"Free access to museums for under 30s", one reads
in portuguese newspapers. The measure was approved in parliament yesterday.
"Can anyone explain to me the logic of under
30s?", asks a Brazilian colleague.
"Is it to stimulate young families, like couples with
small children?", replies another colleague. "Is it because it was
found that unemployment is higher among the under 30s?"
Is it worth looking for the logic? Was there a logic? Was
the measure based on any management report? Was it based on some audience
survey? Were the professionals of the sector consulted? Are there concrete
objectives that can be evaluated in one or two years’ time?
According to the news, "members of parliament decided
to recommend to the government to adopt the necessary measures to promote
access for all citizens to national museums and monuments, especially for
people up to 35 years of age, giving free access on weekends, holidays and
Wednesdays, and extending the use of new information technologies." This
is in line with the government's programme, which we already had the
opportunity to analyse here, especially with regards to the concepts of "access"
and "democratization".
So, we are once again discussing free admission to museums.
As if this was the central issue. As if the museum sector did not have serious
endogenous problems, related to management, which free admission cannot solve.
As if the museum sector did not have other problems, permanent and fundamental,
in its relationship with society, which free admission cannot solve. We can
continue to try to guess the fundamentals and criteria behind this measure. But
we do not need to guess the reasons why most Portuguese do not visit museums; and
they will not start visiting just because entrance will be free.
Who invests time and money - yes, there is always an investment
of money, even when entrance is free - in something that, a priori, does not seem to be relevant, does not communicate in an
inviting way (on the contrary, it uses all means to say "This is not for
you, this was not made thinking of you"), does not take into account the interests
and needs of those it intends to attract and has an obligation to serve? And, giving
it a second thought, I would say more ... Who invests time and money to see
depressing things? To be in a space that smells mold, where exhibitions have
not been touched for decades?
The people responsible in Portugal certainly know that
studies, in the countries where they exist, show that free admission allows
those who already enjoy visiting museums to visit more often (which is
excellent). But it does not diversify the visitors’ profile. It is not enough
for "democratization". For this to happen, it takes more work, it
takes another type of work, it is a work that demands more from all those
involved.
Are we going to work on this? Are we going to create the
conditions to do it well? Are we going to assume our responsibilities for the
barriers created along the years? Regarding free admission, everything has
already been said. It will continue to make good headlines, that's true, but
that will be all.
More readings
Alexandre Maros, Cultura precária e cultura da precariedade - Como sair daqui?
Association of Independent
Museums, Evaluating the Evidence The Impact of Charging or Not for Admissionson Museums
Boletim ICOM Portugal, Gestão de Museus e Políticas Museológicas, Série
III, nº8, Jan 2017 (textos de Manuel Bairrão Oleiro, Maria de Jesus Monge e Ana
Carvalho)
Museums Association, Free admission and the lottery
Rebecca Herz, What is the political role of arts education in rural communities?
Rebecca Herz, What is the political role of arts education in rural communities?
More on this blog:
No comments:
Post a Comment