Despite commitments to greater equality, many museums to reopen for donors first
Time will tell how thoroughly they actually intend to reinvent themselves when it comes to their bottom lines.
As the press releases flooded my inbox weeks ago, museum after museum promised its senior staff was doing the hard work of introspection, listening carefully, and acting to change longstanding practices of disenfranchisement and power imbalances. Then a new crop of notices arrived. These news releases made clear that at least for the time being, it was business as usual.
Members—i.e. donors—received or are slated to receive advance access ahead of the general public at museums all over the country. This includes:
Akron Art Museum (July 16 for members; July 23 for the public)
Cincinnati Art Museum (June 18-19 for members; June 20 for others)
Cleveland Museum of Art (June 15-17 ticket reservations for “Leadership Circle” members; June 18-21 reservations for “CMA Insider” and general members; reservations for the public starting June 22; June 30 opening)
Delaware Art Museum (starting July 1 for members; July 15 for the rest)
Denver Art Museum (June 24-25 for members; June 26 for others)
High Museum of Art, Atlanta (July 7-17 for members and “frontline workers”; July 18 for others)
Huntington Library, Art Museum, and Botanical Gardens (June 17 for members; July 1 for others)
Museum of Latin American Art, Long Beach (July 8 for members; July 15 for others, per news reports)
San Diego Museum of Art (July 6-7 for members; July 9 for the public)
Many of these museums had, mere days or weeks ago, promised fundamental changes. A June 12 Medium post from Atlanta’s High Museum, for example, lauded “the bravery, candor, and commitment of those who have built this community of progress with their actions.” It continued:
As an organization, we cannot address or fathom the complexity and challenge of this current moment on our own. We can, however, gain perspective, some measure of understanding, and a sense of purpose by listening to the voices and vision of artists whose work we are proud to have within our collection.
It is unclear whether the museum listened to voices from the larger Atlanta community about the most equal way to readmit visitors. “We are so grateful to our members for their continued support and to frontline workers for their enduring dedication to our city, and we want to recognize them by offering first access to the galleries,” the museum director stated in a museum release.
In a “commitment to action” published on its website, the Denver Art Museum states: “The museum will strive to be an inclusive space where all are recognized and heard, as well as a place for all to learn and engage in dialogue sparked by art. … The Denver Art Museum is actively taking steps to have its internal community better reflect the diversity of the Colorado communities we serve.” It too didn’t mention whether its opening plan was to reflect its larger community.
Interior of the Cleveland Museum of Art; my photo.
Neither the Cleveland Museum of Art nor the Akron Art Museum shared specific plans for rethinking their openings either. “We share the outrage,” notes the CMA website. “We are committed to providing a truly safe space in which all our neighbors may see themselves, heal, and find peace.” Recent tragedies “and the resulting rightful public unrest have unveiled opportunities for all of us as individuals, as a community, and specifically as an art museum to rise up and initiate permanent change,” according to the Akron museum. “Although the solutions may not yet be apparent, the mandate for the work that we have to do is crystal clear. That work is beginning now.”
“Together, we will nurture a culture of belonging and excellence that is fundamental to this place we hold so dear,” wrote the president of the Huntington in a statement about a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Plan for 2020-25. It remains to be seen what, if anything, the 20-page plan (with a lot of pictures) will yield with respect to the way it thinks about its paid membership’s greater access and opportunities than the general public.
The Delaware Art Museum issued a rare attempt to explain (justify?) the inequality of entry opportunity. “We will reopen to our loyal Members to provide you with the first opportunity to visit ‘Layered Abstraction: Margo Allman & Helen Mason,’ which was scheduled to open just after we closed to the public, and ‘Julio daCunha: Modernizing Myths,’ which opened just prior to the shutdown,” it stated. “Our initial opening being exclusively for Members is an enhanced safety precaution, limiting our capacity and, as our Members enjoy complimentary admission every day, limiting the need for hand-to-hand transactions.” (Member capitalization original.)
But the museum doesn’t explain why the visitor canaries-in-the-coal-mine, as they put it, must align with the wealthiest members of its community. Surely a smaller group that got first dibs on reentry could represent the broader community, if that was a museum priority?
Looking forward, I’ve got my eyes on New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has announced an opening late in August. It hasn’t stated yet who, if anyone, will go to the head of the reentry line. But its membership page—where packages range from $500 to $3,500 annually—notes, “Members visit the Museum before it opens, preview exhibitions before they open, and celebrate exhibition openings at evening receptions.”
A June 1 statement on the Met’s site, titled “Standing in solidarity, committing to the work ahead,” notes:
Many of you have raised your voices on the streets and on social media, rightly demanding justice. We must come together as a Met community to grieve and to reflect on how we, as individuals, and as a museum, can do more to support social justice efforts in this country. … While email has been a helpful tool in communicating over the past few months, it does not allow for the kind of connection we need to traverse these challenges together. Therefore, we are planning for a series of virtual conversations with all staff in the weeks ahead, when we can speak directly with you about current events, the Museum’s response to the ongoing pandemic, re-opening plans, and more. We will follow up soon with more detail on the first of these conversations.
Time will tell what the museum will decide about its “re-opening plans” and the kinds of opportunities various members its community, both paying and not, will enjoy.
Don’t get me wrong. Museums need to incentivize paid membership to keep their doors open and fund the programming that is part of their larger missions. But if at their core they are focused on being art museums first and foremost, they should temper their proclamations as such, and note caveats in the public interest.
If they intend to maintain the same financial structures (and inequalities) at their core which have long been in place, they could have done a better job explaining that when promising structural change. And it’s something they can be more transparent about for the benefit of the public going forward.
I welcome responses and further context (via this link) from museums and the public about the issues this piece raises.