participation for non-traditional audiences in
contemporary Dutch museums.
Elspeth Hunter
MA Heritage and Memory Studies
University of Amsterdam, March 2018
First Supervisor: Dr. Chiara de Cesari
C.deCesari@uva.nl
Second Supervisor: Dr. Ihab Saloul
I.A.M.Saloul@uva.nl
Master’s Thesis Heritage and Memory Studies
Graduate School of Humanities
University of Amsterdam, March 2018
Word Count: 22,341
Chapter One
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
4
The drive for social inclusion 4 Community 7
Barriers to inclusion 10
Participation as empowerment 12 Methodology 14
Chapter Two
The Stedelijk Museum
18
Non-traditional forms of knowledge creation and transference 19
Target groups and marketing 25 Relevant expertise/partners 28
- Audience as expert 28 - Collaborative projects 30
Chapter Three
The Amsterdam Museum
35
Participation 37 - Multimedia 37 - Co-creation 40 - Focus groups 42 Marketing 45 Institutional culture 48 “Soft power” and activism 49
- Voices of Tolerance 50
Chapter Four
Analysis and Conclusion
53
Targeting and marketing 53 The space of the museum 57
Staff as a true reflection of society 61 Moving forward 63
Bibliography
65
Introduction
A paradigm shift within the museum sector took place in the 1990s, one that saw the disappearance of an unequivocal elite culture, a culture that mostly excluded a large
proportion of the population.1 Indeed, the realisation of postmodernism saw the denunciation of such elitist monoculturalism and the belief that what people want from cultural activities is not necessarily that which is permitted or admired by the high academics and art elites.2 As such, the cultural heritage sector began to expand its offer, attempting to provide exhibitions and experiences for non-typical, working class communities3 - but to what extent does this hold true today? Despite the modern institutionalised interest in dealing with non-normative narratives and minority identities, open access and public participation, the culture sector still struggles to entice a broad variety of visitors with most museum goers being part of the academic elite/middle classes.4 Are these programmes organised by the museum sector to attract a more varied audience simply acts of tokenism?
In recent years, we are seeing the concentration of cultural focus being increasingly directed towards a more diverse representation of society. In London, the Tate Modern opened its doors on ‘Soul of a Nation: Art in the Age of Black Power’ in July, 2017, addressing the lack of BAME artists who receive exposure compared to that of white privileged artists.5 In Amsterdam, the Rijksmuseum’s 2017 exhibition ‘Good Hope. South Africa and The Netherlands from 1600’ dealt with the typically ignored history of Dutch colonialism.6 In partnership with this advancement, social inclusion has become an imperative practice both in the culture sector and in government policy at large, with cultural heritage institutions viewing outreach programmes to be as vital as conservation and research. Indeed, the ‘National Research Agenda for the Museum Sector’ published in 2015 by the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (National Service for Cultural Heritage) in the Netherlands appears to be in-tune with the discourse of social inclusion; claiming to be sensitive to the fluidity of society and the “needs of the public,” the document professes to understand that there no longer exists “clearly-defined target groups.”7 Recognising the growth of competition within the leisure industry, the research emphasises the need for museums to become 1 J. Urry, “Gazing on History,” in Representing the Nation: A Reader: Histories, Heritage and Museums, ed. Jessica Evans & David Boswell (London: Routledge, 1999), 208-232, 230.
2 D. Edgar, “The New Nostalgia,” Marxism Today, March, 1987, 30-35, 35. 3 Urry, “Gazing on History”, 230.
4 See Appendix, Table 1.
5 “Soul of a Nation: Art in the Age of Black Power,” Exhibitions & Events, Tate Modern, accessed 19th December 2017, http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/soul-nation-art-age-black-power
6 “Good Hope; South Africa and The Netherlands from 1600,” Exhibitions, Rijksmuseum, accessed 19th December 2017, https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/good-hope
7 “National Research Agenda for the Museum Sector,” Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (January 2015), p. 14, accessed 18th October 2017, https://cultureelerfgoed.nl/publicaties/national-research-agenda-for-the-museum-sector
platforms for sharing thoughts, and participate in communal activity8; people want to “experience something special.”9
Yet, despite claiming to address matters of social inclusion and participation, with programmes aimed at providing “unique cultural and civic value,” both at the level of
government policy and at the level of the museum, the public is gradually looking elsewhere for recreational, educational and social activities.10 Whilst museums are broadening their narratives, does this necessarily equate to a broadening of interest by the general public? Do cultural heritage institutions create inclusive experiences within their outreach
programmes alongside their increasingly more inclusive narratives?
With a sensitivity to class and exclusivity, and an interest in accessibility to cultural goods, this thesis aims to question the practices, methods and focus of cultural institutions in Amsterdam and their understanding of inclusion, exploring the types of knowledge production and knowledge transference these sites deem worthy. The percentage of museum visitors with primary education dropped by 1% in the 20 year period from 1983-2003, suggesting that the refocus of museum work on matters of inclusion during the 1990s had little effect on the participation of non-typical audiences.11 Using this statistic as an impetus, the following study aims to explore exactly how museums are failing to attract visitors from non-academic backgrounds.12 My main research question will ask what methods do various cultural heritage institutions employ to create an inclusive experience, and how successful are they at engaging broader, non-academic audiences?
Chapter one explores both historical and current debates surrounding the drive for social inclusion, analysing the concept of community, barriers to inclusion and the use of participation within museums and heritage sites as a means of inclusion. Following this, honing in on two popular Amsterdam-based museums as principal case-studies, I explore the way in which each institution presents itself, taking an interest in the methods and practices used to supposedly agree with a broader, non-typical audience whom approach the museum from a non-academic perspective. The fieldwork conducted to inform the study encompasses interviews with relevant experts and insiders, including visual site-analyses (online and physical). Chapter four delivers the findings of the research, arguing that whilst minor changes may improve the organisation – such as a lesser focus on marketing and further staff diversity - the inherent elitism within museums, both spatially and historically, is impossible to erase thus calling for a new and radical approach to including non-traditional audiences within cultural work.
8 Ibid., 15. 9 Ibid., 14.
10 N. Simon, The Participatory Museum (Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0, 2010), i.
11 J. de Haan, F. Huysmans, A. van den Broek, Culture-lovers and Culture-leavers: Trends in Interest in the Arts
and Cultural Heritage in the Netherlands (The Hague: Social and Cultural Planning Office, 2005), 18.
Chapter One
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Modern museums are adapting to “meet the needs of a changing world”; 13 highlighted by Ruth Rentschler, with globalisation, the heritage sector has to adjust to stay relevant, altering its focus to include a breadth of identities.14 As such, terms like social inclusion, community and participation have become common amongst museum professionals in order to adhere to modern concerns with democracy and accessibility15 - yet according Golding and Modest, these terms are often “taken for granted,” thus remaining vague in their meaning and leading to “tokenistic claims of inclusion,” amongst other assertions.16 The following chapter aims to explore scholarly theories on why and how the sector is processing these societal changes, offering an examination of definitions of these buzzwords in order to appreciate their use in recent heritage theory.
The drive for social inclusion
Arguments for the democratisation of the museum can be traced back to the rise of anti-elitism within academia. Recalling comments made in 1971, nearly forty years ago, Julia Harrison points towards Duncan Cameron’s belief that “society ‘would no longer tolerate institutions that [only] serve a minority audience of the elite’,” suggesting that this is not a new argument, and issues of elitism within the culture sector have been circulating within academic and professional discussions for decades.17 Beginning in the 1960s, the rise of poststructuralist theory gave voice to a multitude of typically ignored interpretations18; notions of value shifted from an essentialist concept of value, to one which considers subjectivities and difference.19 As such, identity politics itself adapted to this poststructuralist ideology, developing the notion that identity is not static, but continually changing, influenced by the social world around us and thus suggesting that there is no ultimate identity that can be analysed objectively; we are all products of our environment.20 This was reflected with the rise of critical heritage discourse as communities felt that the values, sites and artefacts
13 R. Rentschler, “Museum Marketing: No longer a dirty word,” in Museum Marketing: Competing in the
Global Marketplace, eds. Ruth Rentschler & Anne-Marie Hede (Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman, 2007), 12-20,
13.
14 Ibid., 13.
15 V. Golding and W. Modest, Museums and Communities: Curators, Collections and Collaboration (London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 1.
16 Ibid., 1.
17 J. Harrison, “Ideas of Museums in the 1990s,” Museum Management and Curatorship 13, no. 2 (June, 1994): 160-176, 163.
18 J. Williams, Understanding Poststructuralism (Oxon: Routledge, 2014), 1.
19 Ibid., 18.
being promoted as having widespread appeal did not echo their own practices or beliefs.21 As such, the heritage sector began to realign itself along these lines; non-traditional forms of heritage, and the critique of heritage and its uses both in the past and present as a political tool, began to take a more central role in academic debates.22
It is also noteworthy that these changes to identity politics and heritage theory came at a time when globalisation was taking hold, with the latter part of the twentieth century seeing increased immigrant numbers in Amsterdam.23 People travelled from Turkey, Morocco24 and the newly independent Surinam (1975)25 mostly for work opportunities, but soon acquired the name ‘New Amsterdammers’ as they settled and began family life.26 Dutch minority policies took on a more “pluralist” stance,27 with a 1982 government memorandum defining its intentions to support the integration of minority groups within Dutch culture, whilst also “maintaining their cultural identity.”28 Visibility of minority groups and minority cultures became the norm, and as a result the identity of the city as a whole dramatically changed, arguably re-establishing the “original migrant culture” that historically belongs to
Amsterdam.29
Moving forward thirty years to the 1990s, the era where the term ‘social inclusion’ perhaps first gained popularity, Harrison, in her article ‘Ideas of Museums in the 1990s’, assessed the progression of the museum and heritage sector over the past century, highlighting the increasing desire in the 1990s for institutions to be defined in a more diverse way.30 This question of definition ultimately proposed that the institution must clarify its role and raison d’ être within society - that academic and conservationist pursuits were not a sufficient cause
21 R. Harrison, Heritage: Critical Approaches (Oxon & New York: Routledge, 2013), 95. 22 Ibid., 96.
23 E. Ketelaar and V. J. Vos, “Amsterdam Communities’ Memories: Research into how Modern Media can be applied to Archive Community Memory,” in Constructing and Sharing Memory: Community Informatics,
Identity and Empowerment, eds. Larry Stillman & Graeme Johanson (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2007), 330 – 342, 333. 24 Ibid., 333.
25 T. Müller, “Ethnic groups in Amsterdam’s public spaces,” in Ethnic Amsterdam: Immigrants and Urban
Change in the Twentieth Century, eds. Liza Nell & Jan Rath (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009), 23
– 40, 26.
26 Ketelaar & Vos, “Amsterdam Communities’ Memories: Research into how Modern Media can be applied to Archive Community Memory,” 333.
27 P. Scholten, “The Multilevel Governance of Migrant Integration: A Multilevel Governance Perspective on Dutch Migrant Integration Policies,” in The Discourses and Politics of Migration in Europe, eds. Umut Korkut, Gregg Bucken-Knapp, Aidan McGarry, Jonas Hinnfors & Helen Drake (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013), 151 – 170, 160.
28 K. Kraal, “Amsterdam: From Group-Specific to Problem-Oriented Policy,” in Multicultural Policies and Modes
of Citizenship in European Cities, eds. Alisdair Rogers & Jean Tillie (Aldershot, Burlington, Singapore, Sydney:
Ashgate, 2001), 15-39, 20.
29 Ketelaar & Vos, “Amsterdam Communities’ Memories: Research into how Modern Media can be applied to Archive Community Memory,” 333.
alone and that the institution must consider its roles of “public education,” social inclusion and public participation as fundamental to its justification.31
The museum sector now has an important social role to play - today education and outreach often play a central part of what museums offer, often instigated by government policy. Widespread criticism claiming that museums only accommodate a small, advantaged and wealthy group has instigated the creation of strategy policies by the government, alongside investigations into the social work of museums.32 Social inclusion, education and access are no longer additional bonus’s, but an unwavering and unquestionable goal, this also being the case in The Netherlands. In the 2015 ‘National Research Agenda for the Museum Sector’, commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, policies and
practices providing “interaction with the public” – more specifically the “needs of the public” – are central.33 The report offers a model format for museums of the future, highlighting their ability to be spaces of “dialogue” – spaces where the public can “share in thinking and doing,” a highly participatory approach.34 There appears to be a distinct desire to include the public’s voice within the museum, yet this is also driven by other, more practical factors. Whilst directed by government policy, the recognition that modern society is diverse has also forced museums to reconsider their audience to ensure they sustain visitor numbers and thus make adequate financial gains. Indeed, philanthropy is not always the driving force behind larger aims of social inclusion, but also “political expediency, economics and survival” play a part, urging museums to pay close attention to the changing makeup of society to stay afloat.35 To access to government funding, institutions have to incorporate diverse groups of large quantities in a bid to appear ethical, and answerable to the broad public.36 Whilst museums toe government policy to appear deserving of funding, Annet Zondervan proposes that in the end “capitalism will force a change” in how museums alter their focus.37 With ticket sales being a main source of income, museums have to constantly re-evaluate who their audience is in order to reflect the ever changing society and keep in business.38
31 Ibid., 161.
32 G. Black, The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement (Oxon & New York: Routledge, 2005), 50.
33 Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, “National Research Agenda for the Museum Sector,” 15.
34 Ibid., 15.
35 P. Davis, “Place Exploration: Museums, Identity, Community,” in Museums and their Communities, ed. Sheila Watson (London & New York: Routledge, 2007), 53-75, 65.
36 Ibid., 65.
37 A. Zondervan, recorded interview by author, Zuidoost, Amsterdam. 24th November, 2017.
This is problematic given the role of museums as places which contribute to “identity construction”;39 eliciting a sense of personal association and acceptance for visitors within the larger community, they should act as centres where increasingly global societies can seek affirmation of their identity and kinship.40 Modern museums face the dilemma of articulating the “multiple visions of disparate communities and individuals” whilst attempting to create harmony and promote the notion of “shared experiences”.41 Taking heed of the societal conditions created by migration and globalisation, museums have had to alter their very definition and methods as they incorporate the public in a “multilateral manner.”42
Community
Following this, the term community is frequently used within the museum sector,43 being commonly referred to with little explanation of what this entails, but a mere suggestion that communities are precisely those groups that museums want to acknowledge and praise,44 often implemented to refer to groups that do not traditionally visits museums.45 From a sociological perspective, a central problem with the term community is that it carries so much significance, yet is ambiguous and has no direct description.46 Attempting to address this ambiguity, Eric Gable suggests that the concept of publics/communities that modern museums imbue themselves with is also “entangled in the language of multiculturalism”; community is thus synonymous with cultures, this being defined by museums as groupings of people who have common beliefs, histories and life circumstances.47 Due to its implicit link to “multiculturalism,”48 by implementing and applauding the term community, the modern museum attempts to foster a more egalitarian environment.49 However, often the terms public and community are applied as an “abstraction to those who invoke it,” and thus is still used in a vague sense, with little understanding of what the institution is referring to.50
39 L. Gouriévidis, Museums and Migration: History, Memory and Politics (Oxon & New York: Routledge, 2014), 1.
40 Ibid., 2 41 Ibid. 3.
42 F. Lanz, “City museums in a transcultural Europe,” in Museums and Migration: History, Memory and Politics, ed. Laurence Gouriévidis (Oxon & New York: Routledge, 2014), 27 - 43, 28.
43 Golding & Modest, Museums and Communities, 1.
44 E. Gable, “The City, Race, and the Creation of a Common History at the Virginia Historical Society,” in
Museums and Communities: Curators, Collections and Collaboration, eds. Viv Golding & Wayne Modest
(London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 32-47, 39.
45 D. Turakhia, “Communities Are For Life, Not Just For Christmas,” in The Innovative Museum: It’s Up To You, A
Collection of Essays (Edinburgh & Boston: MuseumsEtc, 2013), 160-201, 163.
46 G. Marshall and J. Scott, The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 108.
47 Gable, “The City, Race, and the Creation of a Common History at the Virginia Historical Society,” 38.
48 Ibid., 38.
49 Ibid., 39.
It appears we may be experiencing an era that romanticises the notion of community to adhere to current trends.51 To avoid superficiality, a distinction should be made between those museums that include relevant communities when they initiate changes in all areas of the museum, including decisions concerning infrastructure and policy, and those that do not.52 This notion is popular in modern heritage theory, with Viv Golding also advising that museums must constantly be aware of the way in which the term community is utilised; the seemingly “positive” and modern discourse of community can also be a means to “divide and marginalize” by creating an us-and-them/othering mentality.53 The relationship between the museum and its chosen community becomes one of an imbalance of power when there is a lack of understanding, or desire to understand the community in question.
To combat this problem of othering, it is crucial for museums to recognise that communities are not readily definable, but ever changing.54 Highlighting the museums inability to define the term, Sheila Watson suggests that community actually has multiple definitions when used in the museum sector, and can be defined by a plethora of factors: “by shared historical or cultural experiences...by their specialist knowledge...by demographic/socio-economic factors...by identities...by their visiting practices...by their exclusion from other
communities.”55 Individuals can be members of multiple communities - to disregard this would have a homogenising effect, with potential to become offensive when done so in a museum context.56
Alternatively, it could be seen that museums and communities share a “symbiotic
relationship,” whereby communities help shape museums, vindicating their existence, and in return museums help shape the community.57 When discussing heritage and communities, Elizabeth Crooke highlights the dynamics between the two, suggesting that communities often rely on the conservationist and interpretive practices of museums to construct their own identity, fostering a dependency on the museum.58 Similarly, Sandell discusses the catalytic effect of museum work on communities, writing that they can:
51 Ibid., 39.
52 Ibid., 39.
53 V. Golding, “Collaborative Museums: Curators, Communities, Collections,” in Museums and Communities:
Curators, Collections and Collaboration, eds. Viv Golding & Wayne Modest (London & New York; Bloomsbury
Academic, 2013), 13-31, 20.
54 S. Watson, “Museums and their Communities,” in Museums and Their Communities, ed. Sheila Watson (London & New York: Routledge, 2007), 1-23, 4.
55 Ibid., 4
56 Ibid., 4.
57 E. Crooke, Museums and Community: Ideas, Issues and Challenges (London & New York: Routledge, 2007), 1.
“…impact positively on the lives of disadvantaged or marginalised individuals, act as a catalyst for social regeneration and as a vehicle for empowerment with specific communities and also contribute towards the creation of more equitable societies.”59
More than just places where underrepresented communities shape exhibitions and are finally recognised, museums can be seen to have a greater social purpose; to impact community behaviour and combat “symptoms of social inequality.”60 It would be an
overstatement to suggest that museums can be the main factor in creating a wholly inclusive society - but as investigated by Lucie Fritton in her research carried out at the Museum of London, the museum can become a “contributing factor” towards a positive outcome for many typically excluded communities.61 Her study, which analysed fifteen participants and the long-term impact of social inclusion initiatives at the Museum of London, concluded that the impact of museum inclusion work is long-lasting, with the most significant impact being that of developed “confidence and social skills” combined with a more optimistic outlook.62 Fitton’s work contributes to existing arguments for the museum’s changing role towards a more ‘socialising’ presence in society, this notion being most associated with Tony Bennett’s ‘The Exhibitionary Complex’ published in 1988.63 Applying Foucault’s theory of “carceral archipelago”to the development of the museum in the post-Enlightenment era,64 it is
suggested that museums provided a space where the middle class could deliver a “lesson in civics” to the working class, by way of “self-observation”65 and “surveillance.”66 Whilst
Bennett alludes to a museum which cultivates civil obedience, the museum also has the potential to develop a healthy society through the sharing of culture and communication. Whilst traditional social work has been afflicted by bad public perceptions, museums can bring an alternative “enlivening and empowering” approach through the means of
engagement.67 Rather than referring to individual change and obedience toward a civil ideal, Louis Silverman highlights the ability of the museum to change culture and the “social structure”68 itself via the act of “human interaction.”69
59 R. Sandell, “Museums and the Combating of Social Inequality; roles, responsibilities, resistance,” in
Museums and their Communities, ed. Sheila Watson (London & New York: Routledge, 2007), 95-113, 96.
60 Ibid., 96.
61 L. Fitton, “Keep Up the Good Work? The Long-Term Impact of Social Inclusion Initiatives,” in The New
Museum Community; Audiences, Challenges, Benefits (Edinburgh: MuseumsEtc, 2010), 168-195, 187.
62 Ibid., 191.
63 T. Bennett, ”The Exhibitionary Complex,” New Formations, no. 4 (Spring, 1988): 73 – 102. 64 Ibid., 73.
65 Ibid., 82. 66 Ibid., 81.
67 L. Silverman, The Social Work of Museums (Oxon & New York: Routledge, 2010), 153. 68 Ibid., 21.
Yet, Josie Appleton criticises how museums are dealing with this this role in the modern era, claiming the museum is now a “therapeutic” space aimed at the “most isolated and troubled individuals,” with artefacts becoming “props in a counselling session” as the institute is more concerned with enlarging its own “sense of self-worth.”70 As such, there is a fine line
between providing appropriate services to communities who are ‘at risk’ and delineating who these communities might be, and creating superficial programmes with opportunistic aims that still subtly reproduce the traditional hierarchies and objective truths that perpetuate assimilation.71
Barriers to inclusion
Tapping into various community values is thus a key drive for modern museums – becoming even more challenging when individuals conducting this work are typically from outside such communities. Following this, there still exist “barriers” within the sector which ultimately have the effect of social exclusion,72 some of these being “external” to the museum, including “physical, emotional, intellectual, social, or geographical” barriers.73 Only by working through these barriers with the community in question, the museum can attempt to create durable relations.74 However, in its current state, the museum and its curatorial practices can be criticised for maintaining inherent barriers for non-traditional museum visitors. Hooper-Greenhill expands on this notion, alluding to Stanley Fish’s concept of the “interpretive community,” this being defined as groups of individuals “who share the same frames of reference, the same cultural references and the same positions within history.”75 As such, museum learning becomes a “social” occasion. Individuals collectively make sense of the exhibition, which speaks to the community’s “personal biography,” “cultural background” and “repertoires” thus allowing them to successfully engage.76
Published in the same year as Fish’s theory, Bourdieu’s concept of “habitus” - an “embodied history, internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as history”77 - provides deeper insight into the notion of “interpretive communities.”78 Communities and their identity are thus comprised of our collective memories which are bound to us by means of “behavioural
70
J. Appleton, “Desperately Seeking Relevance,” The Spectator, 6th October, 2001, 73-74, 73. 71 L. Smith, The Uses of Heritage (London & New York: Routledge, 2006), 37.72 Turakhia, “Communities Are For Life, Not Just For Christmas,” 163.
73 Ibid., 165.
74 Ibid., 165.
75 E. Hooper-Greenhill, “Interpretive Communities, Strategies and Repertoires,” in Museums and their
Communities, ed. Sheila Watson (London & New York: Routledge, 2007), 76-94, 77.
76 Ibid., 77.
77 P. Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990), 56. 78 Hooper-Greenhill, “Interpretive Communities, Strategies and Repertoires,” 77.
patterns.”79 Whilst many museums are aware of the plethora of ‘interpretive communities’ that exist and wish to grapple with the patterns of each community, many leading
organisations are still limited by their antiquated outlook, and lack of communication with non-traditional communities,80 the kind of communication that would allow them to appeal to such ‘interpretive communities’ of non-traditional audiences.
Indeed, scholars have highlighted the ongoing existence of an “Authorized Heritage Discourse” (AHD) suggesting a continuation of elitism within the sector - a term coined by Laurajane Smith alluding to a cultural environment which endorses a certain type of
knowledge and methodology, ultimately undermining non-traditional perceptions of heritage and identity.81 Reasons for this perhaps relate to the fact that heritage professionals actually have little understanding about various communities other than their own, preventing the reinvention of the system in a wholly inclusive way.82 On the surface we can see an
increased attempt to embrace a diversity of narratives by looking at the marketing focus of modern day exhibitions in museums, yet Waterton & Smith claim this focus has broadened only as a way to allow the academic community to believe their work is a worthy contribution to society, and thus feel more positive.83 In essence, Waterton & Smith have exposed the current fixation on inclusivity within the sector as being merely “rhetoric” or an “obsessive veneer” which hides the inadequacy of the sector when it comes to inclusion.84
Following this, whilst nowadays we can see an increased focus on community work, outreach and more diverse representation within museums as a means of appearing non-elitist, the approach can be criticised for being “assimilationist and top-down in nature,” a notion put forward by Smith.85 Institutions rarely seek to reflect on the format of outreach or so called community work; mostly, the focus is on how to include those typically omitted groups in current programmes, rather than examining the universality of those programmes and practices.86 A common aim of heritage institutions is to attract “non-traditional users,” to entice a broader audience - yet institutions fail to recognise the prescriptive nature of this aim.87 Institutions implement these policies with the objective of educating non-traditional visitors “about the cultural delights from which they have been traditionally excluded,” 79 O. Dimbath & P. Wehling, “Exploring the dark side of social memory: towards a social theory of forgetting,” in Theorizing Social Memories: Concepts and Contexts, eds. Gerd Sebald & Jatin Wagle (Oxon: Routledge, 2016), 138 - 156, 147.
80 Davis, “Place Exploration: Museums, Identity, Community,” 71.
81 Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 11.
82 L. Smith and E. Waterton, “The Recognition and Misrecognition of Community Heritage,” International
Journal of Heritage Studies 16, no. 1-2 (February 2010): 4-15, 8.
83 Ibid., 8.
84 Ibid., 8.
85 Smith, The Uses of Heritage, 37.
86 Ibid., 37.
encapsulating the naivety of this cultural policy.88 Ultimately, at times work carried out with non-typical communities is hypocritical as it operates within an elitist framework which prioritises a certain type of elitist learning, applied under the assumption that this framework is unanimously appropriate.89
This framework is mostly “defined and managed” by traditional dominating discourses, thus maintaining typical power relations.90 Evidence of this can be found when looking towards the practices employed by museums as part of their social inclusion programmes which most often favour advantaged visitors, these individuals commonly sharing the same
academic language that is used by professionals in the field.91 Practices can be criticised for being delivered in the form of mere “information dissemination,” as opposed to worthwhile and purposeful participatory tasks which can ultimately help audiences experience the museum work through a different more interactive medium92 – a topic that will be discussed in due course.
Participation as empowerment
Practical responses to the problem of a heritage sector which only caters to the AHD have also been proposed; Sandell has discussed the desperate need for the renegotiation of the relationship between the museum and local communities, and a focus on participation and empowerment, rather than an obsession with internal objectives.93 However, increased community participation in the “decision-making process” inescapably will spark fears of decreased authority in the hands of those deemed as specialists in the field.94 This often leads to the assumption that community participation and social inclusion results in a simplification of information – a “dumbing down” of museum activity - due to a lack of traditional heritage expertise.95 This tension leads one to deliberate over which forms of knowledge creation and transference society values as worthy; such institutions operate within the framework of typically Western, academic forms of knowledge, but true inclusivity would embrace a wide range of knowledge sources.
88 Ibid., 206.
89 Ibid., 11.
90 R. Gilroy, J. Pendlebury and T. Townshend, T., “The conservation of the English cultural built heritage: A force for social inclusion?” International Journal of Heritage Studies 10, no. 1 (2004): 11–31, 27.
91 Ibid., 23
92 Ibid., 23.
93 R. Sandell, “Social Inclusion, the Museum and the Dynamics of Sectoral Change,” Museum and Society 1, no.1 (2003): 45-62, 55.
94 Ibid., 55.
95 R. Pal, “Raj Pal responds to some of the recent criticisms levelled at museums’ involvement with social inclusion,” in Including Museums: Perspectives on Museums, Galleries and Social Inclusion, eds. Jocelyn Dodd & Richard Sandell (Leicester: Research Centre for Museums and Galleries, 2001), 20-22, 20.
This reassessment of the relationship between the museum and the community to provide a more participatory approach has been celebrated by UNESCO, highlighting the
institutionalised recognition of its necessity. As part of their Inclusive Policy Lab initiative, UNESCO published a report entitled ‘Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Of What, Why and How’ in February, 2017. The report offers insight into current global agenda, findings suggesting that after thorough research, confronting exclusionary and inclusionary practices is a priority concern.96 Echoing the work of Laurajane Smith, the report advises that new policy must include the “involvement of, and the innovative ideas coming from, the intended beneficiary and actual user communities”, thus championing the validity of bottom-up knowledge.97
Participation thus is deemed as a leading factor in reigniting the museum’s relevance and connecting with a broader audience.98 The phenomenon of the world wide web could be one reason to explain why participation is now vital if cultural institutions wish to play a role in modern lives, Nina Simon arguing that the modern cultural participants “expect the ability to discuss, share, and remix what they consume,” just as they are able to with popular social media sites.99 Essentially, the task of participation is not hindered by lack of intent, but “design”100; referring to “multi-directional content experiences,” Simon champions the notion of exhibitions as enabling interaction between visitors who take on the roles of author, disseminator, evaluator, and user, as unique visitor experiences are co-curated.101 The institution inevitably must tolerate a degree of risk - but the consequence is arguably a stronger community spirit as participants, alongside museum staff, attempt to “harness the mess in support of the excitement.”102
The topic of the involvement of community groups within the museum has previously been explored by James Clifford in his 1997 text, ‘Museums as Contact Zones’. Based on Mary Louise Pratt’s definition of a contact zones as “social spaces, where disparate cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other,”103 Clifford writes that, within the context of the museum, the contact zone brings to the fore the topic of colonialism and its representation within
96 “Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Of What, Why and How.” UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab, UNESCO (8 February 2017): 2,
http://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/sites/default/files/publication/document/2017/2/Analytical %20Framework%20for%20Inclusive%20Policy%20Design_UNESCO%20Inclusive%20Policy_qr_code.pdf
97 Ibid., 13.
98 Simon, The Participatory Museum, ii. 99 Ibid. ii.
100 Ibid. 1. 101 Ibid. 2. 102 Ibid., 3.
103 M. L. Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. Second Edition (New York & Oxon: Routledge, 2008), 7.
museums.104 The contact zone offers more than just a space for compassionate discussion, but also encourages “active collaboration and a sharing of authority” between the museum and the community in question.105 Thus, by encouraging active participation in the decision making processes, the contact zone is a form of dialogue with underrepresented
communities or perhaps those communities who feel they have no obvious connection to the museum. Whilst Clifford’s theory predominantly discusses contact zones within ethnographic museums, the term can also be used to refer to the participation of a variety of othered communities, such as the working class, and the museum’s attempt to empower these communities and involve them in their own representation within society.
Yet, Robin Boast has criticised the museum sector and its perpetuation of Pratt and Clifford’s theories, arguing that institutions only focus on a “partial and rosy portrait of the contact zone,”106 as authority ultimately still resides with the museum, regardless of claims that such work can create a “pluralistic approach to interpretation and presentation.”107 As such, even within the frameworks of contact zones and public participation, museums often still maintain ultimate authority thus undermining attempts to incorporate more democratic processes. Colonial relationships are being maintained, this still effectively disempowering one party whilst being masked as the opposite. Building on these theories concerning participation and knowledge transference, and applying awareness of such criticisms, I will examine how two popular museums in Amsterdam interpret the concept of the contact zone, with particular emphasis on non-academic communities, as a means of making accessible the traditionally exclusive site and work of the museum.
Methodology
My research is driven by the reality that museums and heritage institutions are more frequently visited by wealthier and more educated individuals; honing in on Amsterdam, research carried out by the Social and Cultural Planning Office in The Netherlands revealed that in 2014, 83% of those with higher education participated in cultural heritage in
comparison with 47% of those with primary education.108 Moreover, 73% of those with 2.5 times the national average household income participated in the visual arts, compared to only 53% of people with the national average household income.109 Alongside these vastly divergent figures, it still is unanswered whether those with primary education, and those with
104 J. Clifford, Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century (Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press, 1997), 211.
105 Ibid., 210.
106 R. Boast, “Neocolonial Collaboration: Museum as Contact Zone Revisited,” Museum Anthropology 34, no. 1 (2011): 56-70, 57.
107 Ibid., 58.
108 See appendix, Table 1. 109 Ibid.
a lower average household income who visited actually enjoyed, or benefitted from the heritage experience overall. Further to this, Anouk Heesbeen, inclusion manager at the Stedelijk Museum, specifically highlights the overwhelming amount of visitors who are “white” and “highly educated,” suggesting that the issue of attracting non-traditional audiences is widely recognisable.110
Arguably, there may always exist uncertainty and trepidation within those non-traditional visitor communities with regards to the museum sector, as they question what exactly they will benefit from by visiting the museum.111 This hesitation is not helped by the wealth of facilities available within the culture sector at large, the museum now having to compete for the attention of individuals in a marketplace that is fixated on providing “experiences.”112 In contrast, and vital to this study, is the realisation that the museum itself significantly profits from these visitors – plenty of media attention, government backing and the introduction to new networks ensue as a result.113
Hoping to explore and expose the cultural heritage sector in Amsterdam as it exists today, this study examines how two institutions present and perceive themselves with regards to social inclusion and participation, analysing whether they are successful in establishing an attractive and meaningful environment for audiences that statistically visit less often114 by considering the models and practices they employ. Notably, whilst the museums may achieve a symbiosis between both thought and action, thus becoming successful within their own self-defined frameworks, they may fail to reach a certain standard that scholars and activists within the field envisage. This study highlights the distinct path the museum follows and the various reasons for doing so, with reference to independent fieldwork to evidence these claims - in particular online, site-based and discourse analyses, alongside interviews with significant individuals working within the public programme, inclusion and outreach department of each institution in question. All personnel interviewed hold positions either within the inclusion department, as a curator that specialises in matters of inclusion, or as a director of a museum, and thus all are directly involved in attempting to create higher levels of access, both physically and intellectually.
Opting for two well-known Amsterdam museums – specifically the Stedelijk Museum and the Amsterdam Museum - has allowed me good insight into the Dutch relationship with social inclusion within the sector; the organisations both boast high visitor figures and prestige 110 A. Heesbeen, recorded interview by author, Amsterdam. 13th November, 2017.
111 Davis, “Place Exploration: Museums, Identity, Community,” 68.
112 J. H. Gilmore and B. J Pine, “Museums & Authenticity,” Museum News: American Alliance of Museums, (May/June 2007): 76 – 93, 76.
113 Davis, “Place Exploration: Museums, Identity, Community,” 69.
within the field of museums and heritage, with the former admitting 656,000 visitors in 2016,115 and the latter admitting 200,000 visitors.116 The Stedelijk Museum and the
Amsterdam Museum both fall in line with current trends in the sector, as each museum has the goal of diverse representation and wants to entice a broader visitor base. Whilst the results of the case studies often overlap due to trends in the sector – as to be expected – there are also stark dissimilarities in their approach to inclusion, originating from the differing nature of each institution and its distinct discipline (with the Stedelijk Museum being an art-history museum and the Amsterdam Museum being a city museum). These two sites have been chosen for this very reason, offering the chance to juxtapose two museums with perhaps differing reputations – already having elitist connotations due to its high-art focus,117 the Stedelijk Museum can be compared with the Amsterdam Museum and its stories of city-life, in order to gage the broadest picture of elitism in Amsterdam museums today.
Of course, there are risks to be aware of and discrepancies to highlight. Whilst critically discussing matters concerning the elitism of academic institutions, this study risks being labelled hypocritical as it too comes from an academic place and uses academic sources to make an intellectual argument. In order to overcome some of the problems that this might create, interviews have also included those individuals typically seen as non-traditional voices of knowledge creation. Moreover, the analysis provided attempts to constantly challenge itself, always keeping in mind the “life-worlds” of non-traditional visitor communities in order to base the study in reality,118 rather than to over-theorise. Noting the arbitrary use of the term, the UNESCO report on inclusion policy seeks to identify the various meanings that have been appointed to it. Significant here is their
assertion that inclusion/exclusion can be “multidimensional” - meaning that it encompasses a multitude of factors such as “social services, economic life, and social networks and
participation.”119 When carrying out my research I have attempted to follow UNESCO’s advice, using a “multidimensional” analytical approach when conducting my fieldwork, recognising that anything less would result in a superficial overview.120 Moreover, the report highlights the need to remain both “inclusive in means” - referring to “policy design and delivery - and “inclusive in ends” - referring to the desired “outcome of inclusion.”121 In this
115 “Financial Statements, 2016: Stichting Stedelijk Musueum Amsterdam,” Stedelijk Museum, (25th April,
2017): 4, https://www.stedelijk.nl/en/museum/organisation/annual-report
116 “Stichting Amsterdam Museum Jaarverslag 2016,” Jaarverslag, Over Ons, The Amsterdam Museum, p. 5, accessed 12th January 2018, https://www.amsterdammuseum.nl/over-ons/over-de-organisatie/jaarverslagen 117 F. Mclean, Marketing the Museum (London & New York: Routledge, 1997), 24.
118 S. Goltz, C. Landvreugd, W. Modest, B. Ruf and V. Walsh, “Museum Policies: Shifting Tides,” conference moderated by Johan Hartle, filmed 26th November 2016 at De Balie, Amsterdam, video, 1:37:41,
https://www.debalie.nl/agenda/podium/museum-policies%3A-shifting-tides/e_9782571/p_11767610/
119 UNESCO, “Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Of What, Why and How,” 4.
120 Ibid., 4.
instance, my research does not merely consider the final product, but also the journey taken and thought-processes adhered to, in order to produce the final product.
The following two chapters offer an in-depth overview of both case studies successively, breaking down how each institution presents itself within its public programming and permanent/temporary exhibitions, drawing out the methodologies used by each institution and questioning their potential ability to attract non-traditional audiences. The final chapter takes this evidence and brings to the fore the main points of contention, providing further insight on the problems of a “market-led approach,”122 the historical significance of the space of the museum, and lack of staff diversity, ultimately offering critique on the museum sector as it stands today.
Chapter Two
The Stedelijk Museum
The Stedelijk Museum first opened to the public in 1895 with a diverse collection of historical exhibits – over the following 30 years its focus changed as the museum started to dedicate
itself to contemporary art.123 Removing the period rooms, a feature based on the canal houses at the Raadhuisstraat, and realising their prominence in the art world as pioneers of “new trends,”124 the Stedelijk changed their exhibitionary focus to exhibit their wealth of 20th century art; the collection now boasts a vast amount of CoBra and Expressionist works, Malevich’s and Matisse’s, as well as modern photography, film and sculpture.125 Guiding the success of the Stedelijk, and its growing influence in the art world, was Willem Sandberg - director of the museum from 1945-63 - who not only supported emerging artists, but also renovated the museum to provide a leisurely experience for all visitors.126
Even today, the museum’s mission statement still claims it “enriches people’s lives with modern and contemporary art and design,” a statement which wholeheartedly dedicates itself to the positive experience of its visitors.127 Looking towards the Stedelijk’s website, there is an obvious desire to echo the lives of visitors within the walls of the museum, claiming that the collection offers “compelling insights into today’s world” and is reflective of “our individual lives” in order to encourage inspiration within visitors.128 Moreover, when describing what goes into the public programme, the Stedelijk claims to “help to shape new directions and debate conventions rather than uphold them,”129 alluding to their 2016
mission: “to question the canon rather than affirm it.”130 Pushing the boundaries on how art’s “definition can be expanded beyond traditional and/or normative ways of seeing,” it appears that the Stedelijk wishes to step away from outmoded methods of exhibiting and interpreting art, in order to include non-Westernised, or perhaps non-academicised methods, perhaps resulting in a more inclusive experience.131
Exploring further, this chapter questions exactly whose lives are being enriched by the Stedelijk. Analysing their online output and publicly available documents, alongside a thorough exploration of the methods and tools employed by the Stedelijk within their public programme, this chapter aims to discover whether aims of social inclusion and anti-elitism are embedded within their core policy and philosophy, as well as whether it succeeds in 123 “History,” About the Stedelijk, Stedelijk Museum, accessed 12th December 2017,
http://stedelijkmuseum.nl/en/about-the-stedelijk/history
124 C. Blotkamp, “Visual Arts: the Doom of the Golden,” in Dutch Culture in a European Perspective:
Accounting for the past, 1650-2000, Vol. 5, eds. Douwe Fokkema & Frans Grijzenhout (Hampshire & New York:
Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), 273-296, 280.
125 Stedelijk Museum, “History.”
126 “Sandberg, Director and Designer,” Exhibitions, Stedelijk Museum, accessed on 12th December 2017, http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/exhibitions/sandberg-director-and-designer
127 “Organisation,” Stedelijk Museum, accessed 4th January 2018, https://www.stedelijk.nl/en/museum/organisation
128 Ibid.
129 Ibid.
130 Stedelik Museum, “Financial Statements, 2016: Stichting Stedelijk Musueum Amsterdam,” 4.
131 “Public Programme,” Stedelijk Museum, accessed 12th December 2017, http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/public-program/visie
these endeavors - comparing what is said to what they actually do. The study is informed by interviews with relevant individuals - Anouk Heesbeen, inclusion manager at the Stedelijk, and Anna Stolyarova, Director of Street Art Museum Amsterdam. Whilst discussing best practice, Heesbeen made clear that everything is a process, and that the museum is constantly learning, and always remaining critical in its approach to inclusion, believing that the job is never truly finished: “You need to be vulnerable and open and be able to ask questions...I don’t think there is one solution...but if you don’t allow yourself the learning curve then you aren’t going to get anywhere”.132 Remaining critical was vital to Heesbeen, and during the interview she highlighted her awareness that the Stedelijk currently is “catering to a certain audience,” announcing that “everybody that comes in is white,” and “probably highly educated.”133 Recognising this problem is the only way to change and find “ways to expand that audience.”134
Non-traditional forms of knowledge creation and transference
One method of making the museum less elitist is the Stedelijk’s new structure, which came into force on 15th December 2017, consisting of three elements; Stedelijk Base, Stedelijk Turns and Stedelijk Now. All components inform one another, working in tandem to create an experimental approach to the museum’s collection.135 Stedelijk Base initiates a complete upheaval of the permanent collection on display, creating a designated space for these artefacts in the basement of the building, and offering a timeline of art history.136 The display will no longer be static, but constantly changing and adapting with the times and demands of the public, Heesbeen referring to the canon as not “set in stone”.137 As such Stedelijk Turns, the museums temporary exhibition programme, will influence Stedelijk Base, creating a constantly evolving and ever relevant canon collection. Evidently, this change in
programming reflects the institutions desire to incorporate new ways of knowledge creation, moving away from the elitist canon of art history.
Focussing on Stedelijk Base and its layout, we can see that it has all the intentions of shedding traditional and elitist elements and aspects of exhibition design. Rather than using the typical model whereby the visitor is guided along a timeline of artworks in an ordered and systematic manner, starting at one point and working their way to the end, Stedelijk Base 132 Heesbeen, interview by author.
133 Ibid.
134 Ibid.
135 “The Collection; Stedelijk Base,” Exhibitions, Stedelijk Museum, accessed 4th January 2018, https://www.stedelijk.nl/en/exhibitions/stedelijk-base-the-new-collection-presentation
136 “Stedelijk Base Opens 16th December 2017,” News & Press, Stedelijk Museum, accessed on 4th January 2018, https://www.stedelijk.nl/en/news/stedelijk-base-the-new-collection-presentation-of-the-stedelijk-museum-amsterdam-will-open-on-16-december-2017-2
plays with this model, offering an “open-ended route”.138 Paintings, sculpture, photography, jewellery and other mediums are exhibited alongside one-another, emphasising that they are “equally important” as each other, and highlighting links between the exhibits that would otherwise not be noted - the result is the creation of “new connections” and thus new “dialogue.”139
In principle, the ideas behind Stedelijk Base and its new design represent a change in museology; a less linear, more subjective approach. But whilst this concept hypothetically attempts to move towards a fresh way of conceiving the museum, these aspects may be lost on many visitors. According to the Stedelijk:
“The layout understands the collection as a network of relations rather than a presentation of individual artworks. To capture these
interconnections, very thin walls define an almost urban environment of free association and multiple relations.”140
Referring to Paul Basu’s notion of the “labyrinthine aesthetic,” Stedelijk Base posits the exhibition as a space of “narrative potential,” with a “diversity of paths and stories,”141 in which we as the visitor “reorder its disorderly displays according to our own interests and sensibilities.”142 However, this requires the audience to feel roused by the contents and the interaction with the exhibition in order to be a success, a problem that Stedelijk Base may encounter.143 Indeed, the space has become less regimental - but whether the concepts of “free association and multiple relations” are easily accessible is questionable.144 Arguably, the site has entered a new phase of experimentation, but purely on an academic level, and could do much more. The exhibition design itself (Image 1) shows that not much has changed - the traditional model of viewing is still observable.
138 Stedelijk Museum, “The Collection: Stedelijk Base.”
139 Ibid.
140 Ibid.
141 P. Basu, “The Labyrinthine Aesthetic in Contemporary Museum Design,” in Exhibition Experiments, eds. Paul Basu & Sharon MacDonald (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 47-70, 67.
142 Ibid., 68.
143 Ibid., 67.
Image 1: “The Collection: Stedelijk Base,” Stedelijk Museum, accessed 6th January 2018, https://www.stedelijk.nl/en/exhibitions/stedelijk-base-the-new-collection-presentation
Rather than requesting of the visitor previous knowledge of art history, the new gallery Stedelijk Base still conforms to the traditional rules applied by seasoned museum-goers and expected within such a setting. Despite the attempt to position artefacts in a less
conservative format, grouping by theme rather than chronologically, to navigate the gallery one must already have an appreciation of the behavioural rules expected in such a space - one must already be part of a certain “interpretive community” as discussed by Hooper-Greenhill and mentioned in chapter one.145 Far removed from the “playfulness” that the Stedelijk claims to embrace,146 the gallery lacks the critical and immersive aspect, thus still focusing attention on the authority of the artworks themselves, rather than actively
encouraging visitor participation which would shift the focus to personal interpretation and reflection.
Moreover, discussing Heesbeen’s approach to inclusion, she revealed that current focus is based on physical accessibility to the museum, rather than on creating an experience accessible to a culturally diverse audience.147 Heesbeen referred to the phrase “people’s capabilities” on more than one occasion to describe the focus, suggesting that the goal is to enable those who are deaf, blind or short sighted to enjoy the museum just as easily as
145 Hooper-Greenhill, “Interpretive Communities, Strategies and Repertoires,” 77.
146 Stedelijk Museum, “The Collection: Stedelijk Base.” 147 Heesbeen, interview by author.
those who are not.148 These groups are typically unable to enjoy or even partake in the museum experience - one which traditionally bases itself on aesthetic enjoyment and academic lectures. The exclusion of these groups is not just limited to traditionalist or outmoded museums, as employing audiovisual elements within modern museums is a very popular tool, and will only become more so with the introduction of virtual reality
programmes.
An example of how the Stedelijk attempts to consider “people’s capabilities”149 can be found within their “interactive” Unforgettable Tours which allow those with dementia to enjoy the museum.150 Tailored tours provide the target audience with the chance to “look at art from the collection, in a relaxed and positive atmosphere.”151 The tours do not focus on the typical model of tour-guide and listener, but are based on expression, dialogue, and “creative assignments.”152 Moreover, the Stedelijk partnered with VU University Medical Center in order to conduct scientific research into the success of the Unforgettable Tours, funded by the Gieskes Strijbis Fonds. The research revealed that the tours are indeed beneficial and create a sense of inclusion, for both those with dementia and their carers.153 Carers were asked to fill out a questionnaire post-tour and the results showed that individuals with dementia who partook in the tour were “more responsive, more talkative, more cheerful” in the hours following, suggesting that the tours are enjoyable and accessible to the target audience.154
Whilst this successful venture concerns itself with those with dementia, the fact that the Stedelijk are experimenting with different modes of knowledge transference to enhance the experience of a broader public, has the potential to move away from the typically elitist methods of knowledge transference within the museum space - specifically aesthetic experience and intellectually inaccessible texts. As discussed by Clémentine Deliss, knowledge transferred to visitors in non-normative ways alludes to a “remediation” of knowledge; it can refer to “a shift in medium, to experiment with alternative ways of describing, interpreting, and displaying.”155 Novel methods of experiencing the museum provide “another lens, another way, another entry point” for visitors to engage with the
148 Ibid. 149 Ibid.
150 “Onvergetelijk Stedelijk,” Education, Stedelijk Museum, accessed 17th November, 2017, http://www.stedelijk.nl/en/education/adults/onvergetelijk-stedelijk
151 Ibid.
152 Ibid.
153 Heesbeen, interview by author.
154 Ibid.
155 C. Deliss, Clémentine, “Performing the Curatorial in a Post-Ethnographic Museum,” in Performing the
museum in ways which non-traditional audiences are more acquainted with or find more easily accessible.156
Following this, Heesbeen referred to her desire to delve into the non-traditional realm of “multisensory” experiences, as a means of inclusion.157 Future projects at the Stedelijk which incorporate this “multisensory” approach will not merely enhance the experience of blind, partially sighted or deaf people, but also enhance the experience of the “normal visitor” - whatever that may be.158 Referring to Gadamer’s notion of “the fusion of horizons,” these new modes of knowledge transference can benefit all who come to the museum, as the normal visitor can profit from combining their own subjective knowledge with that the non-traditional visitor, as a means to access a deeper, multifaceted experience.159 Heesbeen specifically refers to her desire to develop projects for blind visitors, stating that she could create “beautiful tools” that allow blind visitors to “experience the artworks in a sensory way,” but also noting that this does not mean that those who can see “won’t find that interesting.”160 Her approach is to look at what is learnt through creating “exclusive attention” and apply it to the museums as a whole.161 By catering to those who do not benefit from
academic/traditional methods of museum engagement, and by employing a variety of tools in which to interact with and access knowledge, the museum could satisfy a higher number of visitors.
Whilst Heesbeen refers to this concept as a future project, the notion of “remediation”162 has been attempted by the Stedelijk, in May 2017, with their event ‘The Living Museum:
Performing the Collection’.163 The event was organised by the Blikopeners, the Stedelijk’s resident youngsters, a group of artistically driven teenagers aged between fifteen to nineteen.164 The event consisted of taking artefacts from the collection and reinterpreting them through an (arguably) more accessible form; remediating the artworks through new, and perhaps more contemporary formats. During the event, Charles François Daubigny’s painting Île de Vaux was remediated through the form of electronic music; a performance from Daniel Terrell worked as a soundtrack, an audio-aid encouraging the audience to
156 K. Vickery, “How can a museum use theatre effectively?” conference filmed 15-17 February 2017 at
Museum Next Conference, Melbourne, video, 26:17,
https://www.museumnext.com/insight/how-can-a-museum-use-theatre/
157 Heesbeen, interview by author.
158 Ibid.
159 C. Lawn, Gadamer: A Guide for the Perplexed (London & New York: Continuum, 2006), 66.
160 Heesbeen, interview by author.
161 Ibid.
162 Deliss, “Performing the Curatorial in a Post-Ethographic Museum,” 63.
163 “The Living Museum: Performing the Collection,” Events, Stedelijk Museum, accessed 9th January, 2018, https://www.stedelijk.nl/nl/evenementen/the-living-museum-performing-the-collection
interpret the painting in a more rounded way.165 Another performance included was a
physical remediation of Sol LeWitt’s Complex Form #70 (1989), a dance which, with the use of bright white light, repetitive motions and sounds, recreated the geometry and simplicity of LeWitt’s original installation (Image 2 and image 3). Not only did ‘The Living Museum’ provide visitors with a variety of sensory experiences, it also provided different forms through which to access the original art piece. Following the idea that the traditional form of
presenting art and heritage is indeed inaccessible for many communities, the museum used performance to enable these visitors to interpret the artwork through a medium that they respond to - “offering audiences such a variety of frames in which to access and divulge an emotional response to the museological content is much more successful.”166
I mage 2: “The Living Museum: Performing the Collection,” image authors own (May 2017).
Ima ge 3: LeWitt, Sol. 1989. Complex Form #70.
Installation. Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum. However, to what extent ‘The Living Museum’ was accessible to those who do not associate with the academic world is still debatable. Heesbeen referred to the events organised by the Blikopeners, stating that they host markedly un-academic events and projects.167 Suggesting that these events are to do with youngsters “experiencing the museum, [and] their first contact with modern and contemporary art,” Heesbeen neglects to recognise that events such as ‘The Living Museum’ are often still catering to a certain intellectualised community168 165 “Daniel Terrell at THE LIVING MUSEUM,” YouTube video, 15:35, posted by "Vanessa vG," July 31, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZo3lkYI59k
166 E. Hunter, “Take a Risk,” Heritage and Memory (blog), June 2017, accessed 20th November 2017, https://heritageandmemory.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/take-a-risk/
167 Heesbeen, interview by author.
- the desire to create alternative ways to access art was a success, but the event still
revolved around artistic performance housed in a traditional museum setting. Telling was the audience’s reluctance to use the space in a non-normative fashion; whilst the performances were taking place, visitors sat around the edge of the room, observing in the typical manner one would if viewing a painting in a white-cube style gallery.169 Even when the performers began to rally the audience to move, dance and jump around, only a handful of people participated - significantly, the majority of these people were part of the Blikopeners team itself rather than walk-ins. Whilst it is impossible to tell whether the audience was a non-traditional museum audience or not, the environment itself resisted a non-non-traditional use of the space by its very existence, questioning whether the physical site of the museum can ever be inclusive.
Target groups and marketing
During the interview, Heesbeen continually alluded to her belief that exclusivity is a necessary method in order to create inclusivity - that the two often work hand-in-hand.170 Discussing further, Heesbeen stated that “you need the exclusive attention for certain target audiences to reach that inclusion,” this involving specific targeting and taking “specific needs into account” in order to give the “inclusive exclusive attention.”171 Reasoning for this is clear: “If you shoot too broadly, there is no point...if you are not relevant to anyone in the group then there is no point.”172 Whilst her current focus is on targeting deaf and partially sighted visitors, and those with dementia, Heesbeen also located a further target audience - groups who “don’t necessarily know how to find the museum.”173 Although most of the Stedelijk’s inclusion projects are targeted at those who are physically excluded, they wish to extend this inclusion to all audiences who have been ‘put off’ going to the museum - those who “do not see themselves as a potential visitor of the museum,”174 having been previously discouraged by the exclusive nature of museums, alluding to a target group who do not feel ‘at home’ within the intellectualised environment of the museum. There still exists a distinct perception of which types of communities attend museums; in some cases non-visiting communities purposefully do not frequent art galleries and museums in a bid to separate themselves from the “snobbish, high-society visitors.”175 This hostile perception of the gallery and museum is
169 Authors own observations, 26th May, 2017.
170 Ibid.
171 Ibid.
172 Ibid.
173 Ibid.
174 Ibid.
175 T. Stylianou-Lambert, “Perceiving the Art Museum,” Museum Management and Curatorship 24, no.2 (2009): 139-158, 152.
