On Friday morning, Staff Writer Simon Panfilio and Senior Staff Writer Charlotte Slovin attended a Committee on Global Thought event on changes in the art museum world.

The past few years have brought upon great change in many areas of life. Cultural institutions (art museums, specifically) are no exception. Seen as hubs of culture and preservation, the pandemic intensified discussions and brought questions to the surface surrounding the significance of physical spaces, representation, and governance in art museums. Why are museums the way they are, and should they continue to be that way? All signs point to change.

On Friday morning, Dr. Vishakha N. Desai, chair of the Committee on Global Thought, hosted a virtual panel event to address and imagine this change. The event was part of a much larger multi-year research project entitled “Politics of Visual Arts” of which Desai is also the director. The panel consisted of Museum of Arts and Photography (Bangalore, India) Director Kamini Sawhney, Ann and Graham Gund Director of the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston) Matthew Teitelbaum, Shelby White, and Leon Levy Director of the Brooklyn Museum of Art Anne Pasternak, Senior Research Partner at the Max-Planck Institute for Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Gottingen Dr. Arjun Appadurai.

The panelists spoke at length about the different changes facing contemporary museums. There is change both in the physical sense, as the COVID-19 pandemic demands physical workarounds to the traditional museum experience, and as new technology offers unique digital opportunities and advantages. There is also the spiritual sense, as social movements bring about reform and reflection. The panelists all took time to emphasize the importance in embracing this change or, as Matthew Teitelbaum put it, there is a “critical mass of issues that have been latent or just under the surface that need to be reckoned with.” However, tellingly, they rarely seemed to frame change as something that museums actively partake in. When they spoke about change in relation to museums, it wasn’t about facilitating it, but merely letting external and existing change sweep them up. 

This addresses a complicated aspect of the museum world—as caretakers and curators of history, art, and culture, museums seemingly should have the moral responsibility to accurately portray their subjects and set the historical record straight. In this sense, museums should be setting the tone for cultural conversations, and audiences should respond accordingly (so long as the museums are appropriately responsible). But audiences come to museums with a specific expectation in mind: in the words of Dr Desai, “The capacity of art is to inspire and imagine. Objects manifest the specificity of issues that are part and parcel of our society; art is of time and place, and to go beyond time and place.” If audiences designate museums to serve a specific, perceived purpose, then are museums wary of jeopardizing that relationship by subverting that perception? Dr. Desai spoke to this complicated sentiment when she said of museums, “If you can’t deal with the social justice structure, maybe you shouldn’t exist. But what about millions of people that do go to museums and want to see the art?” Museums are simultaneously a public institution and an artistic installation, and balancing responsible storytelling and public satisfaction is a hard question that can’t immediately be dismissed, considering that these nonprofit museums still have to answer to the public.

Should museums be framing the way we look at issues, or should they simply tell the story of the picture within a frame that already exists? The question of whether museums should be passive storytellers or active narrative-shapers is not a new one, and as these panelists displayed, it’s never been more true than in our fast-moving, post-pandemic world. To Anne Pasternak, the “how” is extremely important. The pace of technological innovation accelerated due to the pandemic, and she sees no signs of this stopping. Pasternak argued that this technology should facilitate bringing in new storytellers for a more in-depth understanding of works of art. Teitelbaum added that museum directors and curators should work to create environments of curiosity, criticizing the role of so-called “experts” who just reiterate assumed knowledge instead of expanding expertise to ethical values and curiosity.

But who are the people making these decisions, and is change really happening on the level of governance? The panelists called for more transparency between boards and staff, for a greater acceptance of board change, and for greater accountability of those who govern museums. Dr. Desai, while in agreement, added an important detail regarding specificity.; governance can’t just change hands or be more open, we need to pay attention to whom those board members are.

Related to the stories told are the objects that convey those narratives. How do museums reckon with the exhibition of objects that they only came into possession of due to colonialism? When should objects be repatriated, if ever? As a director of a museum of objects herself, Kamini Sawhney provided a clear answer to this question. To Sawhney, objects cannot be viewed in terms of their aesthetic value alone, context is key. Once an object is removed from its context, the story behind the object gets muddled, if not lost completely. Sawhney proposes a future where museums “learn how to share. We don’t have to own everything, let’s just loan.” A seemingly simple task has proven to be a difficult reality due to museum reputation and ideals around preservation. The colonial history of museums and the role of globalization in dispersing culture make a loan system the best option. There is no reason why, in the reality of 2021, audiences shouldn’t learn and experience new cultures and dispersed communities shouldn’t gain access to their culture and heritage. Teitelbaum echoed this sentiment, stating that going forward, museums must think about what they hold but also what they continue to collect.

With leading figures and scholars of museums acknowledging the need for change, what is actually likely to happen? Here again, passive futures seemed to be the dominant narrative amongst the panelists. They all said that change was coming, but who was going to bring about that change, and what would it actually look like on the day-to-day level? That said, Arjun Appadurai made an important distinction: all the issues mentioned have been dealt with before, but never where such a large part of society is disenfranchised yet aware and vocal. The confluence of social movements, technology, and the pandemic really seem to mark a true shift in the future of museums, but action is key. In the words of Dr. Desai, “it’s ok to aim high and fail, but it is not acceptable to not aim high.” Only the future will reveal the significance of this moment.

A recording of the event can be found here.

Event Zoom via Simon Panfilio