Читать книгу Museum Practice - Группа авторов - Страница 54

Any discussion of museum governance today must be conducted in the context established by the late Stephen Weil (1928–2005), the renowned American museologist who introduced the term “civil society institutions” in much of his writing and speaking toward the end of his life (Weil 2004). By this phrase he was referring to the emergence of museums that are far more involved in their communities – culturally, economically, and socially – so that their governance calls out for the active participation of public and private sectors, individuals and organizations with a sense of responsibility to and for the maintenance of a healthy, creative, innovative society. This movement can be clearly seen in science centers that get involved in public/private partnerships to encourage innovation, in art museums aiming to stimulate creativity in the public school system, or in natural or cultural history museums that are courageous enough to present exhibitions on controversial topics.

Ironically, this trend has been intensified by government financial cutbacks, as even line department museums have reached out to become more involved in the economic realities of their communities. The increasingly important role of museums in the vital cultural tourism industry has also supported this direction. Museums’ contributions to social cohesion in an age of rapid social change, their often decisive role in urban regeneration, and their ability to contribute to the “brand” of their cities are all further factors encouraging this direction. Perhaps most important has been the growth in importance of what economist Richard Florida has called “the creative class,” in other words people working in or around the “knowledge economy”; as scientific, cultural, and heritage institutions, museums are integral to the knowledge economy, and their governance must be adapted to reflect this position (Florida 2003).

Not surprisingly, the resultant tendency among line department museums has been to move to arm’s-length status, while among those museums already at “arm’s length” there has been pressure for greater autonomy. Among independent not-for-profit associations greater civil society engagement points to the need for boards that are more representative of the diverse populations the museums are serving, with concomitant attention to increasing access for all sectors of society.

Consider the following statement of a museum board’s responsibilities that we recently wrote in the executive summary of a Board Development Strategy for a museum of contemporary art:

It is recommended that the board’s roles and responsibilities be two-fold: the board will be responsible both to the museum and the public. The board will work to ensure institutional sustainability, continuity and evolution. It will also represent the ethnic and social diversity of the community that it represents.

Exactly how museum governance of civil society institutions will evolve will form the narrative of the coming decades. Nina Simon may have pointed the way in her recent book, The Participatory Museum (2010). Governing boards will need to find ways to encourage greater public participation without weakening museum professionalism. Hopefully this greater engagement with the museum’s community may result in a civil society institution that is not dependent on any one source of funding but reflective of the broad public support its professionals will work hard to deserve. All of us may then directly and consciously hold our heritage in trust.

The following case study, drawn from our firm’s work with the governing board of the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art (MOCCA) in Toronto, illustrates the development of a civil society institution. Interestingly, it traces an evolution that has included aspects of all three types of governance discussed here. Currently, as an arm’s-length institution, MOCCA continues to evolve as a civil society institution. Its aspirations may serve as a signal example of how museums in the present century will be entering more and more into every aspect of the economic and social as well as cultural life of their communities. The future of museum governance may be uncertain, but it can certainly be bright, and challenging, if our institutions collectively have the courage to genuinely serve the societies they live in.