To take 'no' for an answer

The Acropolis Museum (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

When I was last at the Acropolis Museum and while taking some photos in the sculptures gallery, I was approached by a guard who kindly informed me that I couldn´t take photos in that room and also quickly informed me of the  areas where I could take photos. No explanation was given to me as to why that distinction was made. When a bit later I took a photo of a label (not an exhibit, a label), another guard saw me and made sure to inform her colleagues that I should be watched. She also followed my every step...

All this being very uncomfortable for me – and, I am sure, for the guards too -, I took the opportunity of questioning an archaeologist who was in the room in order to answer visitors’ questions. She explained to me that some of the statues preserve their original colours, that flash could be harmful, and that, as it’s not possible for the guards to control the use of flash, the museum thought better to totally prohibit photography. I thought that I took her by surprise when I asked why the museum doesn’t actually assume its educational role and explain to visitors why flash mustn’t be used, instead of totally prohibiting photography in certain rooms (most digital cameras don’t need flash) and creating such an ambiguous policy regarding photography in the museum.

It was not something I invented at that moment. It occurred to me that, a couple of years ago, in the Workt by Hand exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum – composed of extremely fragile quilts, made in the last two centuries - the museum had chosen not to show the objects behind glass or surrounded by rope and at a distance. So, when entering the room, the visitor was asked to 

Brooklyn Museum (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

Some people might be thinking that this is a different culture, a more respectful one, but it is not the case. The Brooklyn Museum opens its doors to all sorts of visitors, with and without the habit of visiting museums, with and without specific knowledge regarding the objects and their preservation. It assumes its educational role, though, and doesn´t simply expect visitors to take ‘no’ for an answer, just because the museum said so, without further explanation.

Little after my visit to the Acropolis Museum, I read an article in the Guardian about the fundamental role of ushers in theatres, especially regarding disruptive audiences. In the article, we are given the example of Stratford East Theatre, where ushers and front-of-house staff are trained to deal with such situations. And more: at a theatre which has “a particularly high number of first-time theatregoers, who sometimes need to be helped to understand what effect their behaviour is having, not just on other audience members but also on ushers and cast members”, the management chooses to invite them back “for backstage and front-of-house tours and maybe even to meet staff and casts, so that they can understand more about how a theatre works and how their behaviour impacts others”.

I believe it is part of the educational role of cultural institutions to help people better understand the details of the work that is being undertaken, but also their own role – the spectators’ and visitors’ role – so that it may be carried out in appropriate conditions for everyone involved. I believe it can be much more effective than simply saying ‘no’ to a certain behaviour or asking people to leave and it can also make them feel co-owners of and co-responsible for that work.


More on this blog:

Say click!
Please define danger

Meet Rosa Shaw

Rosa Shaw (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

Meet Rosa Shaw. She’s the first person to greet us when we enter the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. She’s one of the memorial’s guards and one of the institution’s faces. She’s polite, she has a good sense of humour, she’s helpful. If someone looks lost or confused, she doesn’t wait for them to ask for help, she approaches and tries to see if she can be of assistance. The uniform could cause some inhibition to the visitors - a permanent concern among those of us working in the communications field – but, looking at Rosa and the way she does her job, it becomes clear that, more than a question of aspect, it’s a question of attitude.

Rosa makes me think of many guards I have encountered in museums. People who look terribly bored and tired; or people who avoid eye contact when we enter a room and then follow us closely, although we are the only visitor in that room; or people who might be loudly discussing family or union problems, paying no attention to visitors. Guards of this kind make me think of how much more interesting their job could be, and how big the benefit for the museum or the cultural institution they serve, if they were given appropriate training and different responsibilities - more responsibilities - than just sitting on a chair or standing at a corner, looking stern and bored, having as little interaction with visitors as possible.

Guards at the Brooklyn Museum (Photo: Maria Vlachou)

I am saying this, because I’ve also had other kinds of experiences. A couple of years ago, I joined a guided tour to the Pastrana Tapestries exhibition at the National Museum of Ancient Art in Lisbon. As soon as the tour was over and as I was heading for the exit, I overheard a guard having a conversation with two ladies, explaining everything one needed to know about those works of art, but with an enthusiasm and commitment that equaled those of the education department staff. And in a language that was much more accessible than that of the texts on the panels. More recently, while visiting the El Anatsui exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, I overheard two guards exchanging views regarding one of the works of art on display. It was a pleasure listening to them. Later on, one of them greeted a small group of visitors and offered to take their photo in front of one of the works, so that they could all be in it. The whole atmosphere was light and friendly and informal, I felt that it made such a big difference.

Museum guards might look silent and stern, even threatening some times, but they have eyes and feelings and opinions regarding the works that surround them. The Washington Post published a very interesting piece on Washington museum guards a few weeks ago (read here), where they would talk about their favourite work of art and the reasons why it is their favourite. One of them also mentioned how working in a museum awakened her interest in art and consequently made her look at all things in a different way. Reading their interviews made me think of how much I would have enjoyed having a direct conversation with them, both as a visitor and a professional.

Front-of-house staff in cultural institutions (whether guards, ushers or box office assistants) are some of the most important people in the team, in terms of institutional marketing. They are the face, they are the voice, they are the attitude. They are the ears too, as they get closer to the visitors/audiences than most of the administrative staff ever get. Front-of-house staff have a decisive role in the shaping of the quality of the whole experience of visiting a cultural institution. A disappointing exhibition or a performance that turned out to be a disaster will not make people keep away for ever; people take a risk and know that it might not fulfill their expectations. On the other hand, if someone is not well treated, if they come across staff who are impolite or in a bad mood, who lack information, who are unhelpful or show that they don’t care, this might definitely determine if someone will come back or not. Even when we have to make a choice between two interesting exhibitions or two interesting shows, it’s very probable that customer care, the place where we feel that we are better treated, will make all the difference in our decision.

Despite their strategic position and role, though, front-of-house staff get to be very neglected by management; underestimated too. They are not given the appropriate training in public relations and customer care; they are not given information about what it is that they are guarding or selling or taking people to their seats to see; quite often, they are not even given important information about what’s going on in the institution, in terms of programming or timetables or prices/discounts or other practical information the public might be looking for (have you ever experienced the discomfort and embarrassment of a Front-of-House member of staff who can’t answer a logical question or, worse, who is informed by a visitor on what is happening in the institution he/she is working for?); they feel frustrated by the fact that their opinion is not taken into consideration, even when it concerns visitor opinions or comments which they are simply passing on, as they are the ones who hear or receive them.

Front-of-house staff don’t ‘just’ guard or ‘just’ sell or ‘just’ answer the phone or ‘just’ take people to their seats. They are a valuable part of the team, they are the most visible part. They are the ones that welcome people in, talk to them, promote the institution – not only its contents but also its vision and principles. It seems only too obvious and natural to me that they would be given the tools to do their work and to do it well. Rosa seems to be pleased in doing her job. And it’s  certainly a pleasure to watch her doing it.

Barcelona: 1 conference, 2 museums putting it to the test

Last week I was in Barcelona for the conference Glocal Audiences in Culture: Global Cities, Local Audiences, an Audiences Europe Network initiative. There were both museums and performing arts institutions in the programme, two worlds that rarely come together to discuss issues they have in common.

Quiet often, in these conferences we get to know projects which seem to be the answer to all our wishes and worries, but whose presentation remains rather superficial. We end up not knowing how they were developed and how (and if) they have been evaluated. This conference was no exception, but, even though, there were some moments and discussions of particular interest. The programme included one introductory session and five panels, which I´ll try to brielfy summarize.

Introductory session: Tourism vs. local audiences
We were presented with the results of a visitor survey which indicates that the big majority of the spanish do not visit museums in their country, but don´t fail to do so when travelling abroad; that more than half of visitors to Barcelona museums are foreigners, while 27% reside in this city. Visitors´ perception of museums is that they mean “learning”, “curiosity”, “peace”, “admiration”, “discovery”. Non-visitors´ or occasional visitors´ perception is that they mean “boredom”, “effort”, “incomprehension”, “discovery”. Speakers mentioned the need to create a feeling of belonging among local communities, to establish emotional links, to create spaces of encounter. One must admit that this is nothing new. I was thus left thinking if it makes sense to continue investing in this sort of one-off surveys which aim to study the relationship between audiences and museums in general, instead of working with the objective to change some of these indicators. On the other hand, in the case of museums which have the means to carry out continuous surveys (we were presented here with the Louvre case), which allow them to evaluate their work over time, registering modifications and new trends, one may find, no doubt, relevant indicators of change.

Panel 1: Big museums for local audiences

The need to concentrate on the individual and adapt the offer to everyone´s needs was once again mentioned here. Is it really possible that museums like the Prado and the Louvre, which receive millions of visitors every year, are able to fullfil this objective? This is what we dind´t find out in this panel. The mere presentation of initiatives is not enough for us to understand if the objective was met. In the meantime, there were mentioned here some points that deserve to be considered: the importance of collecting, using and sharing data; of seeking new partnerships, also among smaller museums, located in the area of the 'big ones'; of stepping outside the museum boundaries and going to meet the people; finally, of considering as a performance indicator not only the number of visitors, but also whether the museum has managed to meet (or not) visitor expectations.

Panel 2: Pricing strategies in time of crisis

Here´s a panel that didn´t meet expectations. Speakers presented their discount policies – the usual ones, those which have always existed – without a special consideration, as it was expected, regarding the challenges presented by the actual economic crisis. Challenges which, in my view, mainly concern those who normally visit cultural spaces (more or less frequently) and who might now have a more limited capacity to purchase tickets. What can we do in order to provide access to those who wish to visit and guarantee a revenue for our institutions? In what concerns free entries and the illusion that they bring, just by themselves, people who don´t have the habit of visiting, there seem to exist consensus (at least, nobody expressed his/her disagreement): this is really an illusion.

Panel 3: From user to client

Some truly relevant questions were raised in this panel concerning the need to put the individual in the centre of our strategic plans, to develop new audiences (I have stopped using this expression, but this is what was said) through relationship marketing, to create proximity and a personalized service, to take advantage of Customer Relationship Management tools (in Portugal, I believe that only CCB has been using them). There was also some discussion regarding the importance of maintaining a balance between what people want and programming needs (which reminded me of the very interesting Lead or Follow debate, which took place in January and the reading of which I recommend).

Panel 4:Tourist cities for local audiences

This was, in my opinion, the most interesting panel, where we truly shared and discussed worries and thoughts regarding the tension created in cities of all sizes between the local community and tourists. There is a real need to be relevant for different audiences, which requires very specific strategies in order to nurture and maintain a relationship with local people (from special programming to offering free coffee). The most interesting case for me was Hermitage Amsterdam, which ‘insists’ on positioning itself as an international destination, when tourists don´t see it this way and the local community, with which it has already established a very strong relationship, particularly appreciates the fact that this museum doesn´t draw the hoards of tourists one finds in other museums in this city.

Panel 5: Cultural institutions take the street

And it was this last panel that kept a pleasant surprise for us. An inspiring project of great impact: The Grand Tour was a National Gallery initiative, in partnership with Hewlett Packard (HP), which spread in the city centre, sometimes in the most unexpected places, chosen with a great sense of humour, high quality copies (prints) of the gallery´s most famous paintings. The objectives were: to raise awareness regarding the museum; to inform the public that some of the most known paintings could be found in the gallery; to let them know that entry was free; to make people talk about art. Next to each copy, there was a label with some basic information about the piece and a phone number for those who wanted to know more. Information was also available on the microsite and cold be downloaded. The museum considers that mission was accomplished: the number of visitors increased significantly, and many were coming holding the map that was created for this initiative looking for the original works. In many cases, the photos speak for themselves, in the meantime, there was also a book about this experience and people´s reactions to it.

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

I took advantage of my two days in Barcelona to visit two of my favourite museums. Arriving at the Maritime Museum, I found out that the permanent exhibition was closed due to works. I didn´t remember having seen a warning on the website (available only in catalan and spanish), but I checked when I got back to my hotel: there was no warning. Thus, I visited a temporary exhibition on the Titanic. Before I entered, I looked for the cloakroom to leave my heavy bag, but there wasn´t one. Entering the exhibition, I was given an audioguide (this one, yes, in more than two languages), which obliged visitors to follow a specific path, without being able to choose which objects or sections they might want to learn more about. When cases were small, too many visitors accumulated in front of them, making it impossible to see the objects we were hearing about. I turned the audioguide off and read just a few labels. Along the different sections of the exhibition, more than once I wondered if the objects in front of me were originals or copies (a museum has the obligation to mark the difference). I approached three members of staff to ask for information about this, all very nice, but none of them spoke english.

Museu Marítim de Barcelona, Titanic exhibition  (Photo: mv)

The following day it was the turn of the Museum of the History of Catalunia, in my opinion, one of the best history museums. I was glad to see english labels this time. In the past, I couldn´t understand how at the history museum of a people who wished to proclaim their difference and autonomy that same history was not told to foreign tourists, at least in english. On the other hand, the french friend who came with me to that visit, a history teacher at the French School of Barcelona for four years now, had never heard of this museum, he was visiting for the first time (and loved it). Wouldn´t one expect that among this museum´s priority target audiences would be history teachers of the city and region?

Museu d´Història de Catalunia  (Photo: mv)

These are, yes, two of my favourite museums in this city, because they know how to tell a good story. Nevertheless, they both put the reflections and conclusions of the conference to the test and reminded me that, in many cases and even in what concerns issues that seem to be obvious or simple, theory and practice remain quite distant. Why is that?

Still on this blog

Why things aren´t happening?

The 'comfort' factor

It was in the book The Museum Experience, by John Falk and Lynn Dierking, that I first read about the ‘comfort’ factor, associated to the quality of the experience of visiting a museum. The two authors identify three contexts in the interaction of the visitor with the museum:

1. The personal context: previous experience and knowledge, interests, motivations and concerns that each visitor brings along and that define his/her personal agenda in what concerns the visit.

2. The social context: the type of group of which the visitor forms part, as well as, even in what concerns solitary visitors, the interaction with other visitors and members of staff, influence the visitor´s perspective of this experience and help us understand different behaviours.

3. The physical context: the architecture and ‘feeling’ of the building, exhibition design, shops, cafés and restaurants, WCs, areas to take a rest, are all factors that determine the quality of the visit.

Falk and Dierking consider that visitor experience is a constantly changing interaction among the personal, social and physical contexts. In what concerns the physical context, George Hein, in his book Learning in the Museum, refers specifically to visitor comfort as a prerequisite in the construction of a learning environment and experience.

Who can enjoy an exhibition when they feel tired and cannot take a rest, when they are hungry, warm or cold, when they cannot find the WC or when its conditions are not as they should be? These are all apparently secondary elements, but significant for the quality of the experience we aim to provide, because they condition it.

I believe that we find the same three contexts in any cultural experience, the ‘comfort’ factor also having an impact on the quality. The author of O Blog do Desassossego published a post last month entitled "On Theatre", where we can read: “(…) The problem is that the plays are always an hour longer than they should. Generally, when it´s time for interval they should actually be finishing. But no, we go on chewing for another hour and a half a story that could be told in less time. And then I can´t find a comfortable position in the seat, everything hurts, I yawn and I only want to get out from there (…)”. The duration of a play, the possibility to know about it beforehand, the existence of an interval, the room temperature, the seats being comfortable or not are elements that determine the quality of the experience as much as, or for some people even more than, the quality of the play. I confess that once or twice I opted not to see the productions of Cornucopia knowing that, given the duration, from a specific moment onwards I would be unable to follow the action taking place on stage and I would be thinking of how uncomfortable the seats are, the pain in my legs and I would be noticing other people constantly changing position in search for some comfort. Also at CCB, I am always trying to get a ticket for an aisle seat, since there is not enough space for the legs of a medium stature person, as myself; I also don´t forget to take a jacket, as the air conditioning is usually cold. The same occurs when opting for a tier of benches on the stage of Culturgest or Maria Matos Theatre, where, apart from the lack of space for the legs, we are forced into a physical proximity with stangers that not everybody wishes for. (I let other people talk about the comforts and discomforts at the theatre where I work. I know they exist.)

There is another possibility still: when the long duration of a bad play contributes to our total discomfort: physical, psychological, intellectual. Last Thursday, the comfortable chairs of the main auditorium of Culturgest where not able to ease the total discomfort caused by the play O Inferno by Mónica Calle. And while the evaluation of the quality of a play is always subjective, we cannot say the same about its duration (3 hours) and the lack of interval. Half of the spectators abandoned the room during the play. Those who resisted and didn´t leave, either because they enjoyed the play or because they felt ashamed to leave or out of respect for the actresses´s effort (which was clearly my case), they saw the director jumping on stage as soon as the play had finished. She acknowledged that half of the spectators had left, given the duration of the show, and then she turned and thanked the actresses. Extremely tired and upset, I thought her intervention was totally inappropriate. The director should have equally acknowledged that the play was too long and that there should have been an interval, giving the spectators, whom she forgot to thank, a chance to take a rest or…to run away, without regrets.

On Berlin museums

Four days to discover Berlin and, inevitably, its museums. There is no doubt that in this city e can find some of the best collections, mainly from the ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern civilizations. At the same time, there is no doubt either that a great collection is not enough to guarantee a good experience during a visit. Some of the factors that can frequently spoil the experience in this city´s museums:

- Berlin is now the third European city, after London and Paris, attracting more tourists. Nevertheless, guards in its museums only speak german. Thus, not only do they find it difficult to give information when asked, but also they are constantly giving visitors instructions they are unable to understand.

- Some museums attract large numbers of visitors. To visit the recently reopened Neues Museum people have to purchase their tickets in advance for a specific time slot. I got mine on a Thursday and the first vacancy was for the following Saturday. Queues at certain moments are quiet big, but people with free access (ICOM card or city card holders, etc.) are unable to avoid them. They are obliged to join them in order to get a free entry ticket. In many cities there are separate queues or entrances for these people. Not in Berlin.

- There where audio-guides in every museum, almost always at no extra cost. Although they are an excellent means for those interested in a more detailed visit, they shouldn´t substitute introductory panels and labels, with brief and well written texts. In the majority of Berlin´s large museums either we are experts or we have no idea what we are looking at (apart from the object´s name, date and provenance). There is a total lack of explanations and a minimum of context. There are excellent exceptions: the Neues Museum, the Neue Nationalgalerie and the Deutsches Historisches Museum.

- Many times there seems to exist a greater worry with design and less with functionality and access. I saw some very beautiful solutions in a few museums in what concerns showcases and written information (Jüdisches Museum, Neues Museum). At the same time, though, I saw parents carrying their young children for the most part of the visit, in order for them to be able to see the exhibits. Wheelchair users, as nobody carries them, are immediately excluded.

Four days and thirteen museums later, here´s the balance:

The absolutely favorite
- Neues Museum. It has a marvellous collection and, as it was recently refurbished, it took the chance to better exhibit and interpret it. It creates thematic units and gives basic information on each one of them in panels, allowing for more information through other means. The architectonic intervention in the exhibition area is impressive. The highlight of the visit: entering Queen Nefertiti´s room.


- Pergamon Museum. There are many flaws in exhibition design and interpretation, among them, the fact that it allows visitors basic information on the exhibits only through audio-guides. Even though, what makes it a favorite is the Pergamon altar and the Ishtar Gate. Imagine what the experience would have been if these two monuments had been properly interpreted.



Disappointments
- Jüdisches Museum. I had meant to visit this museum for years. I discovered that after all it is more of a famous building by a famous architect. It seems that it aims to keep us in a permanent state of disorientation, both in what concerns the space an the narrative. I didn´t know where I was or what part of the story they were telling me. Many times I was unsure which path I was to follow. This was also one of the museums that used various solutions in terms of design for the presentation of the objects and for making written information available, most of them not accessible.






- Hamburger Bahnhof, Berlin´s contemporary art museum. It is a private collection. I came out the same person I had gone in. I didn´t learn anything, because they didn´t explain me anything. Do they think that I know everything or that I like feeling less intelligent?

- Checkpoint Charlie – Mauermuseum. That is, the Wall Museum, conveniently located in one of the city´s most emblematic – and touristic – spots. A ‘museum’? I wouldn´t say so. It is more of a house where a fascinating story is told through texts, that were written 30-40 years ago, and copies of photos. Very few objects. Hundreds of visitors packed in this space, making me wonder whether it is legal to keep so many people in a building under these conditions. It was like a procession. But the aim here is to make money, so crowd control and the quality of the visit are not a big worry. An adult pays €12.50 (the most expensive ticket in a state museum costs €10). Someone should warn innocent tourists off. The visit to the Berlin Wall Memorial (Gedenkstätte Berliner Mauer) is free, much more interesting and the documentation centre is next to one of the remaining fragments of the wall. This is a different experience, much more touching and decent.