The word museum - defined in the dictionary as "a building
where objects of historical, artistic or scientific interest
are exhibited and preserved" - has an unfortunate affinity
with mausoleum, a large stately tomb.
Take three letters out of the latter and you end up with the
former; indeed, in some instances, the two seem almost
interchangeable, and this is particularly the case where
museums and their management cling to a traditional and
reductive interpretation of their role as mere "preservers of
the past".
In the eyes of those who rigidly adhere to such a vision - a
fundamentalist approach to the museum world - any deviation
that appears to shoot the breeze of modernity through the
cobwebs of antiquity is seen as heresy.
And there appear to be strains of such attitudes at large in
the small society of Dunedin.
The city, most would agree, is well-endowed, if not actually
overloaded, with two separate major museum establishments,
the Otago Museum and the Otago Settlers Museum - and a third,
if one includes the Dunedin Public Art Gallery.
The question that regularly excites partisan opinion is, but
is it well served? This appears, in part, to have been the
impetus behind a report commissioned by the Dunedin City
Council to review the management options for the city's
museums and the art gallery and delivered in May 2008.
The report written by Dr Rodney Wilson, a prominent New
Zealand museum expert and consultant, remained under wraps
until exhumed by this newspaper recently following a request
under the Official Information Act.
It is understandable that the DCC preferred, perhaps, to
allow the report to gather dust, because at face value it
appears that the advantages in a potential merger between the
two museums identified by it were allowed to be subsumed by
some of the likely difficulties.
The terms in which those obstacles are alluded to in the
report leads to the suspicion that a merger of any or all of
the functions and services of the museums was simply put into
the too-hard basket.
Dr Wilson writes in his report that "in a perfect world" it
would be "perfectly possible" for the settlers museum to
become a specialist history unit of the Otago Museum.
Further, he says that there is a "natural alignment" between
the council-owned settlers museum and the Otago Museum, which
receives substantial funding from the council but operates as
a trust.
"Improved collaboration and co-operation would arise from
that relationship and a significant number of services could
be shared," he wrote.
So what would stand in the way of such a move? It appears
from the report that resistance of staff at the settlers
museum and concerns about the "culture" of the Otago Museum
loomed large.
More specifically there was criticism of the uniforms of
staff "livery", and the styles of its brochures.
All this apparently mitigated against a merger or takeover.
"The negative consequences of such a move . . . far outweigh
the advantages of a natural alignment and the ability to work
more collaboratively," Dr Wilson concluded, while at the same
time appearing to dismiss at least some of the more specious
reasoning advanced, noting that the Otago Museum in its style
and presentation was simply part of a worldwide trend: "The
brighter imagery that accompanies this is simply part of the
message that today's museums are lively, engaging and
interactive places," he said.
There is, of course, a context in which such revelations
should be located.
The first element is that there has been a stream of negative
public comment over several months, mostly from disaffected
former employees of the Otago Museum, as to the strategic
decisions, management style and demands made on them by their
employer.
The second is that the museum is an outstanding success.
The Southern Lands Southern People Gallery, the Tropical
Butterfly House, the major visiting exhibitions, as well as
its standing collections, which this year alone have
attracted 600,000 visitors, attest to this.
To some of its critics, the Otago Museum's biggest failing
would appear to be its popularity.
But "popular" should not be confused with "populist", just as
"museum" should not be mistaken for "mausoleum".
Rather than dedicating themselves solely to the corpses of
cultures past, today's museums must be responsive,
innovative, vibrant, forward-looking and well-managed.
The best museums will treat the past with reverence and
respect, while looking with vision to the future.
The Otago Museum is one of the region's most positive amenity
stories precisely because it does both with determination and
aplomb.
Otago museum's management culture
You say in your editorial that “To some of its critics, the Otago Museum's biggest failing would appear to be its popularity.” I doubt if you would find a museum professional in the country who would fail congratulate the Otago Museum on its popularity and visitor experience. The crux of the concern being expressed by former Otago Museum employees centres on the treatment of past and present staff by senior management of the museum. It’s that simple.
A museum's function
From the age of eight or so, my mother used to drop me off at the (old) main entrance of the Museum whenever we came to town for a day from our rural district, and collect me again at 4.30 in time for the evening train home. That was not at her request; it was by mine. During the day I would explore all floors from the ground floor upwards, even to the top storey where if my recollections are correct, there were some rather moth-eaten stuffed and preserved animals. To my mind, a Museum serves the dual purposes of recording our natural, social and other histories and also provides a base for those doing serious research. It should not be allowed to degenerate into a centre for popular entertainment, a theme-park, or just another 'tourist-attraction' unless those tourists have reasons for their visit which encompass these functions of a museum, or have been attracted by its reputation.
In that respect, I think the Otago Museum stacks up reasonably well as-it-is, whereas I have heard Wellington's 'Te Papa' dismissed with derision by more than one visitor, as 'the Maori Theme-Park' since it apparently regards its function as a mix of 'Museum stuff' and populist entertainment. If a museum visit is to be a stimulating and rewarding experience, the edifice in question has to offer more than a bit of an interactive 'buzz' for society's lowest common denominator, or objects for today's unrestrained youngsters to climb all over, or handle until boredom sets in; otherwise, in my view, it will ultimately fail everybody and especially those with the nous to benefit most from the experience.
Museums or mausoleums
There would be very few practicing museum professionals who would not applaud the Otago Museums successful focus on visitor centred programmes. What they do not applaud is the Otago Museum Trust Board's poor relationship with some of its employees. That is why the Settlers Museum staff resist Rodney Wilson's strategy of combining the two institutions.