When is a Museum not a Museum?

Yoga classes at the MoMA are not part of a flash mob or performance art. They’re just one of the latest examples of museums trying to attract more visitors.

Museums have struggled to remain relevant over the past decade as an increasingly multi-platformed entertainment industry has satiated the creative thirst of the general public. "Blockbuster" exhibits like King Tut and the Golden Age of the Pharoahs were a successful solution, but they’re too costly as income from tourism, donations, and endowments continues to shrink.

Yesterday's special section on museums in The New York Times illustrated specific examples of the movement to market museums as interactive community centers. The new advertising campaign for the Met plasters photos of visitors -- taken by themselves -- with iconic works of art across New York City. Many, like the Smithsonian in D.C., have renewed focus on their permanent collection. Granting public access to open-storage galleries avoids the cost of curating and personalizes the experience. The High Museum of Art in Atlanta, among others, expanded their after school programs and emphasizes a family-friendly space.

Establishing the museum as a less intimidating, instructional space comes as a breath of fresh air to those who have criticized the amount of control that trustees and the inflated art market have held in recent years. It is clear that museums need to adapt, but it begs the question whether or not cultural institutions should sacrifice a clear mission to keep up with a multi-platform entertainment environment. Will museums maintain validity when visitors can contribute in the same capacity as artists and curators?

For more points of view, check-out this article from ARTnews: "A New Creativity?"

(Photo: Milwaukee Art Museum by Numstead)