 |
| A Link |
- A/One ‘cognitive owner’ (say as a member of an 'ownership group' for institution such as the Powerhouse’s Community of Ownership & Interest – COI) wishing to realise and facilitate a ‘fiscal dividend’ on the Dept’s/Govt’s/people’s investment in a public institution and the ‘real estate’ it occupies; and
- A/The ‘manager/underwriters’ of the 'musingplace’s' real estate plus the ‘collections’ holding as they do – ‘the people’s’ cultural property held in trust; and/or as the
- Owners/Trustees for that part of the ‘National Estate’ entrusted to a 'musingplace' for whatever ‘strategic purpose’.
‘The Govt.” might well argue all this. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is in the case of Sydney's Powerhouse Museum. or indeed any other musingplace.
Against this background the NSW Govt's initiative to set up a General Purpose Standing Committee to inquire into and report upon the performance and/or effectiveness of the NSW Government agencies is nothing short of timely. Moreover, given that it is the agencies responsible for the organisation, structure and funding of museums and galleries in New South Wales the initiative is both timely and of national importance.
Yet, is any of this backgrounding at issue, or at least front of mind, when 'government' makes funding decisions in respect to musingplaces in NSW? Indeed, it can be argued that Govt in Australia generally have developed relatively inadequate policy settings against which to consider musingplace funding in the context of their regulation cum accountability.
Against this background the NSW Govt's initiative to set up a General Purpose Standing Committee to inquire into and report upon the performance and/or effectiveness of the NSW Government agencies is nothing short of timely. Moreover, given that it is the agencies responsible for the organisation, structure and funding of museums and galleries in New South Wales the initiative is both timely and of national importance.
Yet, is any of this backgrounding at issue, or at least front of mind, when 'government' makes funding decisions in respect to musingplaces in NSW? Indeed, it can be argued that Govt in Australia generally have developed relatively inadequate policy settings against which to consider musingplace funding in the context of their regulation cum accountability.
The underlying problem however might be that in the context of 'the inquiry', the Govt might well be backgrounded by the ‘pulling of rank’.
In turn, this might well be seen as being at the detriment of all/most/some other 'cognitive owners’ who have legitimate interests and aspirations. Moreover, all this might be seen as being to do with inequitably or to do with some regional 'political purpose' or other. Nonetheless, the inquiry is quite important in a national context.
In turn, this might well be seen as being at the detriment of all/most/some other 'cognitive owners’ who have legitimate interests and aspirations. Moreover, all this might be seen as being to do with inequitably or to do with some regional 'political purpose' or other. Nonetheless, the inquiry is quite important in a national context.
Very often it seems that anything resembling meaningful consultation relative to an institutional musingplace and its collections comes after ‘after the event’. If the NSW inquiry is to be seen as “consultation” in any meaningful way the processes used need to be thorough and multi-dimensional. Whatever, all that can be a hollow argument if no foundation for it is projected/articulated.
It also needs to be remembered that every last dollar invested in an institutional musingplace by ‘the government’ has been conscripted from the ‘The Public’. Merlin or no one of his ilk resides in Macquarie St performing the miracles that would make it otherwise.
Putting any axe one might have to grind to one side and getting down to 'FIRST principles' relative to musingplaces individually, and amll of the collectively, there is a need to ask or re-ask:
- What is an institution’s purpose?
- What objectives have been determined for it currently and going forward?
- What strategies are being employed to realise the purpose and objectives?
- What rationale/s are being invoked to underpin an ‘institution's’ purpose, aspirations and objectives?
- AND then ask, how does all this fit a 21st C paradigm/circumstance?
For example, looking for such information relative to the Powerhouse Museum it might be found that:
- THE INSTITUTIONAL MISSION IS – To be “a catalyst for creative expression and curious minds” in the Applied Arts and Sciences – arguably an inspirational objective BUT NOT a purpose.
- THE INSTITUTIONAL VISION IS – To be “the leading Museum of applied arts and sciences; inspiring communities and transforming our world” – a grand inspirational objective and a laudable aspiration but NOT a purpose.
- THE INSTITUTIONAL VALUES ARE – Integrity. Courage. Passion – a set of deemed truths(?) or put another way a ‘truth-by-assertion’. .
If the Powerhouse Museum is a case study, it’s a tad concerning that no purpose is currently articulated for the institution – that is the reason for which the Powerhouse Museum was created and the reason for which it currently exists. Nonetheless the Australian Museum does articulate its purpose. [LINK]
I more than suspect that the Powerhouse Museum will not be alone in this. In fact, it is quite probable that the cultural landscape will be littered with equally 'purposeless' (recalcitrant?) institutions.
I more than suspect that the Powerhouse Museum will not be alone in this. In fact, it is quite probable that the cultural landscape will be littered with equally 'purposeless' (recalcitrant?) institutions.
I suggest that against this foundation ‘such an institution’ will find itself largely ‘built upon sand’ and shifting sands at that. Why? Well the aspirations – essentially so – and the assertions – the deemed truths(?) or put another way a ‘truths-by-assertion’ – can be seen as less than compelling – hollow even. Not a particularly solid or helpful/reliable foundation to build a vantage point to be mounting any kind of argument from and especially so given the levels of subjectivity involved.
If the ‘institution’s COI' is identified, I believe that then there’ll be some rock identified to found a convincing argument upon towards building a viable and sustainable future.
The real danger here is getting lost in the ‘tis-tisn’t’ bureaucratic humbug and in the process letting the opportunities to find win-wins pass by – and just because they were not looked for.
For whatever it is worth, the vantage point that I’ll be presenting my submission/s from will be founded on the need to establish 21st Century contexts within which interrogate public musingplaces' – museums and art galleries of all kinds' – in the context of:
ENDNOTE
- Their articulated purpose and reason for being;
- The credibility of their corporate structures; and
- The sustainability of their operations currently and going forward
ENDNOTE
• Community of Ownership and Interest: (compound noun/proposition) an all-inclusive collective/community of people, individuals and groups, who in any way have multi layered relationships with a place or cultural landscape and/or the operation of an institution, organisation or establishment – typically a network ... usage and context.– cultural geography; civic and environmental planning; and community administration ... [LINK]
Ray Norman
Artist, Metalsmith, Networker, Independent Researcher, currently a Launcestonian, Cultural Theorist, Cultural Geographer and a hunter of Deep Histories & Cartographies. Ray is Co-Director of zingHOUSEunlimited, a lifestyle design enterprise and network offering a range of services linked to contemporary cultural production and cultural research. Ray is also engaged with the nudgelbah institute as a cultural geographer. That institute's vision is to be network of research networks and to be a diverse vehicle through which place oriented scholarship and cultural endeavours can be acknowledged, honoured and promoted.... ONline LINK: http://raynorman7250.blogspot.com.au/
No comments:
Post a Comment