Museum Marketization

Cultural Institutions in the Neoliberal Era

Karin M. Ekström

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429686061
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Museum Administration
• Index: Business

This wide-ranging book explores the impact of marketization on the creative industries. With critical perspectives from a variety of disciplines and global experts, numerous examples from international cultural institutions are employed to illuminate the topic.

Culture and business have become increasingly intertwined, and cultural institutions need to be aware of their place in the market. Commercial awareness, which was previously disparaged, is now seen as a legitimate and necessary response to increased competition, enhancing experience, increasing accessibility, broadening inclusivity and sustainable futures with diminishing funding. The contributions to this book highlight that marketing, public relations, sponsorship and fundraising have become integral to the survival of many museums, galleries and events.

Of interest to students and scholars across topics such as arts marketing, arts administration, heritage marketing and museum studies, the book is also insightful for reflective practitioners in the creative sector.

PART I
Marketization of cultural institutions

Tensions between arts and business

1
REFLECTIONS ON THE MARKETIZATION OF ART IN CONTEMPORARY NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM

Kirsi Eräranta, Johanna Moisander, and Visa Penttilä

Introduction

The theories, practices, and works that constitute what Danto (1964) refers to as the ‘artworld’ are continuously changing. From a historical point of view, art – or what is categorized as art – has been created in various institutional contexts for a variety of purposes. Religion, nation-state building, and class distinction are but some of the most visible uses of art. In more recent history, change in the field of art has unfolded in ways that scholars and practitioners alike have described as ‘intensifying market orientation’ (Joy and Sherry, 2003, this anthology) and ‘marketization’ (Alexander, 2018a, 2018b; Lee, 2018) – the increasing penetration of the market forces into the sphere of art. Art is now said to be ‘serious business’ (Schroeder, 2005) and an important branch of the creative industries. Simply put, it has become all about competition, branding, and investment.

Scholars often attribute these developments to the ever-increasing dominance of neoliberalism in society (Alexander, 2018a; Alexander and Bowler, 2014; Alexander et al., 2018). Alexander (2018a), for example, has argued that marketization springs from neoliberal ideas about ‘the enterprise’ – that artists, art professionals, and art organizations are expected to function the same way as private enterprises do. The enterprise, in this line of thinking, refers not only to a particular practice and organizational form – that is, to a business or a company. The enterprise also refers to a particular moral discourse and rationality that guide individuals to view and manage themselves and their whole lives as microscopic businesses or ‘enterprise-units’ (Foucault, 2008: 225).

As a result, artists, art professionals, and art organizations now all seem to act more and more like businesses (Alexander, 2018a). Artists compete and manage themselves in the market as brands (Schroeder, 2005; Rodner, Omar and Thomson, 2011; Muñiz, Norris and Fine, 2014). Art organizations develop strategies and perfect their business models to outperform their key competitors in the market (Chong, 2010). Art collectors increasingly consider their artworks to be investment assets, expecting rates of return similar to yields from stocks and other financial assets (Moreau, Sagot-Duvauroux and Vidal, 2015; Deloitte, 2019). Art dealers and collectors even know how to manipulate the market to catapult unknown artists into celebrity – to raise the value of the works that they themselves own (Freeland, 2003; Moreau, Sagot-Duvauroux and Vidal, 2015).

In this chapter, we discuss marketization, particularly in the context of art museums, as a modality of the neoliberal economization. By ‘economization’ we understand the various discursive and non-discursive practices and processes through which neoliberalism, as a political rationality, constitutes behaviours, organizations, and institutions as ‘economic’ (Brown, 2015; Foucault, 2008). More specifically, we explore and seek to better understand how, in the contemporary conditions of neoliberal capitalism, the creation, presentation, and reception of art as a cultural practice has become problematized – rendered intelligible as problematic and governable as a target of reform and change (Foucault, 1984) – as economic activity. How has it become perfectly acceptable and normal, today, to talk about ‘market orientation’, ‘branding’, and ‘consumption’ in the sphere of art?

In the following sections, we take up these questions by offering a brief socio-historical narrative of the evolution of what is now discussed as the market orientation in the context of art museums. Then, we discuss how the neoliberal economization and the marketization of art are manifested and rationalized – and naturalized – today in the socioeconomic development of cities and regions. Finally, we reflect upon the rationalities that underpin the economization of art appreciation and reception, discussing how the neoliberal discourse of enterprise mobilizes the public as all-powerful consumers of cultural products in ways that seem to restrict the freedom of artistic expression.

Art museums and market orientation – a brief history of changing problematizations

The purpose and the appropriate role of art museums have been a topic of intense discussion throughout the history of these organizations. Much of the debate has been centred on the question of whom the museums should serve and how. While an explicit market orientation evolved only in the latter half of the 20th century, the previous debates provide a backdrop for understanding how the current, economic way of thinking has emerged through a series of problematizations of art and the role of art museums in society. The problematizations have concerned the elitist orientation, relevance, and accountability of art museums, and the proposed solutions have drawn on the sphere of private businesses.

The roots of these problematizations go back to the second half of the 18th century when publicly exhibited collections were organized as the first public art museums, such as the Louvre in 1793. During the 19th century, more and more museums were established throughout Europe. These organizations were tasked with promoting national pride, social cohesion, and the instruction of the public. The societal problems of the time were connected to the Industrial Revolution and rapid urbanization; art was seen as means for alleviating the associated social issues. However, art museums exhibited ‘an at times uneasy blend of democratic ideals and elite aesthetic values’ (McClellan, 2003: 6): while striving to civilize and educate the common people, museums often ended up serving the elite, aristocratic tastes. As McClellan (2003: 13) has pointed out, ‘in a society still dominated by class, in which art and cultural knowledge continued to circulate as an elite commodity and museums depended on the rich for support, it was at best highly idealistic to expect art to cease to function as a badge of privilege’. In the United States, the art museums of the late 19th century exhibited similar tendencies with the difference that it was the wealthy business elite whom the museums served (Duncan, 1995). Thus, while claiming democratic ideals, art museums often catered only to limited markets of the wealthy and the powerful.

Later, at the beginning of the 20th century, at least in the US art museums were criticized for their irrelevance to the broader public. John Cotton Dana, a museum pioneer and reformist from the beginning of the century, wrote an essay ‘Gloom of the Museums’ (Dana, 2012 [1917]), where he lamented the state of the American art museums and proposed a change to their activities. He saw that art museums were primarily geared towards the elite and their needs of distinction. The solutions that Dana proposed were connected to commercial establishments. In a striking comparison, Dana (2012 [1917]: 29) juxtaposed an art museum to a department store and stated that the latter was superb in how it was organized and oriented towards visitors:

It is centrally located; it is easily reached; it is open to all at all the hours when patrons wish to visit it; it receives all courteously and gives information freely; it displays its most attractive and interesting objects and shows countless others on request… it advertises itself widely and continuously; and it changes its exhibits to meet daily changes in subjects of interest, changes of taste in art, and the progress of invention and discovery.

He thus argued that audience-orientation was a necessity for art museums to thrive and become relevant for broader groups of people, even if this meant imitating commercial establishments. Hence, it seems fairly evident that over a century ago museum professionals were already considering how to reach their potential audiences – or markets – and respond to their needs in a more efficient manner but without the conceptual marketing tools developed later on.

Dana’s ideas were not, however, broadly implemented in art museums in the first half of the 20th century. The dominant model of organizing art museums was more akin to the one established by Benjamin Ives Gilman from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. This model emphasized ‘high art’, connoisseurship of the few, and aesthetic experience rather than the education of broader publics (DiMaggio, 1992). In this vein, Vera Zolberg (1984) argued that during most of the 20th century in the US, the support for didactic and audience work was often minimal: the smallest number of measures to accommodate a broader audience was adopted, just enough to fend off criticism. Moreover, despite some steps towards a more market-oriented approach, museum professionals resisted broadening the public or changing the practices of art museums. Some museum directors argued that their organizations ‘best serve the public by providing secluded spaces for aesthetic contemplation’ (McClellan, 2003: 35) instead of reaching out to new audiences that were not accustomed to such aesthetic appreciation.

The critique of elitism continued in the 1970s and led to calls to provide more services, such as shops and restaurants for people who were not used to visiting museums (McClellan, 2003: 32), the solution drawing again on the commercial world. More importantly, as a response to the same criticism, and partly due to the financial difficulties that art museums faced, big blockbuster exhibitions became a phenomenon in the art world (Barker, 1999: 128–129). These exhibitions were arranged around a well-known artist or a popular topic and provided the means for reaching new audiences, marketing and merchandising all kinds of commodities for sources of income, and involving corporate actors (Prior, 2006: 515; Rectanus, 2006: 381). Alan Wallach (2003: 106) has noted that such exhibitions often necessitated significant contributions from corporate sponsors who sought to gain visibility and good-will in exchange for their financial support. Thus, it was not only the elite or the wealthy individuals who could use art for accumulating cultural capital but also corporations through such sponsorship activities (Wu, 2002: 9). The increasing interpenetration of the corporate world and art museums most likely had an effect on how museums were organized (Wallach, 2003), making market orientation an even more natural way of approaching not only the audiences but also art museum organizations in general. For example, revenue generation and fundraising received more attention in such a ‘market-driven approach’ (Alexander, 1999: 32).

At the turn of the 21st century, art museums and their activities were being scrutinized from the perspective of accountability and performance evaluation due to reduced public funding. As Carol Scott (2002: 42) has noted:

A new vocabulary has accompanied the introduction of performance evaluation/measurement and ‘management for results.’ It is argued that sound management is based on efficient use of resources (inputs) as well as concern for the results (outputs). Therefore, governments provide funds to museums (inputs) and museums use these funds for programmes, facilities, and services (outputs). The efficient use of resources is the main criterion on which performance is based.

In general, the vocabulary of marketing became an appropriate technique for making sense of the role of art museums in society. As Stephen Weil (1999: 244), a museum administrator and prolific museum scholar, put it: ‘Recast in marketing terms, the demand is that the American museum provides some verifiable added value to the lives of those it serves in exchange for their continued support’. Much in the same way as corporations are instruments for adding value to their stakeholders, cultural organizations could be seen as instruments for adding value to their constituents not only as audiences but also as taxpayers.

As a result, art museums were to clarify their mission – whom they served, how, and to what end – with the help of various strategy tools, such as ‘Reinventing the Museum Tool’, emphasizing responsiveness to stakeholders (Anderson, 2012), and ‘Museum Knowledge Age Business Model’, focusing on how museums can meet public needs and desires using their unique assets (Falk and Sheppard, 2012 [2006]). In emphasizing accountability and performance, these tools generally acknowledge that market-orientation is not only about recognizing potential markets but also seizing the opportunities of profiting from them, thus framing museum management in terms of enterprise and risk-taking, as Suchy (1999: 67) has argued:

Museum directors with a passion for entrepreneurism and innovation have used their leadership role to focus on marketing, merchandising and investments which have “had a return on the dollar.” Their passion has reflected a complex form of individual creativity as they have actively embraced “risks” and a search for “new possibilities” to enable profitable museum enterprises to be undertaken.

In this way, in the 21st century market orientation and the enterprise have become intelligible ways of discussing art museums and their activities – not just in terms of promotion but also in the more profound sense of how they should be organized and managed. From a historical perspective, then, we argue, the explicit market orientation is not a sudden change in museum practices; it is connected even to the first problematizations regarding their elitist inclination.

Art as a tool for socioeconomic development

Museums and cultural heritage sites are powerful assets for local development. They can inspire creativity, boost cultural diversity, help regenerate local economies, attract visitors and bring revenues. There is also increasing evidence that they can contribute to so...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• List of illustrations
• Notes on contributors
• Introduction
• PART I Marketization of cultural institutions: tensions between arts and business
• PART II Market orientation of museums: redefining the museum’s role
• PART III Cultural institutions and marketing tools: branding and sponsorship
• Index