I agree with Mike that this is a conversation about control– who has it, who wants it, and who cares? The ‘who cares’ is the real question.

I feel like there’s a lot of concern, conversation, and confusion about being community-led versus community-informed. This isn’t different than the concern, conversation, and confusion about about being visitor-led versus visitor-informed.

If we want museums and culturals to keep living, breathing, and existing (in any form) we need to be a part of and not separate from.

Inviting, hearing, and really listening to ‘the voices outside’ doesn’t mean we have to be all things to all people or that we lose our missions, or focus, our identity, or even our ‘authority.’ It means we acknowledge that we are a small part of a much larger dialogue. It’s time we stop being so glaringly naive to the fact we’re a part of the world around us. This doesn’t have to be as hard as museums often make it. Ultimately, we shouldn’t be so removed. We should be reflective of the world outside our doors. Sadly, this is rarely the case. And so we pander, one-off, apologize, tokenize, and make a great mess of things all too often. If we remain separate, no one cares. No one but us.

Conxa and Andrianne, I so agree! Internal renovation and change at home has to happen.

I also agree with my Denver neighbor and badass friend, Koven, about the current fetishization (thanks, Nancy!) of ‘participatory.’ Whenever I hear about ‘participatory’ anything in the museum world I can’t help but wonder how institutions themselves plan to participate. Why do we never talk about what that looks like? On the other hand, I disagree with Koven about community at a somewhat base and fundamental level. It shouldn’t be elusive and it shouldn’t be tail chasing. Again– if we are part of and not separate from, this becomes who we are not just what we (say) we do.

Ed made a similar point so well above, so I’ll repeat his fantastic question: ‘How can we re-shape our buildings, staffs, and offerings in ways that support our local communities, not as temples where visitors come to consume culture, but more like agoras – meeting-places where our visitors can come to exchange ideas and culture?’

No more Great Oz. And a hell of a lot more badass.

Nancy’s right. It’s time for ‘radical restructure.’ And yes, Koven, you’re right too. It’s absolutely the right time for ‘pursuing unique individual goals that might lead either to glory or extinction.’ I would just argue that our goals aren’t as unique as we museums often think they are!

This post makes me feel pretty excited about what’s to come. (And incredibly happy to have such opinionated, critical, and inspiring friends! You all are pretty badass.)