Art Museum: Case Study This Case Study

Art Museum: Case Study

This case study involves a campus art museum that for many years had a competent director, but a relatively staid presence on campus. The last director had a far more populist orientation. He tried to bring schoolchildren into the museum on a regular basis, and bring in traveling art exhibitions that were of interest to the larger public. But he seemed more interested in advancing a radical political agenda than truly supporting art. Because the art museum is seen as connected to the graduate school, there is a great deal of anger amongst faculty members, who believe that the museum should serve the interests of the school, specifically the graduate students studying for PhDs. In the future, the evaluation committee must have a more systematic process for evaluating candidates. The mission of the art museum must be clearly defined. And the past qualifications, necessary skills, and goals of the position must be stated as part of the job description. The new director must be sensitive to the needs of the community, yet also have relevant managerial experience.

Universities have multifaceted missions, and must please a variety of stakeholders. On one hand, they have a duty to educate graduate and undergraduate students, and to support student learning. Universities also have a duty to faculty members, to support their research as well. However, the university also has a responsibility to the community. It is not like a corporation that exists merely to serve its own interests. Its community responsibility is honored through educating students, including students that might not otherwise have cultural opportunities, if there were no museum outreach programs. The museum also has a duty to expose students, faculty, and members of the community to new cultures and ideas, which was accomplished with the Arab exhibition of art, even though the speaker selected to speak in honor of the exhibition was not appropriate. That unfortunate incident should not end the museum's welcoming of new collections and forms of art.

The difference between the old director and the new director must be that this director must keep the focus on art, ideology. However, art can still be transmitted to the public in a populist way. The new director should have experience in creating museum programs for children, so the children can be exposed to the art in a non-disruptive fashion. For example, tour guides should be taught how to engage in proper 'crowd control' and the children can be given educational activities in a special room, where they can vent some of their exuberant energy and learn about the art in a more meaningful way. There should also be programs and classes to expose non-art majors to the art in the museum. The art museum should be a 'selling point' for the school, not something only of interest to a handful of art history majors.

The new director should also have experience in public relations, which will help him or her continue to find new art exhibits to the museum, but can present them in a meaningful and effective manner, so that interest about art is generated, rather than political controversy. Art is not a static thing, and it is essential that cutting-edge art, theories, and ideas are brought to campus. This is also essential for the education of graduate students, so their knowledge is relevant, recent, and makes them desirable candidates to hire after graduation.

To ensure that the needs of graduate students are met, the director can work closely with art history faculty members. Graduate students can be used as part of the educational mission of the university, as they can help design art appreciation programs for younger students, undergraduates, and non-art majors. They can act as volunteers and guides, as well as conduct their own research. Having experience at a major research university would be an added bonus, obviously, for the prospective director.