In Defense of the Museum

Last week in one of my classes, a discussion arose about whether or not digital libraries are "the great equalizer" in the "battle" between museums and libraries. As you can imagine, I had some things to share on this point, and so I want to share with you the original post, followed by my response.

Lesk said something to the extent of: when libraries have something, they lend it out for free. When museums have something that people want, they expect people to pay for it. (This was during the example of fossilized rabbits)

I'm always interested in the museum v. libraries conversation as my first master's is in art history. I spent a lot of time in museums and never felt that it was the right environment for me. And this statement was sort of an "aha moment" for me. (I am going to acknowledge that this might also be due to the type of museums I spent my time in).

I thought it was really interesting that this statement came up in a digital libraries lecture. I would think that a digital library could serve as a leveling device between the two environments. I should adjust this statement that I think that an open access digital library could even out this playing field. What do you guys think? Is his statement on point? Does this inherent difference exist between libraries and museums? And can a digital library serve as a great equalizer?

As my wife and I both work in major museums, I’d like to respond to this point. I want to add that I work in a library within a museum, and the two are very much symbiotic - they do not serve cross purposes, nor are they mutually exclusive. Honestly, the premise of “museums v. libraries” is incorrect - they serve the same purpose. As I see it, many peoples' issue with museums is that they charge for admission, while libraries do not. I can understand this on a fundamental level. Patrons are feeling the crunch of the economic downturn we are in the midst of, and find it difficult to pay the entrance fee.

However, I think we can all agree that viewing a digital surrogate is no replacement for the “real” object. Think about the illustrated manuscripts Dr. Lavender shared with us last summer. Take, for example, the Kimbell’s recently acquired Michelangelo painting. The photos are nice - but lack the pop, presence, social value, and impact of the actual painting. If viewing a digital surrogate is visually equivalent - if the photo was truly an analog for the original - the point that digital libraries serving as a great equalizer would be true. However, the analog (in a digital library setting) will never truly replace the physical object.

Allow me to discuss the concept of why museums charge for admission as well. This is not true across the board. Indeed, the Amon Carter never has, and never will charge admission to any of its permanent collection, nor for exhibitions. A good local contrast to this is the Modern here in Fort Worth, that does charge admission for the permanent collection, as well as exhibitions. Though inconvenient, the entrance fee is low, and so is affordable for many people. As Lauren and Theresa have mentioned, the Modern has free admission every Thursday, enabling people to visit from all socio-economic levels.

I also want to take the opportunity to clarify the “why” of museum admission fees. Just the maintenance costs and insurance policies associated with a permanent collection held by a museum require the expenditure of many millions of dollars on an annual basis. These monies are mostly provided by permanent endowments that usually generate a fixed income. The income from the endowment is supplanted by membership fees - but this is frequently insufficient to cover the expenses in the annual budget of a museum, especially when you look at not just costs directly associated with the collection, but education, personnel, and other major departments as well. In addition, most museums either create or host traveling exhibitions - and each exhibition requires the outlay of several more million dollars from the museum for publishing, transportation and insurance of the art while it is on loan. The fees for entrance into an exhibition help to defray (but never cover) the costs associated with an exhibition.

Indeed, without art museums, those wishing to view original works of art would have to resort to sneaking into the homes of private collectors, or would have to buy the artwork themselves - something very few individuals can afford to do.

The benefit (as I have learned this semester) of a digital library in a museum setting is increasing access to items which would be impossible or difficult to use due to geographic location. These digital objects serve simply as stand-ins for the actual objects, but do not replace the physical objects themselves. A digital library also affords some form of access to patrons wishing to view works not currently on display within the museum.

Finally, as I see it, libraries and museums serve the same purpose: granting access to incredible objects to those that wish to see them.