PEOPLING MUSINGPLACES

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

In essence musingplaces – museums and art galleries – may be regarded as ‘people places’ more than they may be ‘collection places’. Inherently they are demonstrations and expressions of power and prowess – a ruler’s, an empire’s, a community’s, a belief system’s, a nation’s, a religion’s, etc. They are the places where humanity's ideas, endeavours and beliefs come together in the cause of making sense of the world.

However, in a current cultural context musingplaces are people places

Some ‘museums’ are very private places that hold collections for the exclusive benefit of a private owner collector while others are inclusive and are open to the wider community for the purpose of community musing, many of which are in a form legal public ownership.

When objects become a part of a musingplace’s collection they cease to be owned/controlled by any individual or institution – they are communal cultural property. Furthermore, the collections become purposeful with the purpose being determined by a network of people – those who govern its assembly and those who facilitate and fund the process of assembly. Following on from that, among these people there are those who manage and document the collections and those who use the collections as a resource – a cultural resource, a scientific resource, a historic reference, etc.

Objects in a collection take on new relevance and as often as not, new meanings also – a relevance and meaning something other than they carried with them into the collection. Musingplaces, museums and art galleries, bring objects and the ideas linked to them face to face with people in a myriad of ways. Given the 21^st C imperatives, the social networks in play and the sensibilities being visited upon musingplaces, the peopling of them simultaneously renders the 'peoplecollective' and the collected objects in something of a ‘parallel dimension’.

Who are these people? In a ‘public institution’ from an administrative perspective it would almost be an automatic response to answer that question by articulating the operative relationships and typically by ranking them in some kind of hierarchical order – depending upon who is asking and in what context. That is:

1. The funders – owners, funding agency officers, taxpayers, philanthropists, sponsors and donors;
2. The first order dedicated decision makers, funding raisers and policy determiners – the governors/trustees;
3. The realisers of policy and expenders of resources in some kind ranking – Chief Executive Officer, the functionary managers, the various functionaries, the service providers and others;
4. The members – staff, auxiliary members, associates, citizen members, subscribers, et al;
5. The ‘audiences’ – researchers, educators, scholars, students, musers, writers, collectors, cultural tourists, investigators, cultural producers, cultural custodians, theorists, et al .... the musingplaces' Community of Ownership and Interest COI 

The people-collective involved with musing places – their COI – are what gives ‘the place’ its substance, it purpose for being. Without a COI a musing place would be little more than a conglomeration of objects, which might only have potential meaning. Meaning is always invested in context, people invest objects with meaning and define their context and consequently ‘musing’ depends upon people pondering the meaning of things in their context. Musingplaces exist for that purpose alone.

It is tempting to divide musingplace people into two categories, those who are salaried to maintain the place and those who muse there. However, its not quite that simple as ‘musingplace people’ may well have, indeed would ideally have, multiple ‘crossover’ relationships to the place and the musing that goes on within it.

Indeed 21^st C musing places somehow demand inclusivity rather than exclusivity albeit that their 16^th C precursors – European Wunderkammers and Kunstkammers – were essentially exclusive places assembled to demonstrate the power and prowess of their assemblers. 

Probably one the most prestigious 19^th C exemplar, the British Museum, was arguably assembled for just this purpose – the demonstration of autocratic colonial power albeit under the guise of a parliamentary cum constitutional monarchy.

In the 21^st C public musingplaces’ constituencies are increasingly demanding the opportunity (right?) to be included in the musing equation giving their contribution to them via their taxes and rates and sometimes membership fees. Day by day the arguments for exclusive membership fade into insignificance. Rather the imperatives in play in current musingplaces are increasingly focusing upon ways to tear down the impediments to be included in the ‘memberships’ of 21^st C musingplaces.

Against a background of egalitarianism and multiculturalism the notion that musingplaces might have parallel and coexistent 'memberships' should no longer threaten the social norms that determines 'who belongs'. Memberships of community and public institutions should no longer be exclusive in order to claim relevance or to be seen to be 'important'. That was always derisory and counterproductive – and it is a redundant idea. 

Musingplace's memberships might well include:

1. ‘College’ membership for those who have credentials and advice to offer the institution on a formal and informal basis and especially so in regard to peer reviewing and project assessments;
2. Associate memberships for those with specific and broad interests invested in the institution;
3. Auxiliary memberships for those who may wish to contribute to the institution in practical ways;
4. Auxiliary group memberships for those groups of people who may wish to support the institution in some practical and/or other way  – Friends etc;
5. Subscribers, for people who sign up to receive classes of information as it becomes available – newsletters, BLOG postings, exhibition notices, etc.;
6. Research Associates for those with specific research interest in a collection or an aspect of it;
7. Volunteer facilitators for those who may wish to offer their services, expertise or resources towards assisting the institution meet its objectives;
8. Network membership for groups, organisations and institutions wishing to develop rhizomic network linkages with the institution and/or its members;
9. Collector members for individuals and groups of collectors who wish to share skills and knowledge and make their collections available for research projects;
10. Affiliate institution for those organisations etc. that may wish to set up arrangements to share resources in both a formal and informal ways;
11. Collaborators for those individuals and businesses who actively work with the institution towards meeting is objects; 
12. Collaborating institution/organisation for formal entities which the institution is engaged with in regard to collaborative or cooperative projects (research?);
13. Sponsors for those who wish to support the institution in search of a mutual benefit;
14. Benefactor members for those who wish to make substantial long term commitments to the institution;
15. Patrons for those who the institution wishes to honour in regard to specific aspects of it operation – arts, science programs, history programs, etc.;
16. Adjunct curators and/or researchers for those who, in a honorary capacity, make significant contributions to a project or series of projects over an extended period;
17. Associate Interns for those who engage with the institution in a voluntary capacity towards gaining some kind of acknowledged training or experience that is of mutual benefit to the institution, themselves and/or their profession/career;
18. Fellows for those granted status as a researcher, scholar or trainee for the purpose of winning funding for them to carry out a project under the institution auspices;
19. Resident for artists, scientists, writers, et al for who the institution has won funding to allow them to realise a project under its auspices and those having being granted the status can continue to use it to reinforce career opportunities.

It needs to be said that the primary incentive to embark upon a diverse multi-layered membership strategy would be almost entirely to do with marketing. No amount of advertising could deliver the outcomes this kind of strategy offers the prospect of. 

Nonetheless, it may be a somewhat complex strategy to implement such a marketing strategy initially which most likely be best done over time (staged?) and it is likely that it 
will mean that:

1. For each group of people, members, subscribers, whatever there may need to be an understanding of the status of their relationship with the institution and the benefits attached – formal, informal, constituted, etc.;
2. For each class of membership there may well need to be an appropriate induction process consistent with the 'status' of their relationship with the institution and/or some kind of understanding established between the group/s and the institution – formal, informal, whatever;
3. It could be expected that any one individual may have multiple relationships/memberships across the 'membership' groupings;
4. The longevity of groups' relationships can be expected to vary over time from relatively ephemeral to enduring; 
5. For those categories that are essentially in place, their memberships may need to be reinforced and recontextualised, and possibly reinducted, in reference to the overall strategy;
6. For each category, something of substance will need to be established to give it context and meaning – membership card, subscription 'rights', etc.;
7. Where necessary and appropriate, candidates will need to subject themselves to such things as police & security checks, workplace safety training, marketing briefings, etc.
8. The overall membership strategy will need to be promoted widely within the communities the institution is aiming engage with and draw a membership from;
9. Individuals may wish to be understood in the context of them having a layered memberships that touch upon the various categories; and
10. The overarching strategy in no way promotes the concept of a hierarchy within the total membership despite its differences and diversity.

click on the image to enlarge

A diverse and active membership is likely to be a musingplace's most important asset in a 21st C context. That is so long as it is maintained in the context of its time via social media and membership focused programing. The concept that musingplaces are 'people places' must also be front of mind in a marketing context.