July 11, 2006
Smithsonian Struggles to Stay Afloat
While we celebrate the reopening of the Smithsonian American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery as classic examples of what museum care and innovation should be, the Smithsonian Institution at large may be slowly losing its grasp on the rest of its constituency. D.C.-based art critic and blogger Tyler Green has some critical words in a Los Angeles Times op-ed about the dilapidated conditions the other Smithsonian museums are suffering due to Congress' underfunding of the Institution, and the questionable sources to which it is turning as a result.
Green writes that while the Reynolds Center renovations cost just over $200 million, Smithsonian needs over $2 billion to plug the leaking holes and even turn the hot water back on at its other venues. The worst case scenarios are already starting to come true, with the Air and Space Museum finding some of its exhibits water damaged—some irreparably—last year.
This certainly isn’t a new problem—the Smithsonian’s guardians have been begging Congress for more funds for years—but it's certainly starting to reach a breaking point. The New York Times reported in detail last fall about the state of disrepair from which the Institution suffers: leaking pipes at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery; dangerous enclosures at the National Zoo; falling metal panels at the Arts and Industries building. The list goes on, but the current federal funding barely keeps the problems from escalating out of control.
The solution is easy to say: more Congressional funding. But while the Smithsonian stands with its hands out waiting for the next penny, it looks to other sources to supplement its coffers. We've discussed the proposed entrance fees, which would be, ultimately, inadquate. The result, as Green notes, is the kind of capitalism that keeps us constantly changing the signs on the MCI Verizon Center, except instead of merely annoying, paid-for advertising on popular spaces, this corporate funding is downright ominous.
The keepers of our national storybook should be more wary than they seem to be about letting private interests have continued influence in the way the pages are written. When you take your children to see an exhibit titled “The Brain: The World Inside Your Head” and emblazoned underneath is “Paid for by the Pfizer Corporation,” will you wonder if Pfizer’s idea about the way the brain works is influenced by their corporate responsibility to advertise the benefits of pharmaceuticals?
Green’s example is one we reported on last month, when we simply had to ask, was General Motors—major donor to the Smithsonian—behind the removal of the EV-1 from the National Museum of American History? Maybe not, but how can we know for sure? How do we know corporate ties won’t whitewash the walls of inconvenient history?
Congress—and we, the taxpayers—should do what needs to be done: hand over the money needed for at least basic repairs, if not the whole sha-bang required to truly update the Institution and safeguard the Wright brothers’ airplane, Old Glory, and even four-year-old Kandula and her family, for generations to come.
Photo by Flickr user jat1974.
|
I think it would be wrong to charge admission to see the Smithsonian, but I agree that something more needs to be done. One of the great things about living in DC is that so many things are paid for by our taxes, and we get to walk through at no appearent cost.
Congress needs to pay as much attention to historical treasures as they do their own buildings. Or they should give the Smithsonian the next three pay raises they give themselves, including the retirement portions. That would solve at least this year's budget problems.
TC
Lack of corporate donors does not make SI without influence. Despite the pitance Congress gives, you would be apalled at how much influence (and veto power) they have on important details of most SI exhibits. The process is terrible. Corporate donors are not better -- but, at least we can guess their influence since they are so visible when their money is being used. The proces there was enough to break my spirit and switch professions. They are out of money, the buildings are deplorable, and not only are the exhibits sub-par (many many reasons) but the collections are being ruined. When I was at one unamed SI, an entire collections room of blueprints, prints, etc was destroyed by a leaking pipe and that never made it in any newspaper. Much of the SI staff is smart and aware enough to be disappointed by all this, but like most government beaurocrats, have been broken down and just work their 9-5. It is a sad situation.
Two weeks of the Iraq war or 2 billion to fix up the Smithsonian and show pride in our countries past.
the smithsonian sucks.
let's make that shit into a parking lot. then i could drive to work and not have to walk as much.
in the end... it's just stuff, right? :( at least we have our health... for now... until the earth overheats and ecosystems collapse...
m - I think Green makes a good point in his op-ed about corporate sponsors having a different/worse kind of influence, because they have continued influence, whereas most donors might have initial influence, or caveats attached to their donation, but it ends there. However, I don't find it hard to believe you that all types of influence are a huge problem here.
Also, might the bursting pipe you're speaking of be the one described in the second to last paragraph of that NY Times article I linked to?
Too sad ... of course, the Republicans in Congress have better things to do with the money, like give unneeded tax breaks to the richest of the rich, pour money into the sinkhole boondoggle in Iraq ... y'know, good, fiscally responsible things.
How about just charging for admission? Every other city does it. People are more likely to appreciate something when they have to make some monetary sacrifice. Is the novelty of a "no apparent cost" Smithsonian worth the quite real cost of damaged and destroyed collections?
You wouldn't be able to really charge at the door for each museum, because then many would be hardly ever visited. You could pitch a SI pass which would get you into any museum for a period of time. Of course, I'd demand free entrance anytime to District residents. My 3 or 4 visits a year to various museums would turn into zero very quick given admission fees.
Coming to and staying in DC is expensive enough, and most of what people come here to visit besides the monuments is the Smithsonian. It would essentially amount to a tourist tax, and keep local residents from enjoying it, particularly the poor. But more importantly than all that, it serves as the face of our nation, flanking the center of democracy in this country, and it should not be too much to ask that it get the attention and funding it needs to be kept pristine and open to every citizen.
You can't have it both ways...saying Congress isn't giving the Smithsonian enough but that the institution shouldnt be taking corporate money because of what type of influence they MIGHT have. I worked for one of those museums...one that's come under fire for POSSIBLE donor influence about a million times and I can honestly tell you that it doesn't happen. The corporate donors are worried about how big their logo is outside the show and how many ads are being run with their name in it. With VERY little exception do they care about what's inside.
Does anyone else think its utterly irresponsible of the Smithsonian to be putting money into opening new museums if they can't ensure that the museums they currently have are in good repair and their collections are not in danger of destruction? I mean, the American Indian and African American History musuems are clearly worthy undertakings but are worthless if they're just going to crumble and leak like the others.
Again, opening new museums: not Smithsonian's fault. The new museums are proposed to Congress by unaffiliated groups, and approved by Congress. The Smithsonian has had no choice but to build American Indian and the new one. No one will argue that they aren't important stories to tell, but they could just as easily standon their own like the Holocaust Museum
"Does anyone else think its utterly irresponsible of the Smithsonian to be putting money into opening new museums if they can't ensure that the museums they currently have are in good repair and their collections are not in danger of destruction?"
I agree from a checkbook standpoint, but in the bigger picture I still think the museum system has to continue to expand to attract new visitors and to stay relevent. Congress needs to take some of the funding from social engineering programs that don't work and move it towards cultural activities like museums.
This is sad. Should be considered a national disgrace.
Does anyone else think its utterly irresponsible of the Smithsonian to be putting money into opening new museums if they can't ensure that the museums they currently have are in good repair and their collections are not in danger of destruction?
I don't have a good understanding of how Congress and the SI work (does anyone?) but I suspect it's ultimately not up to the SI to decide whether a new building is added or not. They might have some input, but it's really Congress that decides whether or not to listen to the American communities demanding these museums.
Ummm... it would cost more than $1 per person to collect $1 per person. Do the math, since there is no current infrastructure at the museums to support such a $$$ collection system.
The museums are caught between a rock and hard place.... with the public everso willing to make comments/judgement, but no one truly willing to work on a REALISTIC solution.
It's pretty obvious where the federal spending and time priorities are--getting Comcast to broadcast Nationals games, and suggesting admissions fees for the Smithsonian.
Not all places charge admission, but yes many do. In any case, contrast this to the UK. I wrote more about this in a blog entry. I won't repeat it here.
Thanks for letting us know about the article. I love the LA Times, but I just don't have time to look at it regularly.
Would it be economically feasible for the Smithsonian to sever its ties with the federal government*? Charge whatever it takes to break even. Depending on funding from the government is dicey when there are always other priorities; Why spend $X on *art* when there are terrorists that need killin'?
Such a privitization plan would inevitably hurt attendence, but is greater attendence really beneficial to free museums? Sure, fewer eyes are now viewing the commercial ads, but does this offset the maintenance costs of the leechers.
*assuming it's even *possible* to decouple the Smithsonian from the feds.
The museum admission is free. However, various attractions (IMAX, Planetarium), souvenir shops, and concessions are most certainly not free. Increased attendance means more people using these facilities, and therefore, more money.
Money from Congress as well as from donors are designated for specific projects. Every year, during budget season, the Smithsonian goes in front of Congress to ask for appropriations. Each year, the Congress gives the Smithsonian just enough to keep the doors open and the lights on, and no more. The money the Institution truly needs is for non-glamorous things such as HVAC systems, leaky roofs, new bathrooms, elevators, etc. Private donors have absolutely no interest in funding these essentials- they want their name on exhibits or public programs. These essential facility needs are very expensive things to install and maintain, and Congress is not providing enough money for the Smithsonian to keep up - thus the overall trend of deterioration.
Money from Congress as well as from donors is designated for specific projects. Every year, during budget season, the Smithsonian goes in front of Congress to ask for appropriations. Each year, the Congress gives the Smithsonian just enough to keep the doors open and the lights on, and no more. The money the Institution truly needs is for non-glamorous things such as HVAC systems, leaky roofs, new bathrooms, elevators, etc. Private donors have absolutely no interest in funding these essentials- they want their name on exhibits or public programs. These essential facility needs are very expensive things to install and maintain, and Congress is not providing enough money for the Smithsonian to keep up - thus the overall trend of deterioration.
Money from Congress as well as from donors is designated for specific projects. Every year, during budget season, the Smithsonian goes in front of Congress to ask for appropriations. Each year, the Congress gives the Smithsonian just enough to keep the doors open and the lights on, and no more. The money the Institution truly needs is for non-glamorous things such as HVAC systems, leaky roofs, new bathrooms, elevators, etc. Private donors have absolutely no interest in funding these essentials- they want their name on exhibits or public programs. These essential facility needs are very expensive things to install and maintain, and Congress is not providing enough money for the Smithsonian to keep up - thus the overall trend of deterioration.
Money from Congress as well as from donors is designated for specific projects. Every year, during budget season, the Smithsonian goes in front of Congress to ask for appropriations. Each year, the Congress gives the Smithsonian just enough to keep the doors open and the lights on, and no more. The money the Institution truly needs is for non-glamorous things such as HVAC systems, leaky roofs, new bathrooms, elevators, etc. Private donors have absolutely no interest in funding these essentials- they want their name on exhibits or public programs. These essential facility needs are very expensive things to install and maintain, and Congress is not providing enough money for the Smithsonian to keep up - thus the overall trend of deterioration.
And no, corporations have no influence over the content of Smithsonian exhibits. It is good that people are concerned, but constant accusations and speculation with no real substance only hurts the reputation of one of this country's great treasures, making it harder to raise the money it needs to persist and improve.
Looks like Macie is the winner of the "DCist Weekly Quadruple Post Award: 7/9-7/15." Mad props for spreading out the posts over 17 minutes. That's what I call dedication. Keep on clicking that Post button!
And no, corporations have no influence over the content of Smithsonian exhibits.
Well, Macie, how do you know? If you read that CNN transcript I linked to, the Pfizer representative said that his company helped develop that exhibit. Maybe it was benign, but you can't just pretend it's not a potential conflict.
If the Smithsonian severed its ties to the Federal goverment most of it's employees would be out of work and the museums would be forced to close. Sadly, most private donors don't donate money to fund positions, but to have thier names on galleries or predominately displayed. The fact is that Congress needs to allocate more funds to help with exhibitions, building maintenace and salaries.
If you love the museums and enjoy visiting then a great way for to help is to become a museum member.
If memory serves correctly, the Smithsonian is bound to its ties to the federal government through its original establishing charter.
I remember when interning at NMAH, the rumor about the 'cancer office' down in the basement. Apparently, 4 or 5 folks who have worked in that office have all come down with the same rare type of brain tumors. Most employees there wouldn't go down to the basement ever if they could help it. Maybe during the NMAH renovation this fall they can fix that.....
It's laughable to think funders don't have any influence over the exhibitions they fund. In the first place, the funder often requests an exhibition in the first place. Prime example? Ken Behring wanted a military history exhibition, so he funded it and titled it "The Price of Freedom." Even if he had no influence whatsoever on the content of the exhibition, the title alone conveys a particular viewpoint. Congress, too, has a huge influence--the sting from West as America and the Enola Gay controversies in the 1990s has had a clear effect on the content and presentation in exhibitions. With Republicans in charge, presenting history and art has to some degree become be a patriotic rather than an intellectual exercise at the Smithsonian. How dare a museum present controversy and make people--gasp--think?!
Sean: I'm saddened to read that interns are passing on incorrect facts/rumors (and on public sites, no less). Not to mention the rampant generalizations.
As for influence from outside financial donors/congress, there is indeed a strong influence nowdays but it's not as simple as people think it is. The public never sees/understands the struggles that sometimes exist.
I wonder if there is a way to fund raise for the Smithsonian? Do they currently have a 10k? Or a $1500-a-plate gala dinner? I admit to being a bit ignorant of the goings-on of the Smithsonian as I just moved here, but these types of fundraiser may (or may not) help renovations, etc. Also, which committee is responsible for funding the Smithsonian? Is there a "letter writing" campaign in effect?
I wonder if there is a way to fund raise for the Smithsonian? Do they currently have a 10K run? Or a $1500-a-plate gala? I admit to being a bit ignorant of the goings-on at the Smithsonian, as I just moved here, but these types of Fundraisers may (or may not) help the Smtihsonian with renovations, etc. Also, what committee is responsible for fund allocation? Is there a "letter writing" campaign in effect?
Suze- yes, there are plated dinners that you can attend (and pay for), but you need to be a memeber to do so. Also, I completely agree with oy!.