The Other White Cube Project: Finding Museums Among Us

In 1989, Peter Vergo's The New Museology ushered in an era of critical museum studies. In the book, Vergo and other contributors put museum theory, history, and practices under the lenses of post-structuralism, post-colonialism, and other critical theories. In the years that followed, researchers identified and analyzed institutional issues related to dichotomies of knowledge/power, colonizer/colonized, and active/ passive learning (Karp & Lavine, 1991; Marstine, 2009; Villeneuve, 2007). In response, museums have turned up their educational dials to meet new institutional aims. Changes have included adding more explanatory text and installing educational stations (Stapp, 1992); providing open-ended tours (Housen & Yenawine, 2000); embracing technology (Proctor, 2011); and featuring pop-friendly, blockbuster exhibitions (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992).Even after such improvements, visitor studies have revealed lingering concerns. Visitors have reported feelings of intimidation and inadequacy (Getty Center for Education in the Arts, 1992; PLB Consulting, 2001). They have continued to feel neither smart enough nor comfortable enough to have an optimal learning experience in museums. Furthermore, despite nearly three decades of critical museology, a recent study funded by Tate Britain concluded that most museums have not adequately restructured their organizational and knowledge hierarchies (Dewdney, Dibosa, & Walsh, 2013). Issues of exclusivity, accountability, legitimacy, and power remain.Museum educators have shouldered the burden of dissolving barriers and initiating resolutions. When institutions committed themselves to becoming more inclusive, transparent, culturally responsive, and considerate of diverse learning styles, then museum educators, who act as intermediaries between institutions and constituents and who represent the interests and needs of visitors, seemed best equipped to retool museum practices (Willumson, 2007). Despite colossal changes and estimable efforts, old challenges have proven to be hard to eradicate.To counteract the issue of visitor engagement, I argue for a significant switch in the focus of museum education. Over the last three decades, museum educators have created new ways to engage viewers with works of art, yet studies have not indicated substantial improvements in museum learning. The surprise of those results has led me to believe that, in addition to current practices, museum educators must formulate methods to engage viewers with the curatorial choices that determine the look of museum spaces and the artworks shown within them. I contend that, to effectively redress the issue of visitor engagement, museum educators must draw attention to display strategies and the politics of presentation.Over seven years, I worked in the education departments of art museums, and I encountered a particular dichotomy between content and context. As an educator in an experimental, contemporary art center, I frequently faced the question, "how is this [object, video, performance, installation, effect, or mixed-media assemblage] art?" I learned over time that I had two approaches to take-one that addressed content and one that addressed context. To explain content, I informed visitors of the intentions, interpretations, formal properties, and art historical information around the artwork, but I typically stopped there. A more complete, holistic response would have also given attention to space, framing devices, the site, and other contextual elements. A context-based answer would have saluted relational aesthetics (Bourriaud, 1998/2002), site-specificity (Kwon, 2005), or curatorial concepts, all of which warrant incorporation and application in the field of museum education.Content and context intersect to produce works of art (Bourriaud, 1998/2002), but the latter has been neglected when it comes to educating visitors. To be truly informed and engaged, visitors must have an awareness of both halves. …