Cultural Divide as Seen Through Museums
Trip Start
Jun 25, 2008
1
9
11
Trip End
Aug 27, 2008
Paris,
Île-de-France,
France
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
When I interned at SFMOMA, I quickly learned how important the communications and the development departments are. The development department at SFMOMA, for instance, has people who specialize in corporate sponsors, individual sponsors, different types of donations, etc. Then the marketing and communications department has its own director and down the chain to fill every nook and cranny that might need looking after. It's hierarchy galore, with very specific roles for each employee.
The Cluny Museum has one person who deals with communications, and who dedicates about ten percent of her time to development research. That's the difference between private and public. The latter still embraces the "starving artist" mystique that even contemporary artists run from as soon as they make the big bucks, while the former brazenly markets itself in the same ruthless manner as a Target or a Walmart.
I'm not really convinced that one system is better than the other. Is it better to fend for yourself by selling your soul to trustees who have the final word on museum acquisitions, but also bring in the money to make the purchases, for example? Or is it better to wag your tail in expectation and gratitude every time the State throws you a bone, even though it doesn't realize the necessity of renovation, restoration and modernization and, therefore, won't provide additional funds?
The French state funds about 60 percent of the budget of each national museum. That means that the Louvre and the Musee d'Orsay get 60 percent of thier budget covered in the same way that the Cluny Museum gets 60 percent of its budget covered. There's no discretion or discrimination. But actually this is where the injustice comes in: It takes a lot more money to cover the Louvre's budget than it does to cover the Cluny's budget. At the same time, donors are attracted to the Louvre like magnets; it provides them with visibility, prestige and more tangible benefits like invitations to special events and complimentary membership. The Louvre makes it a hard competition for the other several dozens of museums to land outside financing.
There must be a golden mean somewhere, a half-way point between the outright commercialization of American museums (and very large French museums), and the self-righteous and too-pretentious-to-bother demeanor of medium-to-small French institutions.
I'll provide you with an example. Yesterday we had a little lunch party in the office. I started talking to the person in charge of web design and, unsuspectingly, suggested that a link to our sponsorship page be placed directly on the home page to make it easier to find. Her response was that, "It's atrocious!" According to her, the sponsorship page is aimed toward corporate donors who are rich and most likely have someone in charge of researching potential grantees. Hmm...can't we just make it easier, though? She later obliged, but her horror at the initial suggestion is indicative of a more general national perspective on the subject: art is sacred and must be kept away from money, which is degrading.
I don't pretend to have any inside knowledge about much. It's the general impressios I've gotten that have made me realize how different the American and the French perspectives are. I find that it's easy to trace the French mindset to the French Revolution, for instance. The "equality" in "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" means that art can no longer be for one class of people, but must be available to one and all. Since art is for every citizen, it is only right for the State to finance it. As soon as capitalists get their dirty selves involved, art is no longer precious; it's no longer art for art's sake, but art for money and, therefore, a matter of class and status.
I appreciate that whole-heartedly. I like that here there are people of all ages in museums, usually energetically discussing the chiaroscuro effect in this painting or the perspective in that one. I can understand why working with private enterprises is seen as the equivalent of prostituting oneself, but at the same time, art needs financing. Plenty of artists were more than happy to prostitute themselves and their work at some point or another to make a buck. It's called "patronage" and it has a long history that didn't commence with donations from VISA and Morgan Stanley.
In any case, the experience of working at the Cluny, talking to people and making them at least conisder the possibility that private donors can provide enough funds to build that new entrance, to restore the Roman ruins and the Medieval chapel, and to support the museum in its future endeavors, is already progress. I wonder if there's a place where the people's mentality is at the half-way mark between that of the French and that of the Americans. That would be the perfect middle to the two extremes.
