The Future of Museums (Funding) in the Next Trump Administration?

I've been wondering about the support that museums and other cultural organizations may or may not receive in the next Trump administration. Given that the previous Trump administration actively tried to eliminate funding for IMLS, NEH, NEA, PBS, and the NASA Office of Education, among other agencies, who knows what might happen?

This poem by Wendell Barry helps me reflect on the uncertainties of my museum work.

“The Real Work” by Wendell Berry

It may be that when we no longer know what to do

we have come to our real work,

and that when we no longer know which way to go

we have come to our real journey.

The mind that is not baffled is not employed.

The impeded stream is the one that sings.

Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Sign up for Free ExhibiTricks Blog Updates" link on the upper right side of the blog.

Paul Orselli writes the posts on ExhibiTricks. Paul likes to combine interesting people, ideas, and materials to make exhibits (and entire museums!) with his company POW! (Paul Orselli Workshop, Inc.) Let's work on a project together!

If you enjoy the blog, you can help keep it free to read and free from ads by supporting ExhibiTricks through our PayPal "Tip Jar"

Are Trump Voters Museum-Goers?

Are the people running museums really the best people to reach out to Trump voters as potential museum visitors?

The reason I ask, beyond the pragmatic concerns about the future of federal agencies like IMLS and NEH that help fund museums under a Trump administration, has to do with how and why people choose to visit (or not visit) museums.

It seems clear that emotions "trumped" more intellectual considerations of policy or character for many voters in this recent election. Might museums actually be better at increasing their audience reach if their appeal was more emotional and less intellectual?  (Of course, many museum experiences are deeply emotional, but that's only true for the people who actually step inside.)

Many cultural institutions (including museums) are facing declining audiences and funding streams in the face of shifting demographics and attitudes.  And while museum professionals constantly strive to broaden the communities they serve, should they be aiming more for potential visitors' guts rather than their heads? What can entice museum-shy or museum-adverse folks to cross the thresholds of our institutions?

What lessons should we be taking away from the election to Make Museums Great Again™?


Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Sign up for Free ExhibiTricks Blog Updates" link on the upper right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email (or Facebook or LinkedIn) you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like videos!)

So Why Doesn't Your Museum Just Give Away Free Ice Cream?

Would better public funding mean better museums?

I know this may not be the best time, economically or otherwise, to bring up the topic of "public funding" , but I've been thinking about this a lot recently since the notion keeps popping up in projects and meetings I've been involved with.

The biggest operational trick for most non-profits, including museums, is a steady, reliable funding stream.  Without having a clear sense of your resources, realistic budgeting and planning becomes nearly impossible.

So how have museums reacted to these budget uncertainties?  Unfortunately, in many cases, by the institutional equivalent of buying lottery tickets.

All sorts of dodgy "get rich quick schemes" seem to have forced many museums into, to be charitable, exhibits, programs, and events that are "off mission."  For example, I'd love to know what showing the latest cheeseball Transformers movie on your IMAX screen has to do with history or science.  Or how turning the latest kids TV show character into a traveling exhibition practically devoid of content is best serving the needs of our visitors.

I can hear the arguments already --- "but if we bring people in with some pop culture exhibit or program, they'll stay to see the rest of the museum."  By that line of thinking you could also give away free ice cream to get people in the door, but is that really what museums should be doing?  (Also the "but they'll also look at the rest of the museum" rationalization was played out 25 years ago when planetariums started doing Pink Floyd laser shows on Friday and Saturday nights for the stoners...)

So let's do a little blue sky thinking --- if numbers (either visitation numbers or dollars) weren't the primary motivation for museum decisions, how would the look and feel of your exhibits and educational programming change?  More importantly, how would your institutional priorities change?
Share your thoughts and ideas in the "Comments Section" below!


Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Free Updates" link on the right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like movies!)

Could Frank Oppenheimer Get Hired To Run A Museum Today?

One tiny, but striking, section of K.C. Cole's biography of Frank Oppenheimer (the founder of The Exploratorium) entitled something incredibly wonderful happens: Frank Oppenheimer and the World He Made Up  is the section that quotes F. Van Kasper, the former chairman of The Exploratorium's board: 

Frank couldn't get hired to run the Exploratorium today, Van told me.  "Frank couldn't get hired to run any museum today."  And because the job of director was now seen mainly as a matter of fundraising, "he wouldn't want to be hired either."

If that doesn't sum up the current state of science centers (and perhaps all modern museums, at least in the U.S. with its execrable governmental funding structure toward cultural institutions) I don't know what does.

Part of the reason the quote about Frank Oppenheimer struck me so much is that I've been thinking about a panel I'll be part of at the upcoming ASTC Conference called "Are Science Centers Missing The Science?"   One of the thoughts I keep circling back to as I prepare my talk is the willingness of many museum directors to bring any "dog and pony show" to their institution, no matter how tangentially related to their mission, in the hopes of raising funds.

The museum field needs more passionate (and even eccentric) leaders like Frank Oppenheimer.  But the museum field also needs more funding, widely distributed to all types and sizes of museums, to allow more diverse leadership styles (and by extension, more diverse museum offerings) the space to flourish.

Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Free Updates" link on the right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like movies!)

Smaller IS Better

So here's my two-part solution to solve the ever continuing museum money/funding crisis:

1) Stop building gigantic new museums.

2) Fund small "risky" projects instead of "safe" big projects.

Most big museums were unsustainable before the current "financial crisis" and even more so now. Not to mention that many gigundo museums are filled with pockets of mediocrity or plain lousiness that gets ignored or excused or even overlooked because there are other flashier, newer segments of the rest of their elephantine museum building complex.

So why do people keep building giant museums? Sheer ego and "edifice complex" as far as I can tell. It's a lot sexier to say you're building the "world's biggest and best museum" than to actually set up the infrastructure to ensure a continually growing and evolving institution that makes best use of both staff and community resources.

If you really want to see Museum 2.0/3.0/whatever happen, then museum workers and museum organizations should advocate for more, but smaller, museums spread throughout communities like public libraries --- heck why not have every museum (that's not already doing so) partner with a local library or community center to work on exhibits and programs together?

Now, funding.

Here's a modest proposal for NSF, IMLS, NEH and the rest of the governmental alphabet soup of funding agencies: alternate every year between funding "big" projects and "little" projects.

This would have the benefit of breaking the cycle of perpetually funding "The Usual Suspects" of the same batch of museums/designers/evaluators who get funded every grant cycle.
Which would be fine, if the "The Usual Suspects" were turning out wonderful field-changing exhibitions. But mostly the funding process has turned into a gravy train for folks doing the same sort of mediocre exhibitions over and over again.

Why couldn't NSF, for example, deliberately fund 15-20 large exhibition projects one cycle, then 50-60 small exhibition projects the next?

I think part of this big vs. small dichotomy is also an issue of exposure. There are many amazing, innovative museums and museum workers doing their thing in remote or smaller outposts, so they don't get recognized in the traditional incestuous museum conference/funding world.

So, I'm going to do my part to help change that exposure thing, and I need your help. Do you know of some cool projects happening at smaller "non-famous" museums, or do you know an up-and-coming whiz kid who hasn't been able to find a real full-time with benefits job in the museum business yet?

Send me an email at info@orselli.net so I can start giving these small places and some NOT the usual suspects some publicity and the attention they deserve.


Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Free Updates" link on the right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like movies!)

Another Cautionary Tale For Museums: What Happened To The Millennium Dome?

I happened upon the Danny's Land blog today, and aside from the fact that Dan Howland points out both Laurie Anderson's and Thomas Dolby's favorite oddball amusement parks (That would be "Dollywood" for Laurie and "Diggerland" for Thomas) he also offers a free PDF download of a treatise called "Dome and Domer: The Increasingly Stupid Story of the Millennium Dome."

The premise of the Millennium Dome: "Let's spend lots of money to build a ginormous new attraction with lots of flashy technology --- so many visitors will come, that it will be self-supporting!" certainly sounds familiar to museum people.

Unfortunately, initial bursts of civic enthusiasm and bucketfuls of municipal money do not make for long-term, sustainable business plans for museums. (See our previous posts on COSI Toledo and The Mark Twain House.)

Some of the important lessons learned from The Millennium Dome fiasco outlined in "Dome and Domer" are obvious in retrospect: the people who designed it weren't the people who had to run it, there was no cohesive "vision" to the entire enterprise, simple things like throughput and lines weren't taken into consideration, and tons of money was frittered away on bozo ideas like robotic pubic lice (!)

Obvious though such points about the 'Dome may be, there are still many museum projects hoping to survive on good intentions rather than sound business fundamentals.

Rather than detail here the many hilarious (and scary!) goofups that ultimately doomed the 'Dome, I'll let you download and read "Dome and Domer" for yourself.

If you're new to the ExhibiTricks blog, subscribe via email or your favorite news reader with the tools on the right side of the postings!

COSI Toledo: Act 2?

I just received word that the fine folks at COSI Toledo, which "officially" closed at the end of 2007 (see this previous ExhibiTricks post) have decided to keep in the game by offering a suite of outreach experiences to area schools. It's my understanding from personal communication and news reports that the museum facility remains closed to the public, and that all of the exhibits have been wrapped up and stored.

I wish the folks in Toledo luck. Perhaps now that they are starting from "square one" (in the sense that many museums first operate as a facility "without walls" providing outreach programs, etc. before they gain a permanent home) COSI Toledo may be able to garner important community and political support and reopen in a revitalized form.

If not, I sure hope all the exhibits find good homes!

Sustainable Museums. What happened to COSI Toledo?

In case you hadn't heard, COSI Toledo closed down permanently on December 31, 2007, after 10 years of operation.

I think it's a little sad and scary that one of the early "brand(ed) names" of the science center business, COSI, has taken such a drubbing in both its greatly expanded Columbus location, as well as in its now-defunct Toledo satellite.

Unfortunately, the news of museum closings, like COSI Toledo's, begs several important questions: 1) Are the traditional business models of museum operation truly sustainable? 2) Is the public really willing to support museums directly (through admissions, contributions, etc.) and/or indirectly through taxes, millages, etc.? 3) Should the IRS that grants 501 (c) 3 non-profit status for museums insist on more realistic business plans? All tough questions, which I don't claim to have the definitive answers to, but I am interested in starting a dialogue. So, what do you think?


Here's a link to some comments on the situation from some people who live in Toledo.

UPDATE: Now the folks at COSI Toledo are trying to make a go of it by offering outreach programs to local schools.

Exhibition Design: Why Your Project Costs Too Much

I've just gotten the details on another RFP that I've been short-listed on. Whoopee!

Unfortunately, my enthusiasm has waned now that the actual exhibition scopes and budgets have been released.

I'm all for inexpensive exhibits and production budgets that are frugal, yet allow for creativity. (There's a reason I edited The Cheapbooks for ASTC!)

That being said, it is clear from following the time and money trails backward, that a large part of the client's funding that could have gone into "hard goods" (that is to say ACTUAL EXHIBITS) instead were frittered away on fancy master plans and consultants.

Let me pause the blog to state "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!"

Clearly, every exhibition project needs money and often fundraisers and consultants to help raise that money. But you have to wonder when the majority of a project's funds go into overhead, consultants, fancy fundraising packets, etc. rather than the exhibits and programs for visitors.

If you want great exhibits, spend your time and money on the exhibits!

Small Giants (Is Smaller Better? Part 2)

In the excellent book Small Giants: Companies That Choose to Be Great Instead of Big author Bo Burlingham contends that there is more to "growing" a business than getting bigger (and getting bigger quickly!)

As the subtitle of the book suggests, companies featured in the book (such as Ani DiFranco's Righteous Babe companies, Clif Bar, and Anchor Steam Breweries) have come to the conclusion that simply making a business larger is not nearly as important as keeping high standards -- and not confusing one goal for the other.

One interesting aspect of Small Giants is that the different companies came to their conclusions related to high quality not being directly related to business size by a variety of paths. Some companies and founders/directors/employees seem to have always had an intuitive sense of the mission of their particular business and were willing to pass up growth if that meant sacrificing their original principles. Other people running companies that grew too fast, or grew for the wrong reasons, only came to embrace "quality over quantity" after suffering personal and business disasters as a result of growth for growth's sake.

I often think of this constant tug of war as it relates to museum expansion projects.
Sometimes upon hearing of a campaign to make an existing museum "bigger and better" I often wonder if they couldn't accomplish increased visitation and income by "just" becoming better. Admittedly, that is hard and incremental work that doesn't lend itself to sexy capital campaigns.

What do you think?

What are some of your favorite museum examples of "small giants"?

IMAX or IMIN? (Is smaller better? Part 1)

A recent discussion on the ISEN-ASTC listserv dealt with visitors' visceral (sometimes literally!) reactions to big-screen theatre shows.

While there is no argument that such shows are often lots of fun, are they really the best way to allocate a museum's precious resources?

John Bowditch, from the Ann Arbor Hands-On Museum coined the excellent term "IMIN" as an alternative to the often overwhelming confluence of bombast and technology employed inside museums.

It is interesting that many visitor studies show the value of human-scale interaction inside museums. Also, formal and informal surveys of visitors' positive memories of museum experiences invariably relate to a positive interaction with one or more museum staff members.

If "human scale" experiences in museums are so important, why do so many museums continue to tout big screens and blockbusters? I'm afraid the field has often let funders and fundraising call the tune rather than visitors --- it's "easier" (so the common wisdom states) to raise money for BIG stuff rather than more subtle experiences. But even interesting human-scaled experiences can use technology and be "sexy" to donors, like this installation from the Royal Ontario Museum.

How to break the BIG cycle? Create more small museums and small experiences that set out to "whelm" visitors rather than "overwhelm" them.