Trust Everyone?

Nina Simon’s recent MUSEUM 2.0 conversation asks us to reflect on the fundamental nature or our collective museum identity. It is an exploration worthy of our interest and it begs embrace by everyone, everywhere who cares for what role museums will play in our future. But, it’s a ‘talk’ that must be pushed beyond borders and past our American museum scene, to encompass a world-wide context meant to explore how museums need to increase the level of collaboration and engagement with people and their communities.

In the last decade there’s been a lot of talk about how museums should serve their communities. But time and again we neglect to reflect on the reality that “communities” are not simply data sets, demographics or even “neighborhoods,” districts drawn on a map. Communities are dynamic and are mapped on the minds of real people; they are founded on sets of common interests and shared perspectives. Therefore nothing deemed socially relevant is off limits when attempting to determine an appropriate form for museum content or especially benchmarks for trust. Any workable definitions of content or agendas framing trustworthiness must be understood, at least from a broad perspective, to be flexible, dynamic if not fluid.

Departing from the ‘big picture’ we will someday be encouraged, even pressed, to argue and accept, that future organizations will on occasion be asked to muster alternative definitions for ‘museum’ identity, meaning and trust. These calls for introspection will be fueled by a wide range of now unknown, future concerns. However, some factors will remain forever familiar, including the vital need for regarding tolerance, urging recognition, understanding and respect for cultural context and the ever-widening quest to target and capture what is truly meant by ”…relevant museum content.”

Regardless, of exactly when this process is engaged there lays a rough road ahead for the ‘average’ museum, the demands on human energy required by any institution to continually evolve what it means to be trustworthy and/or relevant must be acknowledged in advance as taxing, given the current configuration of most museum infrastructures. This is especially true, if each journey is to be tackled with absolute objectivity and without an eye on either the clock or the bottom line.

Nevertheless, museums, whatever their form or content, can begin to plan ahead by adding to their mission goals the requirement to implicitly serve communities. By employing this simple framework the very activity of developing a relevant museum message can be envisioned as a catalyst and tool for inspiring real interest and cooperation between museums and citizens. People working from both sides can help transform the existing landscape of the visitor to venue experience. By laying the groundwork for a truly reciprocal network, true social and economic value can be infused by utilizing the ‘local’ museum as a vehicle and means for developing long term community investments. By making museums do more people find excitement, a place to gather and a stage for bringing into focus mutual aspirations, interests and inquiries.

Imagine an exhibition development process emerging as a lens through which communities might consolidate knowledge, cultural energy and material wealth in order to achieve a common agenda. In instances like this, community trust would be built not with a slogan, but layer by layer, hand in hand, side by side with bricks and mortar.

It must be acknowledged that museums are the places that already exist to enrich and inspire our imagination. Museums bind the past with present and by doing so offer us a chance to connect with our future. Museums also remind us that it is our duty to vouchsafe for succeeding generations some form of, and perhaps appreciation for, our artistic, cultural and scientific heritage. This heritage is the foundation of our identities–as individuals, as communities, as nations. It is the vital work of museums to help validate these communities.