The Smithsonian Institution began life with a bequest from one James Smithson, who also provided the mission statement that can be found even today on the Smithsonian's website (www.si.edu):
"I then bequeath the whole of my property...to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase & diffusion of knowledge..."
In its growth, and its adaptation to modern trends, I've always thought that the institution meandered rather far from that basic premise. Perhaps it depends on what you think "knowledge" is, but to me, pop culture -- especially pop culture that's only hours old -- isn't a part of it. Julia Child's kitchen? The set from M.A.S.H.? Archie Bunker's chair? And now, apparently, the desk the American Idol judges use. A plain old desk, without much to distinguish it.
So I thought the article "Artifact or Artifice?", appearing in the Washington Post today, asks a fair question: Is the museum performing its proper role in chronicling our culture? But wait...actually that's not the museum's proper role, which (see Smithson, above) is "the increase and diffusion of knowledge." The writer reaches the conclusion that keeping tabs on our popular culture is a legitimate function of the nation's museum. I disagree. If we ask the shorter question, "is the museum fulfilling its proper role," I'd say the answer is a resounding "no." I just don't see the connection between "knowledge" and some beat-up old prop from a TV show. If someone wants to warehouse these things, fine, but it's not a museum's job, nor is it the public's job to pay for them.
This tendency to accentuate the mundane and superficial seems to me to go hand-in-hand with another precept in which the Smithsonian's curators appear to believe deeply: That museum exhibits have to be entertaining, preferably on the level of an eight-year-old. This makes the various museums a popular attraction for visiting tourist families in the summer, but it doesn't make them institutions of knowledge. Let's upgrade the content; kids learn by reaching and being challenged, and the rest of us may find that we can go to a museum without having our intelligence insulted.
The Fog has picked a thorny topic this time - the cherished Smithsonian. It is an interesting debate on whether pop culture objects fit the diffusion of knowledge goals set forth for the institution. However, I doubt that such objects really account for that much of the Instutition's holdings and are surely an insignificant cost overall. I've often heard that what is on display in the many museums is a small fraction (ie less than 10 percent) of the entire holdings of the museum. I am actually happy to think there are enough interesting things in the Smithsonian that children want to go to the Museum. People may not get that much knowledge from the childhood visit, but it sets them up to return when they are older and will benefit more . My recollection is that somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of the Smithsonian budget is federal funds and the rest comes from donations or Smithsonian generated ventures. My wife and I are Smithsonian associates and I think the Smithsonian magazine is one of the best around. I believe the real issue is how the Smithsonian funds the rennovation of some aging museums and upgrades security at all of them. These efforts will cost quite a bit and there is not enough funds to do them at this time. I hate to admit it, but the Smithsonian needs to consider instituting fees, selling off some of its vast holdings that are likely to never go on display, or starting some revenue generating ventures. The Smithsonian will need government funds for the forseeable future, but ought to be working harder to reduce that. Wouldn't it be great to see the split between public and private funding be 50/50.
Posted by: Joseph Lott | August 31, 2009 at 01:58 PM