Category: General Sessions

“What is the value of conservation (of what I do)”, or, “What is the value for us, the funding agency, to (continue to) fund conservation (you)?”

One of the most important contemporary issues facing conservators today is the effect of the economic crisis and cost cutting on the preservation and conservation of cultural heritage. Conservators and other conservation professionals must continually defend their work and answer questions posed by funding agencies and sponsors, local, state, and national governments, the general public, and even many museums themselves. These include critical questions such as
– what is the value of cultural heritage in this day and age,
– how does one determine what is worth conserving, and
– why should cultural heritage be conserved, that is, why is conservation and why are conservators valuable?
In order to help answer these questions of “value”, the AIC organized the first of what hopefully will become a series of so-called Socratic dialogues at the most recent annual meeting in Indianapolis. At this first dialogue, forty participants and a number of observers investigated their own answers to the question, “What is the value of conservation (of what I do)”, or, asked from a different point of view, “What is the value for us, the funding agency, to (continue to) fund conservation (you)?”
A Socratic dialogue does not answer the question posed, but helps the participants dig deeper into the issue. The Socratic dialogue brought up a number of issues and concerns, not only referring to the question of what the value of conservation is, but also of what value itself means, what motivates conservators, and what it is that they are conserving. Here is a sample of what the participants found to be the essence of the dialogue:

• What is “value”?
• Are values shared across cultures? Across time?
• How has the value of the conservator changed over time?
• Can we combine our values with those of our stakeholders in our treatments?
• How do we preserve intangible aspects of cultural that do not have objects associated with them, i.e. … sense of humor?
• Positioning material culture with the richness of human engagement.
• If the value of conservation is that it preserves cultural heritage, how do we justify the value of cultural heritage?
• How do we share our passion?
• How do we balance our role as interpreters with our ideal of neutrality?
• Conservators contribute something essential to the significance of material objects and how these object can help us gain a better understanding of what it means to be human.
• Conservation is a tool that helps facilitate better understanding and appreciation of material culture through preservation and documentation.
• Value is intangible and conservators help to preserve often physical objects that give people the chance to connect, now or eventually, to those very personal values.
• ΔG = ΔH – TΔS
• I leave better able to articulate the societal importance of what we do and secure in the knowledge that others grapple with the same issues.

The response to the Socratic dialogue was overwhelmingly positive. The participants found this form of dialogue an excellent way to delve deeper into the question. It gave them the possibility to think and express their own opinions without being challenged, and then have a “safe”, non-aggressive environment to consider the deeper issues at hand. A full report has been submitted to AIC News for publication in September.
The AIC plans to conduct a Socratic dialogue at next year’s annual meeting in San Francisco. While a number of the essences are ideal topics in themselves, if you have suggestions for a topic, especially related to the sustainability theme of the meeting, please send them to the moderator/organizer, Bill Wei at b.wei@cultureelerfgoed.nl . For those participants who did not leave their e-mail addresses, he would also like to hear your comments and suggestions.
 
 

With just a day between the ground breaking ceremony at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) and the 2013 AIC conference, panelists Ruth Berson, Craig Dykers, Jill Sterett, and Sam Anderson once again came together to discuss the debates and collaborations that resulted in the “generous, magnetic, and transformative” design for the SFMOMA expansion.  Each of the panelists were representative of the variety of programs and interests that had to be addressed in a project of this scale.  This project began with generosity of the Fisher family of San Francisco. The institutional history of the SFMOMA was an important consideration before beginning to search for project architects.  The SFMOMA had humble beginnings on the fourth floor of the War Memorial Veterans building.  As it developed its own collection, the SFMOMA out grew the 1935 beaux arts building and needed it own dedicated building.  In 1988 Mario Botta was selected to design the new building.  Within fifteen years, the museum had brought in the Fisher collection and expanded its own holdings leading to the need for additional space. The new building on Third Street opened in 1995, marking the 60th anniversary of the museum.
Due to open in 2016, the expansion will add 235,000 square feet to the SFMOMA complex and will “seamlessly join the existing Mario Botta-designed building with a new addition.”  The project will more add more than 6 times the current public space.  There is also offsite storage for the museums expanded collection.
See: http://www.sfmoma.org/our_expansion

Ruth Berson, SFMOMA staff member and Deputy Museum Director for Curatorial Affairs, began the discussion with “Why expand-‘Why Between the What'”.  Ruth participated in the design by contributing to the space planning and design development process.  The planning process included an international search for architects,capital campaign, and the identification of the design intent.  First priorities were Magnetic, Transformative, and Generous.  Secondary words were added as guiding principles: Open, Distinctive, and Passionate.  All of the priorities and principles led to a design that was artist centric, collection driven, and civic minded.  In efforts to remain artist centric, artists were sometimes contacted to discuss the space.  The new design used the guiding principles by expanding the program to include white space for events, performance art, and meetings.  Technological advances were made to enhance the visitor experience, while also being mindful of the uniqueness of the collection and its unique holdings.  Another goal was to meet LEED expectations and expanding the museums education programs.  After the SnOhetta was selected as the architect a collaborative conversation took place between Craig Dykers and Mario Bota.  Bota stated that “I had my moment with the building, now it is SnoHetta’s turn………I will withhold my opinions until after it is finished.”
Craig Dykers, Principal of SnOhetta Architects, continued the discussion with the “SnOhetta Response”. Craig reiterated the importance of the institutional history to the design process and added that architects were not selected based off of a proposed design. It was a selection process based on the architects knowledge of the SFMOMA. The building is surrounded by six to seven streets with turn of the century buildings.  Based on the design priorities, SnOhetta wished to activate these areas with new entrances and to add a public collection space with an open area for free public access.  This new “art court” will also serve as a transition space between neighborhood and the building.  It was important to the design team to balance the traditional and new buildings that surround the SFMOMA.  Machines and daylighting systems were integrated into the design to protect and enhance the museum collection.  The facades of the new building were modeled off of the quality of light and rippling water that is unique to San Francisco.  With each step in the design process, SnOhetta remained mindful of the priorities and guiding principles to establish continuity to the overall design.
Jill Sterett, SFMOMA staff member and Director of  Collections and Conservation, discussed the use of “Collections as a Directive” in the design process.  Jill explained that the team took cues from the Public, Education, and San Francisco itself in order to inform their decisions. The artists and the relationships that they keep with them are the center of the SFMOMA.  It was important that the new offsite storage facility is a dynamic space. The new space will have capacity for collection study, research, photography, carpentry, packing/crating, and big sculpture conservation.  These stipulations required the team to reframe the question of how to activate the collection in two different spaces.  The expansion/new building will be divided into storage, public space, conservation, and staff areas.  The lower levels will hold the support and collection areas-this is conceived as a dynamic storage area and not static.  It will be viewed as a n operating set of suites.  Throughout the new zones, the initiatives and priorities will act as directives for accomplishing the project goals.
Sam Anderson, Principal of Samuel Anderson Architects, wrapped up the discussion with “Engagement of Specialized Areas Integrated into the Overall Plan”.  Sam added that the mechanical systems had to respond to the climate and the program.  It was important that these strategies were specifically designed for each circumstance. With such dynamic spaces, it became a question of how to fit multiple and growing functions into one program design.  The permanent photography collection will be stored on-site, but the lower levels of the building will also serve as transient art storage.  In addition to addressing the on-site storage needs, it was important to plan for areas for staging and mounting.  In response to the climatic considerations, it was a priority to address the potential for seismic activity.  The solution for the concerns had to also be functional within the program of the building.  Each individual off-stage space was is therefore integrated with the next, for instance the conservation labs are integrated through a vertical visual connection.
In all aspects of the design, it was important to maintain collaboration between the architects, designers, and museum staff in order to address the clearly identified priorities and guiding principles of the museum.  As the work progresses towards a completion goal of 2016, the two year preparation and planning period was integral to the success of the SFMOMA expansion.

As Principal Investigator for Collecting the Performative: A Research Network Examining Emerging Practice for the Collection and Conservation of Performance Based Artworks, Dr. Pip Laurenson (Head of Collection Care Research, Tate) has lead a two-year investigation of the issues surrounding the collection of performance works within the disciplines of dance, activism and theater. Participants in the interdisciplinary Network include artists, curators, academics, conservators, archivists, transmitters of dance, and registrars.
Dr. Laurenson introduced performance-based artwork as a novel and still somewhat controversial activity within art museums. She notes that performance, or “live art,” works have long been regarded as profoundly ephemeral, non-reproduceable, and therefore—by definition—uncollectable. Until very recently, museums might acquire the remains or documents of performance works (e.g., slides, recordings, etc.), but never the performance work itself.
Meanwhile, some ever-innovating artists have moved away from this strictly one-off concept of performance where the artist’s presence is essential, toward an idea of performance as something that may be enacted over time independent of the artist. In response, museums have recently begun to acquire “live art,” including the rights to re-perform works via “delegated performance.” In 2005 Tate acquired two such live art works: Roman Ondák’s Good Feelings in Good Times (2003) and Tino Sehgal’s This is Propaganda (2002).
Ondák’s “Good Feelings in Good Times” involves a queue of people forming in a location within the museum. The work explores the idea of how time is experienced differently—more slowly—when one waits in line. This work has been reproduced at the Tate using volunteers and individuals hired by the museum. Sehgal’s “This is Propaganda” involves an individual singing inside the gallery’s entrance as guests arrive. A particular challenge the Tate faced when acquiring Sehgal’s work was the artist’s requirement that the work not be documented in any way. This prohibition was intended not only to insure that the work would not be replaced by a photograph or video, but also to challenge the fundamental material object bias of museums. As a result of the artist’s requirements, the conservation of this work depends entirely on memory. Initially concerned that she might forget the lyrics, it soon became clear to Dr. Laurenson that a good memory would not suffice as one needs to be schooled in a particular performance medium in order to fully recognize what one is seeing and committing to memory. Owing to such complexities, the conservation of such works (i.e., the ability re-perform) has become the joint responsibility of conservation and curatorial staff, sometimes with further engagement from the artist or other expert consultants.
Dr. Laurenson spoke of the many challenges, with examples from her experiences as conservator, returning to her fundamental question: should the discipline of art conservation expand to incorporate time-based media? She cites Salvator Munoz-Vinas’ Contemporary Theory of Conservation (2005), which draws one sensible conclusion: “conservators work on tangible objects.” While Munoz-Vinas acknowledges that intangible “artifacts” can indeed hold value, he sets limits on the expertise of conservation—limiting the scope of conservation to material artifacts—so as not to dilute the effectiveness of conservators. Acknowledging that a conservtor’s expertise is not capable of infinite expansion, Dr. Laurenson reminds us that fine arts conservation has expanded to incorporate new media again and again, and that to exclude certain forms of art would be to skew history. What to do?
Dr. Laurenson draws on the literature of expertise, which differentiates between interactional and contributory expertise: interactional expertise is the expertise needed to interact with those possessing contributory expertise (i.e., expert doers, such as scientists, plumbers, and dancers). She notes that the literature also contains helpful information on building communication skills for those seeking to expand their ability to leverage the expertise of others. Ultimately, she concludes that the field of conservation ought to address time based media, employing a distributed model that identifies and taps an external network of people who can support the works.
Dr. Laurenson concluded with a broader look at how museum acquisitions practices continue to evolve. Museums are seeing works that change their form over time, and require maintenance. Museums are engaging more in this process, often meeting increasing demands of artists, but at the same time learning that it is appropriate and necessary to establish parameters for what they can and cannot do to support such works. There is a limit to the skills that conservators can acquire, but where resources permit, Dr. Laurenson contends, we can acquire the interactional expertise needed to work with others to conserve such works.

Though the use of a database as part of a conservation treatment documentation work flow has been presented in the past at AIC at least once in my memory and has been the subject of presentations at the Museum Computer Network’s annual meetings in 2008, 2010 and 2011, as a field, we don’t often talk about this aspect of our work.
There were a couple of reasons why I was looking forward to this session before the meeting. Firstly, I was eager to hear how other institutions make use of databases in their documentation. And having followed some of  the progress of the Mellon Foundation funded project ConservationSpace through their various sites, I wanted to learn more about it too. At the end of this well attended session, not only were both of these satisfied, I also came away with some thoughts about how to improve my current work flow, even though the system used by the institution I work for wasn’t addressed directly. And I felt more convinced that we need to have more opportunities to discuss issues like this one that impact conservators across specializations.
Sarah Norris, a conservator at the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, had worked with a contract MySQL developer to create a treatment documentation database for her institution. In addition to serving as a panelist, Sarah also served as moderator for the discussion.  Linda Hohneke is the senior book conservator at the Folger Shakespeare Library and one of the co-creators of the Filemaker Pro-based documentation database used at the library. Jay Hoffman is founder and CEO of Gallery Systems, a company that produces collections, exhibitions, and conservation management software, notably TMS. Mervin Richard is chief conservator at the National Gallery, Washington and co-director of the ConservationSpace project. Each of these systems has a varying level of complexity and requirements for support, but each has been created with the input of conservators.
Sarah began the session by asking each panelist to speak for 10 minutes about their databases. Helpfully, she provided a handout with possible discussion topics to help the session “stay out of the weeds”. These topics included:

• the basic structure of the databases,
• how they manage photographic and written documentation,
• how they address the needs of libraries, archives, and museums,
• how they facilitate workflow within the institution,
• how do they ensure data security,
• what level of IT support is required for these systems, and
• what are user costs?

Perhaps the simplest of the four systems presented was the Folger Library’s FilmakerPro-based system, but, really, it is far from simple. They began using this system at the Folger Library in 1997, and a number of people were involved in its creation. The system allows the entry of simple and complex information in a consistent, controlled manner so that the department could track a variety of statistics. The conservators have the ability to add options to multiple choice questions, and they can choose to enter their descriptions in a fielded form or as prose. They are able to upload images into the system, saving the images as NEF and JPG formats. Typically the curatorial department adds requests to a queue to form a request list, and approval for a proposed treatment is done within this system.  The IT department installs the software, keeps it backed up on the server nightly, and troubleshoots.
In commissioning the MySQL-based content management system for the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Sarah Norris had a number of requirements. The system needed to allow her to:

• track requests
• search systems
• generate documents in PDF format and create a printable photo
• help her with photo management
• automatically generate lower resolution photographs
• have user management features with regard to who gets to see what fields and the ability to add fields.

The resulting system has different views for different staff roles. Staff members who are not conservators can request treatment through the system, see the status of their requests, and the treatment history of objects. Conservators have access to more information within the system. They can see what’s scheduled for evaluation, and can add background information and estimated treatment time.  Examination and treatment reports are created from forms consisting of drop down boxes (to ensure the use of controlled vocabulary), check boxes, and radio buttons. Note fields are included on these forms to allow for the addition of free-form information.  Values can be entered in some fields to indicate the scale of work required. Photodocumentation is undertaken outside the system and photos are linked from that external drive. When a report is closed, the system creates a PDF and then moves it to a separate, institutional server with the associated image TIFF files where they are then managed by the state. This system is also capable of generating statistics about treatments, the types of treatments being undertaken, and for which departments, allowing treatment documentation to work in a number of different ways.
Jay Hoffman indicated that TMS is going through a major update in which the conservation activity areas of that database are being improved. This process began in 2009 with the formation of a Conservation Working Group consisting of 50 stakeholders. This group work to define work flows, terminology, and general practices. A starter set of templates has been developed for standard data entry, and two sets of wire frames (sketches of what the data entry forms will look like) have been created. These new conservation activity areas respond to a number of needs:

• to manage projects which may be worked on by several people (projects may mean multiple objects for an exhibition or it may mean a complex object)
• to create custom templates for different kinds of objects and provide flexibility for different kinds of institutions
• to output traditional forms (I assume he meant PDF versions of treatment reports created via fielded forms)
• to link to annotated images
• to see information from different perspectives

Later during the session, Jay noted that for institutions already using TMS, Gallery Systems is committed to migrating conservation content into this new system which will be rolled out with TMS 2014.
Merv Richard described ConservationSpace as an open source system to manage conservation documentation, manage reports, correspondence, and images. He reviewed the history of the project which began with a pair of meetings in 2006 and 2007 to assess the current state of conservation documentation. Summaries of the findings of the 2006 meeting were disseminated in the GCI Newsletter and Studies in Conservation. The Design Phase, run by Ken Hamma, began in 2009.
The Planning Phase, which ran from 2010-2011, consisted of community design workshops which looked at the kinds of activities defined particular tasks; common types of documentation and events; specific documents created; and functionality wish lists.
Bert Marshall is the project manager for the Build Phase, which has consisted of clarifying work flows. The resulting system must simplify task work flows, allow for discoverability, assist with documentation and allow for collaboration. ConservationSpace is also working to ensure that ResearchSpace and other Mellon-funded database systems work seamlessly with it. The system will be open source and web based to allow for flexibility. It also needs to include imaging tools which would permit the addition of high resolution images, the ability to annotate images and conduct basic editing.
It is envisioned that ConservationSpace will be available either as an enterprise or hosted application. The enterprise system could be integrated with an institution’s Digital Asset Management System, allowing ConservationSpace to pull information from a collections management systems, and would require IT support. The hosted system would provide support and data storage. Both systems would require a maintenance fee, however the details of how much that will be have not been worked out yet.
Release 1, described as functional, allowing for documentation but will have a  limited number work flows, will come out in early 2014. More information about ConservationSpace is available at ConservationSpace.org and sites.google.com/site/conservationspace.
One topic that generated a fair amount of commentary from the participants and the audience was the need to generate statistics about our work and to get some assistance in prioritizing treatment needs. Most systems discussed allow or will allow for establishing treatment priorities, though Sarah indicated that she preferred to make this part of a discussion to be had with various stakeholders so that the treatment queue could be managed more effectively.  A number of library preservation labs are looking at interoperability with various other  database systems, such as those that deal with circulation, as a means of informing prioritization.
On the topic of migrating conservation data from one system to another, it was noted that all data migration requires work, and you have to be careful about how its set up.  Though different from data interchange, the need to import and export information in and out of these systems is required no matter what. Standards and controlled vocabulary are required for these various schemes so that we can share and collaborate no matter what system a conservator uses.

For me, one of the many highlights of this meeting was seeing the wonderful film produced by the Whitney Museum of Art about the work to conserve Alexander Calder’s Circus, (1926-1931). If you missed the session, the 10 minute film is available on the Whitney’s website.
Though the film includes a lot of contextualizing information about the work and the circus in America, Eleonora Nagy expanded on a number of thoughts within the video which I found quite interesting. I wasn’t planning on writing this post when I sat down in the session so I didn’t take notes at the time, but I wanted to share my thoughts and provide a place for others to share their’s.
During her remarks, Nagy related Calder’s Circus to the the Humpty Dumpty Circus toys made by  the Schoenhut Company of Philadelphia over the first half of 20th century which allowed children to create their own circuses.

The other miniature circus from Shelburne’s collection that came to my mind is by Edgar Decker Kirk, made 1910-1956 in Harrisburg, PA, though I’d imagine that its unlikely that Calder knew of it. Kirk, a brakesman on the Pennsylvania railroad, made the 3,500 pieces using a penknife and a foot-powered jigsaw and occasionally set up his circus, complete with a tent, in his backyard for the enjoyment of the neighborhood kids.

Calder’s figures were based on actual circus performers of the time, and  included side show performers as well as main circus performers, unlike the Schoenhut and Kirk circuses which do not depict the side show. And unlike real life circus performances, Calder interspersed the side show acts with the main circus acts during the performance of his circus.
Apparently, there’s more footage that was made but not included in this video. I hope the Whitney considers releasing that material in the future.

Disclaimer: I am not the fastest note-taker, and may have misspelled some names or gotten some of the concepts a bit wrong.  If something I say is critical for you, please check directly with the presenter(s) for corroboration. 

While this presentation concerned itself with changes to fundraising needs in the conservation and preservation arena, it is simply a small subset of changes that have occurred in the much larger global non-profit funding mentality.  The old model of funding that we as conservators were trained to do is object-centric.  We write reports on the existing condition of the object and its treatment needs.  Funding requests are centered on the individual object(s) and the benefits of funding to it/them.  There may be some small discussion of how the better preserved object will benefit museum visitors.  But the general approach is introspective – how the museum would be better served.  This approach is comfortable for many older conservators and funders.

The new model is about personal connections.  It is about stories.  It is about community engagement.  It is about meeting the needs of constituents in the society.  The general approach is extrospective – how the outer world can benefit.  This is a comfortable view for many younger conservators and funders.

The challenge is not only how conservators can begin to think in this more extrospective manner about their treatments, but how conservation in general can be viewed by funders as benefiting society outside of usual museum visitors.  The presentation offered some suggestions, but also made it clear that much further reflection and brain-storming is necessary for designing conservation projects that meet the requirements of the increasing numbers of funders that have implemented the new model.

Several additional presenters offered anecdotal projects in which they had been involved.  These were interspersed with the main presentation.  Following are some more specific points brought up by the presenters.

Funding by individuals has advantages.  They are not under funding restrictions, many do not have caps on the amount they can give, and during the downturn of the last several years, their level of funding has been the most stable.  There are two general reasons why individuals give – for personal benefit, such as name recognition or for a tax deduction – or for altruism, they want to see effects or results.  Generally, individual donors to museums are interested in the art.  They are not interested in conservation or preservation.  We as conservators need to tell our stories about the art, not the care of the art, in order to engage them.  Most have personal connections or stories that motivate them, and we need to tap into these.  We need to engage them in a two-way dialog to let THEIR story come out.  Along with this, we need to focus on individual objects, not large numbers of objects, as in general funders find big groups hard to grasp and relate to personally.

There are a number of different approaches to crowd funding, which is an emerging and highly effective method of fundraising.  These are discussed in many places in books and the web, and can be explored individually.  A general concept is to empower your supporters – get them excited and wanting to spread the word about your campaign.  Have the full message of your campaign written in advance and ready to go before launching it.  Send frequent information/reminders/updates – it is recommended weekly.

One presented fundraising option that is very interesting is to create a mechanism to give money electronically right in the exhibition gallery.  This can be facilitated with information placed right at the object, or in place of the object if it is too unstable to exhibit. The visitor can give their $1 or $5 or more live on the spot through a card swipe or text.

The key to fundraising is engagement, which is a mission strategy.  Engagement with the community is essential.  Activities grow out of this relationship, articulating the values of the community, rather than out of the needs of the objects.

A growing interest with funders it collaboration between organizations.  This is not just between museums within an area, but between diverse organizations in different sectors, sometimes spread throughout the world.  Such projects have a collective impact and give the funders more reach for the same amount of funds.  It also reduces the funders’ costs, since they have to administer only one grant/project rather than possibly a dozen of them. 

Collaboration on a large scale is reflected by creative placemaking, a term with which many conservators may not be familiar.  Essentially, it is planning a geographical area around a mix of artistic, cultural, residential, and business functions designed to be symbiotic with one another.  In my opinion, good examples of this are the River Walk in San Antonio, and the Guggenheim Bilbao, Spain (if you want instant creative placemaking, simply have Frank Geary design you a building, and you will put millions of tourism dollars into your local economy).

This last sort of tongue and cheek comment is actually very important in project design with funders – the economic impact of the project.  According to the presenter, Stephen Shepherd wrote an interesting paper on the Economic Impact of Museums that had some interesting findings (the specific citation was not provided, so do your homework).  Economic impacts may be job creation, increased tourism, reduced utility expenses, increased tax revenue, greening of the environment, or many other outcomes. 

The following are tips for foundation and government grants.  Understand the funder’s mission.  Read the guidelines – give them their own language.  Pick up the phone and call – the representatives are there to assist YOU in meeting THEIR mission.  As mentioned, collaboration is desirable.  IMLS has an online course “Shaping Outcomes” that can be very helpful in transitioning to the new approach to funding.  Debbie Hess Norris mentioned a web site designed for a worldwide photograph preservation project but also helpful for general fundraising and partnership education: www.academia.edu/ .

It is a real challenge for me to transition my conservation thinking to this social engagement and emotional connection model.  I am not a fan of social media, at least not in my personal life.  I do not want everyone to know what I am up to, and I believe that social media is making life more complicated instead of more simple (KISS).  However, from a marketing/fundraising perspective I can see how bigger organizational objectives can be met through little contributions of individuals.  Howard Dean showed this to be effective a number of years ago.  The trick for me in private practice is how to make this new approach work to bring conservation projects into my door.  My business is designed around working exclusively for museums, and I can’t see that social media will have a significant influence on their decision-makers coming to me.  Heck, it is really difficult for ANYTHING other than word-of-mouth to be effective.  However, I certainly can see how I can work with museums to help fit the conservation projects they need to be done into the new model of thinking, and then THEY can fundraise with social media or any other method they wish.  The bottom line is that without collections, museums would not have an audience and they could not offer social value to meet their constituents’ needs.  They would not exist.  WE as conservators have done a poor job of making that emotional connection with our museum communities.

I was reminded of a TED talk I heard a few weeks ago on NPR radio.  I don’t recall the speaker’s name, but he felt that the non-profit world had the wrong model of fundraising.  He did not like the model of granting agencies disdaining what they termed “overhead” costs and wanting to limit them to a very small part of the overall budget.  He felt the profit-making business model of marketing was more appropriate – you spend as much as you need to on marketing as long as each $1 of marketing cost generated more than $1 of net profit.  If it did, spend more until you reached the breakeven point, since you were still making more money even though you were spending more.  So, he went out and formed a company to fundraise for non-profits on this model.  His anecdotal client was breast cancer research.  They started a fundraising campaign that in something like it’s fifth year raised over a net $100 million that year alone, but spent something like $40 million to do so ($140 million total).  Some in the non-profit world, the funders’ world and the media began to complain and the noise became so loud that major donors began to back out.  He had to terminate his involvement with the campaign.  The next year, once the fundraising had been returned to the old model with limited “overhead,” net funds raised for breast cancer fell nearly in half.  They never returned to the previous level.  A challenge we have in the museum world is how to change the perceptions of the “old” limited-overhead funding believers into the “new” marketing-heavy realities.  This is a big a shift for them as for us conservators to move away from our object-centric view into the newer connections-centric view.  But it is at least as important, and possibly more important in terms of dollars that can be raised for conservation and museums in general.