Thoughts on "Museums & Society 2034"

So, the Center for the Future of Museums released a report today entitled: Museums & Society 2034: Trends and Potential Futures. In lieu of a traditional blog post, I'm posting my notes and thoughts on the report. I apologize in advance if it gets kind of rambly--as per usual, this was written at 1am.

First, a little contextual info:

Reach Advisors pored over nearly a thousand articles, data sets, interviews and discussion forums to identify the trends that are most likely to change U.S. society and museums during the next 25 years. Our quarry was the emerging structural changes that are highly likely to reshape society and highly likely to affect museums.

The first point had to do with the aging Baby Boomers. The report posits that the aging Boomer population means museums should consider ways to address their needs and, in essence, cater to them more. They plan on responding by having:

“Exhibit labels have bigger print and museums are easier to navigate with a walker or wheelchair.”

And getting them to become volunteers:

And just as 2008 witnessed a presidential campaign that reinvented civic involvement for a new generation of young adults, museums will take the lead in reshaping civic involvement for a new generation of aging
citizens.

Why are museums focusing on looking backward rather than forward? Why do they think that innovation and innovative platforms are reserved for those trying to reach the youth market? Sure, this may be largely plausible, but the Baby Boomer generation is one that's pretty comfortable and familiar with technology and the internet--after all, they witnessed some of the biggest leaps and bounds in the world of computer technology and the [social?] web. It seems narrow-minded and short-sighted to assume that the only way to meet their looming geriatric needs is by increasing the font size on wall displays and installing wheelchair ramps. Perhaps an aging population's decreased mobility will increase the time they spend online, and therefore museums might benefit from having more virtual exhibitions.

Next point ventured into the ethnographic. Citing a population composition that is apparently headed for a “minority majority” and acknowledging a clear lack of minority museum goers at present (while minorities make up 34% of the population, only 9% are active museum visitors), the report asks:

If 5 to 9 is the critical age for converting children into lifelong museumgoers and advocates, how can museums attract minority children in this age range whose support they want in 2034?

One seemingly obvious way to do so is to target schools and develop engaging education programs. Technology in the form of educational computer games and kid-friendly exhibits (the Whitney’s recent Alexander Calder exhibition comes to mind) could be one way to do so. Exhibitions with strong cultural ties that address issues within specific minority communities could also help bridge that divide. The Brooklyn Museum’s current The Black List exhibition is one good example of this. Watching the YouTube video testimonials from this exhibition, it’s clear that minority visitors were pleased to see works that they could identify with on a more personal level--things that spoke to them and their experiences. Turning a curatorial eye towards that might not be a bad idea, too.

The report then gets into the rising cost of gas and energy consumption/prices. I’m not going to quote the stats here, I feel like we’ve heard them countless times before. Let’s just sum it up this way: outlook = grim. How do the researchers over at Reach Advisors think this is going to affect museums? Well, people will probably be traveling to them less--which could foreseeably become a problem for small, out of the way destination museums too obscure to make most people’s “life lists.”

Now, I’m not sure if I’ve been brainwashed by all the social media advocates I’ve been interacting with lately, but this seems like an instance where a strong online and social media presence could really help change the relationship people have the museum and it’s collection. Speaking from my own personal experience, developing a relationship with a museum, or rather, a person assuming the voice for the museum and its content via a microblogging site like Twitter has developed a sense of loyalty and curiosity in me.

Prior to starting this project, I had never heard of Pittsburgh’s Mattress Factory museum. Now, after a month or so of tweets and interaction with Jeffrey, who runs the museum’s Twitter account, the museum has made my “life list.” To be fair, I think I initially responded so positively to @MattressFactory because Jeffrey reached out to me regarding some common interests that we have (I think he saw a tweet of mine about the Brooklyn band, The Hold Steady, and sent me a picture he took of them at a show the month before), but my interest and relationship with @MattressFactory has evolved over time as I’ve been keeping track of the projects they have going on, the blog posts and YouTube videos and other links that Jeffrey posts. And, in all honesty, that initial random personal interaction probably shouldn’t be discounted as arbitrary or irrelevant either. I mean, it did work, didn’t it?

I guess my rationale is that, if you’re doing cool things and the content is quality (felt tempted to write “Content is King” right now, but thankfully regained my better sense of judgement in time), the real challenge is just getting that content in front of the interested parties, or at least, people who could potentially be interested. Despite what I or anyone may say about digitizing collections, art is still, fundamentally it seems, something that people want to experience in real life. They want to be around it. They want to see the way it interacts with its space. They want to be able to get up close and see things like texture and shadow and the interplay of color and light. When it comes to art, I think that if you can make a connection with someone in the digital space, it will only inspire a desire in them to take that connection into the physical space. But maybe that’s just me?

So instead of setting up “outposts” in suburban areas, I would argue that it would be wiser (and more economical, both financially and in terms of energy resources) to set up virtual outposts where museums can interact with and convert fans online.

As if finally deciding to get to the point, the following pages start to deal with the digital/tech side of things.

we have witnessed a dramatic structural shift in the expectations of the public (particularly among young adults), which now expects anything that can be digitized to be digital—and usually free.

Uh. Yeah. Duh.

According to research by the Institute for Museum and Library Services, 43% of museum visits in 2006 were remote, predominately via museum websites.

And this, to me, seems like it should have been the thought that framed this report:

This generation grew up with a broad palette of digital tools and creative resources; as a result, they are
demonstrating an extraordinarily high level of creative output and creative consumption.

The following closing point also brings up some interesting food for thought, though I'm not sure if it needs to be quite as alarmist as it comes across here:

we’re also seeing increasing backlash to the proliferation of technology in our research for museums and among the general public. Instead, our consumer research is finding indications of a longing for a retreat, particularly among women over 50 years old, a sentiment that we expect to expand as technology advances. The challenge will be the balancing act of positioning museums as exciting and engaging places to go, while providing a special spot to disengage from the day-to-day.

As someone very actively engaged in the "virtual" world on a daily basis, I can definitely attest to the occasional need to "unplug" and disconnect. I guess if I were to be honest with myself, I would have to admit that I do probably tend to view museums as a respite from the hectic digital world I find myself so often a part of. My only concern in conceding this point is that this kind of thinking seems to somehow vilify technology and could contribute to further skepticism and reticence on the part of many cultural institutions to embrace and adopt innovative technologies in their exhibitions and online presence.

Flickr: A Case Study Pt. 3--The Brooklyn Museum

The last and final installment in this series has finally arrived! Delayed, in part, by the holidays. On that note, I hope your holiday season was a lovely one shared with friends and family. Best wishes in 2009! :)

The Brooklyn Museum:

Image courtesy of wallyg.

So, in the last post, I gave a glowing review to the MoMA’s Flickr presence after stumbling upon the iMoMA group. However, Shelley Bernstein, Manager of Information Systems at the Brooklyn Museum, and the person who runs their Flickr account, was kind enough to point out that the iMoMA page is not actually run by the museum itself. I’m wondering if that may explain the change in name that I noted (from iMoMA to Photomoma). I’m also wondering if MoMA has interacted with the people behind this project and, if so, what kind of reaction it gave. (Given the project’s change in name, my speculation is that the museum did not respond too kindly to the iMoMA group...but who’s to say?).

But anyway, this post is about the Brooklyn Museum, so let’s get to it. Full disclosure: the Brooklyn was one of the first museums I found on Flickr, and they are actually the inspiration for this case study, and in fact, just an inspiration in general. The Brooklyn Museum is a true leader in creativity, enthusiasm and innovation when it comes to experimenting with new media--just take a look at their ArtShare Facebook app or their recently-launched 1stfans Twitter membership program. Their programs communicate a tangible passion for art and love for their audience. The other thing I love about them is that they document all of their projects and progress in a series of staff-written blogs (how’s that for transparency?) which can also serve as blueprints for other cultural institutions.

The Brooklyn’s Flickr profile is really well done--you could even make the argument that they set [some of] the standards for museum social media presence. They’ve got a link to their Flickr group, as well as their  profiles on YouTube, MySpace, Twitter, and Facebook (including ArtShare). The museum is also part of what must be at least 100 Flickr groups, showing that they‘re active in the Flickr community outside of their own profile and group.

The Brooklyn’s profile showcases 3,151 items and the content is all the more engaging for its' variety--from a series of antique shots of Coney Island,to behind the scenes footage of the archives, to shots of after-dark art events and parties--the photos appeal to every subset of the museum’s fan base and portray it in a more dynamic and well-balanced way. You can tell this approach is effective because the museum has 2, 516 contacts and in a recent blog post, Shelley lamented the fact that the museum couldn’t accept any more contacts because it was approaching Flickr’s limit and had more requests than it could fill.

They’ve also got three museum groups, the largest of which has 1,056 members and 2,778 pieces of community submitted content, as well as 52 moderately active discussion threads.

But even more importantly, the Brooklyn Museum has something the other museums don’’t have: a page on the Flickr Commons.

The Brooklyn is one of only 16 museums (16! Why?!) participating in the Flickr Commons project. To be fair, the Commons was only launched last January (2008) and requires that the museum be in possession of a publicly-held photography collection, but I feel like those specifications probably apply to the majority of cultural institutions, or in any case, certainly more than 16.

The Commons is a project that exhibits crowdsourcing at its best. Museums post pictures from their public photography archives and users are asked to provide any additional or identifying information they may have about the photos. It is a project that harnesses collective knowledge in an interesting and powerful (empowering?) way. Not only that, it stimulates creativity and inspires people--Shelley writes on the museum blog of breathtaking mashups and panoramas created by group members and fans.

Anyway, I could probably go on about this, but this blog post has already gotten away from me. I’ll have to make the Flickr Commons into a separate post. In any case, I think it’s fair to say that I’m pretty enamored with the Brooklyn Museum.

Grade: A+

Need I say more?

Flickr: A Case Study Pt. 2--The MoMA

The long overdue second installment in this series has finally arrived! I know you've all been waiting with bated breath. I think part of the reason it's taken me so long to write it is because part of me wonders what the point is. Will anyone care? And do I even have the know-how to write about this from an authoritative standpoint? I've certainly never launched a successful Flickr page or group. Who am I to critique?

I finally decided that it doesn't matter. I'm learning so much just by getting my thoughts down on paper and doing this case study, that whether or not anyone reads it or finds it useful is beside the point. Of course, that is still my ultimate goal for this blog--to be useful and helpful and to be read--but if the insight and authority doesn't happen with this post, at the very least this post can help lay the foundation for better, more insightful posts in the future. And so, with that rambling intro, here goes.

The MoMA:

The MoMA's Flickr presence puts The Met to shame. (As it should, because the Met's Flickr presence, as we have seen, is downright shameful.) Their primary group pool boasts a robust 524 members and 3,058 photos, all of which seem to be user-submitted. There are a host of ancillary groups, too: MoMA (Unlimited), MoMA Monday Nights, MoMA Teens, and MoMA Stairs, a group dedicated solely to photographs of the MoMA's famous staircase, which at 91 members trumps the Met's efforts all on its own.

Part of me wonders if the MoMA's success can be attributed to external factors, like for example, that its' collection appeals to a younger audience, one that might be more web-savvy and socially networked. It's a possibility, certainly, but I feel like given the scope of both of these museums' international popularity, that factor should be pretty much negligible. Still, not having any sort of data for comparison's sake about their demographics, attendance numbers, web traffic, etc., it seemed like a worthwhile point to at least consider.

In any case, all the groups seemed to be on the right track but even the most successful pool was largely inactive. Discussion threads were a barren wasteland, nobody seemed to be interacting on these pages, and even when users posted questions asking for help identifying works of art or inquiring about a lighting effect they had seen at a recent exhibition, their questions received no response from the museum staff. I was getting ready to call it a night and give the MoMA a C+ for their efforts when I came across this group: theMoMAproject [NYC].

Holy crap! I seem to have hit the jackpot with this one. Or, rather, the MoMA seems to have hit the jackpot. [Ed Note: Post has been amended after a comment by the Brooklyn Museum's Shelley Bernstein (below) brought to my attention that the MoMA does not, in fact, run this group. The group is community driven. Good for the community. Bad for MoMA? Guess that all depends on how you look at it. Upon re-examination, I can't find any definitive evidence of official MoMA presence participating in the group page/threads, which, in my opinion, is a major oversight on their part. Their score has been amended accordingly.] In comparison to the other group pools I've reviewed, this one is a behemoth: 4,217 members, 28,014 photos and 17 discussion threads (with actual replies! one thread had as many as 836 replies to it!).

So, what exactly makes this group such a rousing successful? Well, for one thing, it seems to be more than just a Flickr pool, but rather a collection portal for another MoMA project called photomoma.org. Like the other groups, it's a place for users to post pictures of art works in the museum, but beyond just contributing their photos to the pool, users are participating in the creation of "a virtual museum" to be called iMoMA (Impressions of MoMA) [Ed Note: iMoMA seems to have been renamed to Photomoma since. The Photomoma site features the same text found on the Flickr page but with "Photomoma" as the name of the project].

You see, it's all very meta.

For each item in MoMA’s collection, iMoMA will have a website displaying photographs visitors to MoMA have taken of that item, capturing their own unique impression of the art MoMA has on display.

The result will be a pastiche of images that will force the viewer to critique their own relationship to the artwork in the photographs. Furthermore, the viewer will have to question whether or not the photographs themselves are works of art. In this way, iMoMA is designed to educate viewers not only about the artwork in the photographs, but about art in general.

And the response has been incredible. Why? Well, for one thing, people love the idea that they are contributing to a project--and for that matter, to an art project, a virtual museum no less! Their little snapshot will be immortalized in an online gallery organized by the MoMA itself, adding an air of importance and credibility. Not only that, but the museum project promises to have all the pictures link back to the user's Flickr profiles, thereby increasing their visibility. And after all, isn't that what it's all about? The motivating factor here is: How can participating in this project help me gain more notoriety and increase the viewership for my own work and "impressions"?

Maybe that last part is a bit cynical, but I think what I'm really trying to get at here is that this project is successful because it provides users with an incentive. It's not a tangible incentive and it's not one that's going to cost the museum the Photomoma project anything, except for maybe the costs of building the website. They're not giving anything away and they're not bribing people, they're just offering them yet another place to display their photos, but in a legitimized space with a lofty, philosophical mission that will allow users to "critique their own relationship to the artwork." People will do a lot for their 15 seconds of fame, and this project gets that and leverages it very well.

So, my final grade for the MoMA: A+ C+, grade changed for reasons noted above and below.     

The Photomoma project is indeed an excellent campaign, but unfortunately, seems to be run by someone other than the MoMA. It seems to be effective and doing well. Plus, I genuinely do like the mission of the project and am an advocate of more museum's having their collections up online--getting patrons to upload pictures of the works seems like an interesting, fun and egaging way to do so. Well done, MoMA!

Natural History Museum Skating Expedition

This is gonna be a quickie.

Last week I wrote about a Twitter exchange I had with the American Natural History Museum where they recommended checking out their Polar Rink. After the Twitter convo, I was excited to go ice skating, and even more pleased with the museum for replying to me personally, so, true to my promise, I decided to organize a group of friends for the skating expedition.

While checking out times and prices I saw something on the website about "synthetic" ice, but not looking into it too closely, I just assumed that it meant the ice was, you know, not a natural pond frozen over or something of the sort. What it ended up being was some sort of weird plastic surface, supposedly an experiment in sustainability...which doesn't even make sense because it's freakin' plastic. I wish they had at least taken the time to warn me. But whatever. That's not even the point.

My friends and I would have been able to look past the fact that we were skating on giant plastic puzzle pieces if you could actually skate on the damn thing. It was impossible. Even my friend Charlie, who is actually a really good skater, could hardly budge an inch without stumbling. You can read his thoughts on the experience here.

Most of all though, my beef with the AMNH is this: clearly this was a failed experimental rink. It got trashed by the CNN travel reporter who visited, and I'm sure we weren't the first group of patrons to be disappointed. A simple search on Twitter reveals countless of disgruntled would-be skaters, and if I had thought to do some research, I would have known that. I took the museum's recommendation at face value because, well, why in the hell would you try to promote something that  sucks? All that would do is generate negative word-of-mouth for your business/brand/non-profit/whatever. Seriously. That is just plain old common sense.

In this instance, I chose to trust the museum and they failed me. The experience ended up being a major let down for my friends, and a bit of an embarassment for me, and generated some more negative word-of-mouth for the museum from my friends, who are all bloggers and Twitter-holics. All of this could have been avoided if the museum had simply taken the time to listen to the conversations happening online and become self-aware of the negative customer reaction to its Polar Rink. Then they wouldn't have wasted my time, and their own, on a failed venture.

Flickr: A case study Pt.1--The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Putting aside for a moment the question of whether cultural institutions should or, for that matter, need to have a presence on social networks and media sharing sites, I decided to take a look at how some of the early adopters are beginning to use them already. For the purpose of this case study I chose Flickr and art museums, which seemed like a natural pairing. If there were one social network that I would expect art museums to be on, it would be Flickr, simply because they deal in the visual medium and an image sharing site and community would probably be an attentive and enthusiastic audience for their content. 

I took a look at the Flickr presence of three prominent NYC museums: the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), and the Brooklyn Museum, and decided to grade each one. You may be surprised to see who earns the best marks.

The Met:

The Met has a group page that isn't very active. There are only 67 members, 4 discussion posts and 509 images in the pool. The group was created 10 months ago but the earliest discussion topic dates back to only 6 weeks ago--I'm not sure what took them so long to get the conversation going.

On the Met's personal profile the scene is hardly any better. The bio reads stiff and impersonal and is peppered with links to the museum's homepage, calendar and exhibitions listings but neglects to point visitors to the museum's other social media presence (I know they at least have a Twitter account, and likely a Facebook fan page or YouTube channel). They've got a measely 86 "contacts" or friends and I wonder if they've ever interacted with any of them, and are only part of two public groups, one being the Met's own group and the other being the Brooklyn Museum's. Meanwhile, the photostream contains a sparse collection of party pics but no art.

To be fair, the museum does seem to maintain another group dedicated specifically to the arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas, which is only moderately more successful with 98 members, 5 discussions and 1,593 items. But, for comparisons sake, the user-driven group Metropolitan Museum of Art has more members and photos than both of the Met's own groups combined with 397 members and 3,258 items. Here, users interact with one another, comment on each other's submissions and answer one other's questions, generally doing all the things the museum should be doing with its own groups to engage their audience. Where is the Met in these discussions?

Grade: D+

It's nice that they've taken the initiative to set up these groups and profiles, but they need to actively use them and interact with their fans by leaving testimonials or commenting on exemplary pictures uploaded to the photo stream. They should also take the time to monitor fan-generated groups, particularly ones that are more successful than their own.

Note: So, I was originally planning to examine all three museums in the same post, but this has gotten kind of lengthy and since I tend to write late at night, I don't really have the energy to finish this. Plus, seems like it'll be unweildy for reading. I'll look at the other two tommorrow and break it up for everybody's peace of mind.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this link to a Flickr discussion on museums being suspicious of new media.