Editorial / 01
Australian arts leader, advocate, curator, and writer Kelly Gellatly on the current social and cultural climate that museums and collecting institutions in Australia operate in, and what is needed to revolutionise it.
Embracing diversity, inclusion and ‘diffability’ in our art museums
Revolutions never start at the top. If we dare to dream of a more loving country – kinder, more compassionate, more cooperative, more respectful, more inclusive, more egalitarian, more harmonious, less cynical – there's only one way to start turning that dream into a reality: each of us must live as if this is already that country.
—Hugh McKay in The Kindness Revolution
As COVID-19 and its variant strains continue to wreak havoc on the world, and as I write from Naarm / Melbourne during our fourth lockdown, I am struggling to feel the positives that have emerged from the restrictions the pandemic has placed upon our daily lives. While in no way wanting to diminish the severity of the impacts of the disease on whole communities – illness, death, economic insecurity, social isolation, declining mental health – the slow time of lockdown has equally provided space for contemplation and reflection. It has enabled us to reassess the sense of busyness and ‘progress’ underpinning Western notions of success, to interrogate our motivations and values, and to question how we want to be and act in the world. However, once all the baking, making and Netflix binging has ended, what will we learn and retain from this time? Will we allow it to change us for the better, or will we simply return to life as ‘normal’?
Against this backdrop, several protest movements have also ignited, building a global momentum fuelled by years of oppression, anger and frustration. Widespread cultural movements such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo and the wave of gender protests seen throughout the Trump presidency and beyond, and public actions such as School Strike for Climate, have brought issues of race, gender, power and inequity, and our collective and devastating impact on the planet, into broad public consciousness. Perhaps not surprisingly, these paradigm shifts are also making their impact felt within the international museum sector. Manifesting in long-overdue debates around the connection of institutions and their collections to slavery, empire, and colonisation; the representation of gender and cultural diversity in museum staff, and within collections and exhibitions; the business ties and impact of powerful and high-profile board members on museums, and the ethics of how the money provided by corporate sponsors and philanthropy is generated, museums are now being pressured – from both within, and outside, to change. Discussions about hierarchical and toxic museum work cultures, and bullying and staff burnout, are also prevalent.
Even the definition of what a museum is, is no longer agreed upon. This was seen most powerfully in 2019 by the debate that ensued when 70% of delegates at the International Council of Museums (ICOM) 25th triennial general conference in Kyoto, Japan refused to vote on a new definition of the museum; choosing instead to postpone the debate indefinitely. The definition that created the turmoil was criticised by some as ‘ideological’ and politically correct, with little legal value. However, it seems to me, at the heart of the debate (language aside) is the question of how museums, their collections and their programming should actively engage with the issues and wicked problems of living in the 21st-century. The proposed definition read:
Museums are democratizing, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artifacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people.
Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.
Install of Everyday imagining: new perspectives on Outsider art 2014 at the Ian Potter Museum of art, held in conjunction with the international conference Contemporary Outsider art: the global context, presented by the Faculty of Arts, the University of Melbourne and Art Projects Australia and held from 23 - 26 October at the University of Melbourne.
As the current debates around museums have shown, deep and meaningful change will only occur when our institutions commit to and implement structural change. This is about leadership and power – about sharing it or even handing it over – not simply about seeing increased diversity and access reflected in programming and collection development. Diversity needs to be embedded within the museum itself, from its Board and CEO, through to its curatorial, programming, education and marketing staff. It is only by introducing and encouraging differences of experience and perspectives across an institution that we can shift the way in which diversity is still largely addressed in our museums – through public-facing exhibitions, events and programs. If we look closely, the scrolling checklist of ‘inclusive’ initiatives that pepper museum exhibition calendars are easy to recognise: the First Nations show, the women show, the ‘such and such’ community show, the disability show … that are ‘done’ and then moved on from. Despite the best intentions of those involved, this ‘tick-box’ approach in no way shifts the dominant white, hetero-normative, patriarchal paradigm of the large-scale public museum. Such programs remain the exception, rather than the rule; their place within a hierarchy of ‘value’ within the organisation demonstrated internally (and to those attuned to these things) by the budgets and resources attributed to them. When compared to exhibitions of higher priority due to their popular appeal and ability to generate income (the blockbuster), or for their largely guaranteed success through their celebration and reinforcement of existing canons, these ‘special’ exhibitions are usually accompanied by exhibition catalogues of comparatively modest scale (if they have them at all), fewer public programs and smaller marketing campaigns. (As many collection curators bemoan, this is also true of collection-based exhibitions in museums). Equally, by siloing groups within their individual representative programs, cross-pollination across different areas – a women’s show that includes work by neurodivergent, intellectually or learning-disabled artists, for example, becomes difficult to achieve, as the complex, often competing expectations of each group must be met by their one ‘go’ at an exhibition or program until the cycle comes round again.
I am grateful for Arts Project Australia artist Eden Menta for their introduction to the term ‘diffability’, which means, in her words “we’re just different and need a little more help sometimes.”
Conversely, as Caroline Bowditch, CEO Arts Access Victoria discussed at the recent Australian Museums and Galleries Association (AMaGA) annual conference, COVID has heightened conversations of relevance and equity:
The [current] system is benefiting one part of the population, and we have seen through COVID time that it was a leveller for the disability community. Everyone had a taste of isolation which our community lives on a daily basis.
But combatting isolation isn’t simply about ensuring everyone is able to access a building and its facilities. Access is equally about being able to see yourself and your experience reflected in the programs of museums once you have made your way through the door. Unfortunately, this is why so many audience-diversity initiatives have faltered in the past. Different groups are ‘invited in’ when there is an exhibition or program related to them, but once this special event is over, the museum moves on to another group. As a result, the connections established with the former community seem at best, no longer important, and at worst, opportunistic. Regardless, the community no longer feels welcome to visit, and the museum once again feels like an alienating place – a space for others, not them.
Of course, all of this is easy to say, but far less easy to implement. Museums may demonstrate their agility in their programming, but remain, overall, structurally rigid, bureaucratic beasts. While the types of initiatives that we have witnessed recently in the US are welcome – Senior Director of Belonging and Inclusion (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) or the MET’s Chief Diversity Officer, and here in Australia, for example, the number of senior positions for Indigenous leaders is on the rise; being the only staff member charged with this responsibility, and being expected to act like an organisational conscience, can be isolating and exhausting, and lead to overwhelm and burnout. Systemic change will only occur through an interrogation of organisational cultures and long-held assumptions about knowledge and expertise, and a willingness to let go of the way things have always been. And this takes money. Employing staff on short-term contract positions may be a band-aid solution, but again, potentially leaves those who are not part of the ‘status quo’ vulnerable; without the benefits and security afforded full-time permanent staff. And simply replacing long-existing, often more senior staff with a new ‘woke’ team is another form of short-termism. While expedient, these types of solutions often mask other kinds of bias or discrimination and can lead to a major loss of collection-based and organisational expertise. Bringing the old way of doing things together with the demands and expectations of the new is no doubt harder, but the cultural and ‘creative abrasion’ that results will lead to unexpected outcomes and long-term change. As Harvard professor, ethnographer and leadership expert Linda Hill noted in her 2015 TED Talk – How to manage for collective creativity: ‘Innovation rarely happens unless you have both diversity and conflict”.
Terry Williams Not titled 2011 vinyl, cotton, felt-tipped pen and stuffing, 21 x 43 x 14 cm, Private Collection, © Copyright the artist, Courtesy Arts Project Australia.
So just what does this have to do with inclusion and contemporary art? Contemporary art – at its most straightforward definition, the art of our time – continues to be made and to exist regardless of whether the museum decides to validate it as such. Yet, by contrast, curatorial practice, and particularly the world of ‘contemporary art’ (a world of which I am part), can often seem, from the outside, as a self-affirming, self-congratulatory club which only invites in a fairly select group of artists. These artists also tend to be supported by an intersecting network of gallerists or dealers, which assists them in establishing a recognisable career trajectory that can be categorised and followed as ‘emerging’, ‘mid-career’ or ‘senior’. In turn, these categorisations assist with the pricing of works and the way in which the artist’s oeuvre is marketed, exhibited and discussed. The contemporary art world, like many other areas of expertise (think for example, of academia), is the result of a complex ecology of knowledge-sharing, opinions, relationships and connections. However, despite the personal ethics, politics and intentions of the individuals who operate within this world, the system itself can tend to ring-fence the type of art that is seen and how. The sector’s ability to look broadly and to explore without concrete results in mind is also severely hindered by the constant lack of money and resources and the time pressures most curators experience with each new project. Sadly, with the juggle of expectations that many museum curators face today, collection and exhibition development can often feel secondary to the demands of stakeholder relationships, back-to-back meetings and the burden of endless administration.
While there currently is a wealth of extraordinary work being made, I believe one of the most exciting things to happen to and for contemporary art is this shake-up of museums. For if museum structures and the composition of their staff change, what they look at, show, and effectively endorse will also change. Bringing different perspectives to bear on contemporary museology will not only change the way we tell stories but who gets to speak. One can only hope that the changes we are witnessing in museums globally result in the work of more artists who exist outside of the canon being embraced not for its representation of the artist’s ethnicity, sexuality, community, or ‘diffability’, but simply because it’s great art.
—
Kelly Gellatly is an experienced arts leader, advocate, curator, and writer. She has curated more than 50 exhibitions of the work of leading Australian and international artists and has published extensively on contemporary art, Australian modernism, and photographic practice. Currently, Founding Director at Agency Untitled, she was Director of the Ian Potter Museum of Art, University of Melbourne from 2013-2020; Curator of Contemporary Art at the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne from 2003-2013, and has held curatorial positions at Heide Museum of Modern Art, Melbourne and the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.
Kelly has contributed widely to the broader arts community throughout her career through her role on Boards and Advisory Committees, in the capacity of judge for a variety of prizes and awards, and as a guest speaker and lecturer. She is Board member of the national philanthropic foundation Sheila.
Kelly is passionate about facilitating and encouraging the broadest possible access to the arts, particularly contemporary practice and to supporting the leadership potential of women in the arts.
—
© Images copyright the Ian Potter Museum of Art and Arts Project Australia.
Banner image: Install of Everyday imagining: new perspectives on Outsider art 2014 at the Ian Potter Museum of Art, held in conjunction with the international conference Contemporary Outsider art: the global context, presented by the Faculty of Arts, the University of Melbourne and Art Projects Australia and held from 23 - 26 October at the University of Melbourne.