UMAC-ICOM Paper, October 4,2004
Bonnie G. Kelm, Ph.D
Director and Adjunct Professor
University Art Museum
University of California, Santa Barbara.
.
Moving Forward by Looking Back: How reviewing the History of University
Museums can Help Chart Plans for the Future.
I am in the preliminary stages of research for a book on the History of University Art
Museums in America. Although focus on this book is recent, it addresses questions that
have continually arisen throughout my twenty-five year career working in university
museums. It also draws on research gathered for museum studies courses and other
presentations over the past decade. I have just finished supervising an updated
bibliography project on university museums for the Association of College and
University Museums and Galleries (ACUMG), and to my knowledge, this may be the
first book length project on this subject. Since I am currently involved in a review of the
pertinent literature and still gathering information from other sources, I can only discuss
the tendencies I have noted at this point in my research. Although my book will primarily
deal with the history of university art museums in the United States, it is essential that my
research survey other types of University Museums as well, since science and natural
history museums were the first university museums to appear in the county.
Of the approximately 8,000 museums in America, over 1100 of them are university
museums. As a group, they are distinct enough from other types of museums to warrant
1
separate sections in Professional Practices in Art Museums and the Annual Salary Survey
both published by the American Association of Museum Directors (AAMD). University
Museums, in general, share similar motivations with public and private museums,
however, their institutional intentions as well as the expectations of their audiences differ
significantly. There are two professional interest groups devoted exclusively to
university museums widely recognized in the United States, the Association of College
and University Museums and Galleries (ACUMG) on the national level, and the
International Committee for University Museums (UMAC) worldwide. An interesting
footnote pertinent to my research is the difference in choice of names between these two
professional associations-the American organization defining itself in terms of museums
and galleries, and the international organization defining itself in terms of museums and
“collections.”
The earliest museums in America had their beginnings in academic institutions. The first
documented University museum in the U.S. is Dartmouth’s Natural History Museum,
which dates back to 1772, prior to American independence. The early American
environment was far better positioned for exhibiting scientific knowledge than it was for
art. Here there was a whole new continent of flora and fauna to be explored, while the
world of art was still defined by European standards, since an American identity had yet
to be forged. An interesting sidelight to my research is the study of hybrid institutions—
university museums of science and art---and their mission of encapsulating universal
knowledge. Exploring the histories of such institutions and the rationale for subsequent
2
splits of the collection or the continued alliance of diverse disciplines promise to shed
more light on the uniqueness of university museums as cultural institutions.
The first art museums in this country, that is, collections composed exclusively of art
objects, also originated in academic institutions, the National Academy of Design in New
York and the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts were among the first. Yale University
Art Gallery, which claims to be the first university art museum, was founded in 1832. It
was also the first university art museum to open its doors to the public.
These institutions arose from the idea that the opportunity to experience art was a vital
part of being fully educated. University museums continue to be shaped by the unique
circumstances and challenges of institutions faced with carrying out a difficult dual role.
They are expected to function as a central part of the of the University’s academic
mission, and simultaneously engage in broader programming and outreach to the
surrounding community. In some communities, the university museum may also assume
the role of the major museum for the region. Yet, despite their origins in an academic
setting, in recent years, it has been noted that few university museums appear to be
understood and appreciated by their parent organizations. Some have even had their
existence threatened. I found myself in this unenviable position two years ago. In an
attempt to uncover how and why this estrangement developed, the perspective of my
research is focused on the relationships of university museums with their parent
institutions and their external communities.
3
The history of university museums in America in many ways runs counter to the history
of municipal and private museums in terms of programmatic content, use of collections,
and public policy. A number of recent books critical of museums as institutions, discuss
a norm of established characteristics they term “Museum Culture.” University Museums,
in general, do not fit these criteria and might be thought of as the alternative, or
“Museum-Counter Culture.” Examination of the activities undertaken by University
Museums over the years reveals that these institutions were at liberty to be much freer,
more experimental, and both inter- and multi-disciplinary in their development of
exhibitions and programs. Many of the “progressive ideas” advocated to non-academic
museums over the last twenty-five years, appeared in the exhibitions and programs of
university museums decades earlier. In fact, one might expect this to be the case, given
the governing university principle of academic freedom. It has been suggested that the
university’s open embrace of refugee intellectuals from other parts of the world over the
past century helped to imbue the university museum with a more liberal and experimental
orientation. One of many interesting examples I’ve discovered in my research is that
contrary to popular belief New York's Museum of Modern Art was not the first
institution in the United States exclusively devoted to contemporary art. Between 1927
and 1943, New York University (NYU) was home to A.E. Gallatin's Gallery of Living
Art, renamed the Museum of Living Art in 1936. It restricted its exhibitions to "fresh and
individual" works by living artists. Among the best-known works in the collection were
Pablo Picasso's Three Musicians (1921), Fernand Leger's The City (1919), Joan Miro’s
Dog Barking at the Moon (1926), and Piet Mondrian's Composition in Blue and Yellow
(1932). Born in 1881 in Villanova, Pennsylvania, to a patrician family of Swiss descent,
4
Albert Eugene Gallatin was heir to a large banking fortune. His ties to NYU, to art, and to
France extended back several generations. His great-grandfather, Albert Gallatin, was
one of the founders of NYU and served as Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents
Jefferson and Madison as well as US Minister to France. Portraits of him by Gilbert
Stuart and Rembrandt Peale passed by descent to Albert Eugene. His father taught
analytical chemistry at NYU, and he himself was an NYU trustee. A.E. Gallatin began
his career as an art collector at the age of 17. Fascinating individuals with diverse
university ties lie at the core of the fresh ideas that imbued many of the oldest and most
notable university museums in the country. Many of the ideas of such new thinkers were
not nearly as welcomed in the public independent museum institutions of their times.
Another unique characteristic of university Museums is the idea of the “teaching
collection” and the often-literal hands on use of collection objects for examination and
instruction. As an integral part of the academic program, university museums also
pursued a very active and participatory research agenda that was highly visible. The
university museum was most often understood by its parent organization, as a type of
laboratory where experimentation, research and learning took place.
One of the strong trends I am finding in my research, especially over the past two
decades, is that university museums consciously began emulating municipal and private
museums, especially in terms of impressive building campaigns and emphasis on socalled blockbuster exhibitions. This new direction has often taken place at the expense of
an emphasis on curriculum support, alternative programming and collection study. Many
5
university museums have been very successful in attracting significant private support
with this new orientation; however, the shift in emphasis has also altered the essential
character of university museums and the perceptions of their parent institutions. There
have been a number of reasons given for this shift in focus among university museums.
These explanations include:
1. a need to increase external funding and outside community participation;
2. an increasing need for legitimacy and recognition in the professional sphere;
3.
a desire to increase the quality of and fill gaps in the museum’s collection,
4. the conditions of major donor gifts,
5. and the establishment of the AAM accreditation program and its requirements for
university museums. Accreditation is an entity understood in university terms.
Like other types of museums, university museums are marked by the circumstances of
their origin. Many university art museums had their beginnings as small galleries or
collection rooms within various academic departments. As they grew and developed,
there often reached a point when authority and control of the museum was moved beyond
the department to a more central administration of the university. In such cases, the
department’s animosity toward a more independent university museum can persist for
decades. Other university museums originated through an effort to house all of the
collections given to the university through gifts and bequests over the years. More often
than not, the individual or group inspired to bring a museum to fruition on campus did
not consult with any museum professionals prior to completing the project. The initial
6
years of many of these university art museums was often tumultuous and spent sorting
out dubious collections.
The dual role of the university museum in serving both what is known in the U.S. as
“town and gown” has always been a difficult balancing act. Even when an institution
believes it is doing well in addressing both sector’s needs, campus constituents may view
the museum as more of a community organization, and community audiences may
consider the museum as an institution primarily geared to university use. The university
museum has always been something of a hybrid, neither fish nor fowl. University
museums are totally different than any other department on campus and since they serve
this dual role, who should primarily support them? This dilemma brings into focus other
issues of control and ownership that has arisen in a variety of circumstances to be played
out by university museums and their parent organizations over the years.
Growing professionalism among university museums has been a source of conflict
between university museums and their parent organizations. Professional practices in the
museum field, including AAM and AAMD guidelines, are sometimes at odds with
university policies or the way the university generally conducts its operations. This is
particularly true in regards to areas of governance policies, donor relations and collection
stewardship. It is worth noting that the University Museums section in 2001 edition of
Professional Practices in Art Museums, published by the AAMD, has expanded and
become more specific than the previous 1991 version in response to problems in the field.
Among the most significant of these issues is the situation of the university museum’s
7
permanent collection. In most cases, the university or its foundation owns the permanent
collection and the museum are designated as the trustee for “museum quality” works on
campus. Yet in accordance with professional museum practices, the museum director
must be given total authority for all aspects of the collection, including acquisition,
deaccessioning, and disposal, preservation, conservation as well as scholarly research and
exhibition. There have been many battles fought over the control and disposition of
university collections.
With a growing emphasis on the building of impressive facilities, and especially the
central role of special exhibitions in university museums, parent institutions are seeing
fewer distinctions between university museums and their public counterparts, even while
they may be proud of the new museum facility or the exhibition’s critical success.
University museums are being viewed far less as a vital part of the academic curriculum-a laboratory of learning---and more as a symbol of extra-curricula enjoyment or
entertainment that should be publicly funded by other sources.
In the wake of economic slow downs of the early 1990’s as well as the current state of
affairs, universities have turned a critical eye toward their museum progeny. The trend
has either been to view the museum as unwanted competition for other needy campus
programs vying for private and public support or, to view the university museum as a
superfluous financial drain during hard times. Even if the recaptured funds from closing a
museum might not amount to very much in terms of alleviating a budget deficit, the
8
rationale has been to primarily view the museum as non-essential to the “core” programs
of the University.
The directional shift of university museums has focused the spotlight on facilities and
special exhibitions. As important as these entities are in themselves, they shed little light
on the work that actually takes place in museums. Those of us in the field recognize that
approximately 90% of what goes on in any museum, goes on behind-the-scenes and
remains unknown and unseen by the public. What the visitor experiences in the museum
is the after-glow and the product of a great deal of creative problem solving, research,
and scholarship that remains hidden. Like theatre, museum exhibitions create illusions so
that the visitor’s experience is focused on the object, subject or message of the exhibition.
Museum facilities do not reveal the details of climate control, the specifications of
lighting, or other technical requirements for creating the appropriate environment.
Museum installations do not visibly disclose conservation concerns. The illusions
created by presentations in museums are misleading enough that many of us find
ourselves continually confounded by the presumption that it takes little to create or
operate a museum. Not long ago I received a phone call from a dean of humanities at
another University of California branch. He announced that he only needed a few minutes
of my time to learn “how his campus could put together an art museum”
It seems to me that museums are well equipped to counter these misconceptions, by
finding unique ways to focus attention on the process as well as the product of museum
work. I believe that it was partly the process of turning the museum inside out--of
9
making visible what is generally only known behind the scenes---- that originally forged
academic respect for the work of university museums in the past. University museums
had traditionally made museum work itself both the subject and object of their
exhibitions. Continuing my research on the history of university museums in this country,
I hope to develop persuasive arguments to support and expand this thesis.
10