped in the ancient Mediterranean, and how those gods were adopted and reinvented by different civilisations? Then it probably does a pretty decent job.
Likewise, not only do interactives not have to do everything, they don’t even necessarily have to do the same thing for the same people. For example, while a visual learner might be perfectly happy to wander through an exhibit, look at the displays and read the labels and learn plenty, and might find interactives intrusive, a kinesthetic learner or problem-solver might get a lot more from being able to engage with the same content through a game-based setting.
There are always going to be issues around integrating ‘new media’, and balancing the tension between showcasing your objects and trying to make sure everyone gets the most out of what you have to offer in the way that works best for them. To my mind, the key to interactives is the same as for any of the shiny new toys of the digital age - social media, virtual content, et cetera. It’s about knowing exactly what it is you want to accomplish by using them, and why. If you’re not scrupulous in asking those questions and clear about your answers, you run the risk of winding up with something sitting in the gallery (or on the website, or etc. etc.), serving no real purpose or even distracting from your exhibit, simply because someone thought it would be cool.
Government guidelines say interns should be paid
New guidelines aimed at creating fairer access to the workplace recommend that internships should be paid if they are not a compulsory part of a university course. […]
According to the code, organisations running internship programmes should pay candidates at least the statutory minimum wage – unless they are volunteers or students undertaking work placements as part of their studies.
Hear, hear. I don’t subscribe to the notion that unpaid internships are necessarily exploitative, so long as they are rigorously structured and of genuine educational benefit to the intern. However, this is often not the case - and as someone lucky enough to have been able to live at home for a year while interning between degrees, I am acutely aware that even those genuinely equitable internships are out of reach for those who simply can’t afford to work without pay.
With so many museums buying into the culture of unpaid internships, this can be - and for my money, is - incredibly harmful to the sector. Not only does it close the door on a broad swathe of young museum professionals, it has in many cases helped to effectively eliminate paid entry-level positions. When your lowest-tier jobs require X years of experience, and the only people who have that experience are those who could afford to work for free to accrue it, you’re fast looking at reifying that homogeneous, upper-middle class workforce and set of values that museums have worked so hard in recent years to break down.
I do wonder what effect this will have on smaller museums, that may rely on volunteers and unpaid interns simply to keep their doors open. I’d like to say that a happy middle ground would be a government stipulation on the maximum amount of hours allowable for unpaid internships - but to be honest, all I see that leading to is a situation where interns are disposable as well as free. In this economy, there are always going to be students clawing at the door for opportunities; when an institution has a choice between offering an outgoing intern a living wage or simply exchanging them for the next free candidate, what incentive do they have to do the right thing?
These guidelines are certainly a step in the right direction; hopefully it won’t be long before we see some actual (and actually enforced) regulations on the issue.
Okay, this is fantastic. Everyone go and see the full scans RIGHT NOW.
Museo. Postgrad. MA on hold (as a PGDip) while I remember how to live with my eyes open.
