Curatorial Practices at the Rijksmuseum Nicole Suarez

Home , Hercules Seghers, List of national museums, Petronella Oortman, Rijksmuseum

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2008 Curatorial Practices at the Rijksmuseum Nicole Suarez

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS, THEATRE, AND DANCE

CURATORIAL PRACTICES AT THE RIJKSMUSEUM

NICOLE SUAREZ

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Art Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2008

The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Nicole Suarez defended on October 9, 2008.

______Pat Villeneuve Professor Directing Dissertation

______Jeffrey Milligan Outside Committee Member

______Tom Anderson Committee Member

______Penelope Orr Committee Member

Approved:

______David Gussak, Chair, Department of Art Education

______Sally McRorie, Dean, College of Visual Arts, Theatre and Dance

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables …………………………………………………...……………………iv List of Figures...... v Abstract…………………………………………………….…………………………vi

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..1 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………….1 Area of Study…………………………………………………………...…2 Changes in the Focus and Structure of U.S. Museums……………2 Shift from collections to visitors…………………………..2 Employment of business management techniques.……….2 Staff Roles and Responsibilities in Museums……………………..2 New staff roles and responsibilities……………………….3 Changes in traditional staff’s roles………………………..3 Museum hierarchy and conflict…………………………...4 Changing Curatorial Role………………………………………....5 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………5 Significance and Justification of the Study………………………………..5 Framework, Paradigm, and Assumptions….…………………………...…6 Definition of Terms………………………………………………………..7 Summary………………………..…………………………………………9

2. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………...10 Background of Curatorship………………………………………………10 Origins of Museums and Curatorship……………………………10 Collectors of rarities……………………………………...10 Organized application and scientific method…………….11 National heritage…………………………...…………….11 Local and state museums...………………………………11 Specialized museums…………………………………….11

iii

Professional and governmental awareness………...……..12 The Development of U.S. Museums……………………………..12 Origin of U.S. museums………………………………….12 Modern U.S. museums…………………………………...13 Traditional functions of museums……………………….14 Shift in museum functions……………………………….14 Summary…………………………………………………………15 Current Literature………………………………………………………...16 Van Mensch’s Paradigm for Museum Functions………………...16 Preservation………………………………………………………17 Collections management…………………………………17 Acquisitions and deaccessioning………………………...18 Cataloging, inventories, and records……………………..20 Preventative care, conservation, and storage…………….20 Communication…………………………………………………..22 Exhibition………………………………………………...23 Education………………………………………………...25 Study……………………………………………………..26 Research………………………………………………….26 Publications………………………………………………28 Summary…………………………………………………………28

3. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………..29 Research Questions………………………………………………………29 Research Design………………………………………………………….29 Sample……………………………………………………………………30 Criteria for Selection……………………………………………..30 Setting of the Study………………………………………………31 Sampling Technique……………………………………………..32 Measures…………………………………………………………………32 Data Collection Procedures………………………………...……………32

Interview Data…………………………………………………….33 Observational Data………………………………………………..36 Data from.Website and Publications….…..……………………...36 Researcher’s Role………………………….……………………..36 Supplemental Methods of Data Collection………………………36 Time Period for Data Collection…………………………………36 Ensuring High-Quality Data……………………………………..37 Pilot Test…………………………………………………………………38 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….38 Coding……………………………………………………………38 Interview Answers and Coding…………………………………..39 Examination of Data……………………………………………..40 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………….40 Time-lines………………………………………………………………..41 Summary…………………………………………………………………41

4. BACKGROUND OF THE RIJKSMUSEUM AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE…………………………………………………………...56 Background of the Rijksmuseum…………………………………………56 Establishment…………………………………………………….56 Mission……………………….…………………………………..57 Collection…………………….……………….………………….57 Renovations………………….…………………….…………….58 Current Display……………….………………………………….58 Organizational Structure of the Rijksmuseum…………………………….58 Rijksmuseum Departments………………………………………59 Curators at the Rijksmuseum…………………………………….61 Fine and Decorative Arts Department……………………61 The History of Department…………………….…………62 The Print Room……………………………..…….………62 Summary…………………………………………………………63

5. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA……………………………………………49 Interviews………………………………………………………………...49 Part One, Question One…………………………………………..49 Curator of Dutch History………………………………....49 Curator of Prints and Drawings…………………………..50 Curator of Furniture……………………………………....50 Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting………………….51 Part One, Question Two…………………………………………..52 Curator of Dutch History………………………………....52 Curator of Prints and Drawings…………………………..52 Curator of Furniture……………………………………....53 Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting………………….54 Part One, Question Three…………………………………………..54 Curator of Dutch History………………………………....54 Curator of Prints and Drawings…………………………..56 Curator of Furniture……………………………………....56 Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting………………….57 Part One, Question Four…………………………………………..58 Curator of Dutch History………………………………....58 Curator of Prints and Drawings…………………………..59 Curator of Furniture……………………………………....59 Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting………………….60 Part Two…………………………………………………………..60 Curator of Dutch History………………………………....60 Curator of Prints and Drawings…………………………..61 Curator of Furniture……………………………………....61 Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting………………….61 Part Three, Question One…..……………………………………..61 Curator of Dutch History………………………………....61 Curator of Prints and Drawings…………………………..62 Curator of Furniture……………………………………....63

Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting………………….64 Part Three, Question Two…….…………………………………..64 Curator of Dutch History………………………………....64 Curator of Prints and Drawings…………………………..65 Curator of Furniture……………………………………....65 Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting………………….66 Summary………………………………………………………….67 Observations…………………………..…………………………………..70 Communication………...…………………………………………70 Physical communication…….……………………………70 Semantic communication…….…………………………...71 Physical and semantic communication………...…………73 Preservation……………………………………………………….75 Summary……………………...…………………………………..77 Website and Written Sources………………………………………….…..77 Research………………………………...………………………...77 Collaboration……………………………………………...78 Publications…………………………..…………………………...78 Publications by interviewed curators……………………..79 Summary……………………………...…………………………..81

6. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION…………………………………………….82 Nature of Curatorial Practices at the Rijksmuseum…………………….....82 Curators’ Roles in Preservation……………………………………82 Importance of preservation………………………………..82 Ensuring preservation……………………………………..83 Decision-making process regarding preservation…………83 How to Communicate Information………………………………..84 Importance of communication……………….……………84 Exhibitions that connect to the public………………….....84 Honesty and sensitivity……………………………………84

vii

Connection between individual objects and collections…..84 How Curators Study Art Collections…………….………………..85 Importance of study………………………………………85 Reading……………………………………………….…..85 Contacts, networking, and collaboration……………….....85 Using study to communicate information………………...85 Scholarly publications………………………………….....85 Fulfillment of Educational Missions …………………………...... 86 Absence of explicit educational component in mission….86 Scholarly publications and communication of themes, topics, and issues….……………………………………...86 Curators’ Relationships with Other Staff Members……………...86 Decision making………………………………………..…86 Collaborative relationships………………………………..86 Reflection of Recent Changes in the Focus and Structure of Art Museums at the Rijksmuseum……………………………………………………....87 Focus on Visitors………………………………………………....87 Global public………………………………………….…...87 Multiple communication methods…………………………87 Employment of Business Management Techniques……………...88 Project management teams………………………………...88 Organizational structure…………………………………....88 Implications……………………………………………………………….88 Focus on the Public……………………………………………..…88 Collaboration and Equality Among Particular Staff Roles……..…89 Suggestions for Further Research………………………………....89 Conclusion….…………………………………………………………….90

APPENDICES..……………………………………………………………………...91

viii

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..127

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………………….136

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Curators’ Rank of Museum Functions at the Rijksmuseum……………...…….60

Table 2. Publications Written by Interviewed Curators since the Year 2000…………....80

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Rijksmuseum Organizational Chart…………………………………………...46

Figure 2. Floor plan of Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces………………………………....70

Figure 3. Diagram of Petronella Oortman’s Dolls’ House……………………………....73

Figure 4. Dutch Republic room, Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces, Amsterdam…………75

Figure 5. The Later Rembrandt room, Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces, Amsterdam...…76

Figure 6. Curatorial decision-making process regarding the preservation of objects

at the Rijksmuseum..……………………………………………….…………83

ABSTRACT

Curatorial practices are shifting due to recent changes in the focus and structure of U.S. art museums (Brenson, 1998; Bryk, 2001; Willumson, 2007). As a result, curators experienced conflicts due to a loss of their original audience, the collapse of their traditional hierarchy, new staff roles in museums, and the museum’s focus on visitors rather than art objects (Weil, 2003; Willumson, 2007). It was important to conduct this study to determine ways to resolve these conflicts so curators can properly function within their institutions and fulfill their larger goal of serving the public. Using a reconceptualized framework developed by van Mensch (1990), this study qualitatively explored curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The main data included four in-depth interviews with Rijksmuseum senior curators, observations at the Museum, and documents evaluation. The study uncovered how equality and collaboration among curators and staff can fulfill museum functions and may help resolve certain conflicts. It also revealed how in some cases curators can maintain their traditional functions while serving the broader public through the creation of exhibitions that facilitate education and provide meaningful connections. As a non-U.S. institution, the Rijkmuseum’s curatorial practices provided insight regarding problems experienced by U.S. art curators.

xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION This study explored the nature of curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The purpose of this study was to describe the personal experiences of curators. As a national institution and paradigm of excellence, the Rijksmuseum focuses on both a domestic and international public and has high standards regarding the museum functions of preservation, communication, and study. These aspects place the Museum in a leading position regarding contemporary curatorial practices. This institution’s curatorial practices may have the ability to inform contemporary U.S. curatorial practices. Statement of the Problem For the majority of the 20th century, museum curators were the focus of art museum practice (Willumson, 2007). They defined the mission of art museums with skill in their subject-areas and extensive backgrounds in the physical characteristics and history of art objects. In the last quarter of the 20th century, however, conflict regarding curatorial practices emerged outside of the realm of art history and within the museum’s administrative structure. This conflict resulted in the loss of curators’ traditional audience and the questioning of their expertise. Furthermore, museums experienced a collapse of their traditional hierarchy with the introduction of new staff roles and began to focus on people rather than objects (Weil, 2003; Willumson, 2007). These changes have put U.S. art museums in a state of crisis and subject to harsh criticism. Contemporary theorists claim that art museums are elitist while traditional scholars believe that art museums cater to the general public (Willumson, 2007). Critics from outside the field (Duncan, 1995; Ferguson, 1996; Preziosi, 1998) disagree with the idea of the museum as a neutral place that rewards excellence by exhibition. Regarding the museum’s true role, traditionalists suggest that museums abandoned their main function as places that acquire and conserve superior quality objects (Cuno, 2004; De Montebello, 2004; Munson, 2000). Others (American Association of Museums, 2002; 1984; Cochran, 1992) maintain that museums must accept their new position as social establishments. Such conflicts isolate curators within the institution, from their traditional audiences, and within the field of art history.

Area of Study Curatorial practices are shifting due to recent changes in the focus and structure of art museums (Brenson, 1998; Bryk, 2001; Willumson, 2007). As a result, curators have new relationships with other museum professionals and must embrace new perspectives and skills (Bryk, 2001). In some cases, these changes result in museum hierarchy and conflict. Changes in the Focus and Structure of U.S. Museums A number of changes impacted the focus and structure of art museums. These include a shift from collections to visitors and the employment of business management techniques (Bryk, 2001; Genoways & Ireland, 2003). Shift from collections to visitors. In the last 30 years, advances in the field of museum education resulted in a shift from collections to visitors (Willumson, 2007). This is evident in the United States where most consider art museums to be educational establishments (Hooper-Greenhill, 1999). Effects of the shift from collections to visitors are museums’ broadening of public programs and exhibitions and wider interpretations of stories (Bryk, 2001). This shift in focus should force curators to acknowledge new perspectives, skills, and ways of working with others such as educators, designers, and visitor-services staff. For instance, many times curators do not focus on connoisseurship, but on visitor studies and educational theory. Employment of business management techniques. The employment of business management techniques in museums began in the early 1990s (Griffin & Abraham, 1999; Mintzberg, 1983, 1989, 1991; Stille, 1991). Some museums are now professional bureaucracies run by external authorities who help manage the organizations. Museum professionals have mixed feelings about these developments. Some maintain that education and the combination of art and business take too much precedence over artistic judgments (Stille, 1991). Others hold that the efficient operations that result from business management techniques free curators. Staff Roles and Responsibilities in Museums In the United States, the shift of focus in museums from collections to visitors impacted key museum staff. Museums now allocate new roles and responsibilities for staff, however, there is also confusion concerning the role of traditional staff (Bryk, 2001;

Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). Hierarchy in museums and conflicts of interests among different museum departments can cause disagreement and rivalry among staff (Genoways & Ireland, 2003). New staff roles and responsibilities. In response to the recent focus on visitors, U.S. museums created new staff positions and stressed particular staff responsibilities. Currently, museums often have a person in charge of audience development who is responsible for the needs of museum audiences during the development of projects (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994). The person responsible for audience development investigates actual and potential visitors and consults specialists in order to understand target groups. Another newly developed role is that of exhibition developers (Harrison, 1993). Exhibition developers focus on visitor experience and participation in response to museum exhibits rather than the display of artifacts and content decided by curators. Some maintain that the functions of exhibition developers mirror recent developments that are more receptive to the needs of the public. The prominence of education also had a major impact on museums. The alteration of staff roles and the creation of new positions are the result of education becoming the main task of museums (Cochran, 1992). As museum education gains a larger function, museum staff will have to incorporate it in their duties. Changes in traditional staff’s roles. The shift in museums from collections to visitors impacted the roles of traditional museum staff. This is especially true for the new controversial relationship between curators and educators, designers, and visitor services staff (Bryk, 2001). The new concern that museums have for visitors resulted in the creation of specialized departments including education and exhibition design. Currently, museum staff in specialized departments carry out functions that curators once performed or did not deem important. In the past, curator training stressed connoisseurship and focused on objects and material culture (Bryk, 2001). Likewise, curators relied on their instincts and knowledge of subject matter to direct the interpretation of objects and exhibition design. The traditional role of the curator included at least three main tasks: (a) managing collections; (b) historical functions; and (c) exhibition development. Prior to the 1980s, curators had narrow roles, and they designed exhibitions based on what they believed visitors wanted

to see. Curators collected objects according to their specific interest area or expertise and they did not target their exhibitions to the broader public. In addition, curators communicated exhibition information in terms of connoisseurship. The role of the exhibition developer has had an impact on the curator-driven exhibition (Harrison, 1993). Exhibition developers focus on participation instead of the curatorial interests of presentation and content. This new role and concern for experiential aspects have curators not just concerned for their job positions, but also academic soundness. For example, curators fear that the new style of exhibits reject the significance of collections using an inadequate amount of objects. Furthermore, curators believe that such exhibits utilize technological and interactive means to communicate information. Curators commonly worry that people do not care for their research any more. Because the creation of new museum departments in areas such as education and exhibition design carry out functions that curators once performed, there is confusion between curatorial functions and the roles of other museum staff (Bryk, 2001). It is also crucial to recognize that it is not general practice for curators to collaborate with museum colleagues. Museum hierarchy and conflict. Currently, the organizational structure of museums can result in rivalry or conflict – especially in cases concerning authority (Genoways & Ireland, 2003). Those working in areas such as education, exhibition design, or public programs often receive less money than those in other museum departments. Many times, this leads them to think that they are inferior to those working with collections or researching. Such clashes isolate departments and prevent communication – thereby constraining museums from upholding their missions. Museum departments often have different goals that can lead to disputes and promote rivalry (Genoways & Ireland, 2003). It is common for conflict to exist between public-oriented departments and departments concerned with collections. Likewise, the goals of departments often contradict each other, such as exhibiting an object versus preserving it.

Changing Curatorial Role The developments concerning the focus and structure of museums do suggest a changing role for curators that is more collaborative, global, and structured. However, it is unclear whether or not curators’ professional preparation helps them cope with these developments. Currently, art curators must balance activities on both global and local levels (Ramirez, 2000). They often serve as brokers, translators, or cultural agents. This is due to the range of players, viewpoints, and concerns as well as the globalizing developments and the conflicts they trigger in contemporary museological practice (Kratz & Karp, 2006). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to address the problems surrounding current U.S. curatorial practices by exploring a non-U.S. institution that is a paradigm of excellence. It described the personal experiences of curators at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This study asked: What is the nature of curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum and how do these practices reflect recent changes in the focus and structure of art museums? Significance and Justification of the Study It was important to examine contemporary curatorial methods at the Rijksmuseum, a non-U.S. institution and paradigm of excellence, in light of the recent changes in the focus and structure of art museums. These changes have put U.S. museums in a state of crisis. Curators experience conflicts from the loss of their original audience, the collapse of the traditional hierarchy in museums, new staff roles in museums, and the museum’s focus on visitors rather than art objects (Weil, 2003; Willumson, 2007). It was also crucial to understand curatorial practices due to the conflict regarding the museum’s role as a social establishment versus a place that acquires and conserves superior quality objects (Willumson, 2007). Now that visitors are the main focus of museums, curatorial practices should consider them as their most important concern. Likewise, it was unclear how curators should interact with fellow staff members. The information uncovered at the Rijksmuseum may help resolve aspects of such conflicts.

This is essential for curators to properly function within their institutions and fulfill their larger goal of serving the public. The use of qualitative methods in this study allowed for an in-depth description of curatorial practices and settings (Mertens, 2005). I understood that by using these methods, the problem statement would have a developing nature and would serve as just a beginning point for the study. The trends determined in the Rijksmuseum’s curatorial practices may provide an example for contemporary curatorial practices in the United States. As a national institution and paradigm of excellence, the Museum is in a leading position regarding contemporary curatorial practices. Framework, Paradigm, and Assumptions I used a framework developed by van Mensch (1990) to structure this study. Van Mensch’s framework modified the traditional functions of museums (acquisition, conservation, study, interpretation, exhibition) by reconceptualizing them into three: (a) preservation; (b) communication; and (c) study (Noble, 1970). The paradigm for this study was phenomenological because it asks for the meaning, structure, and essence of a phenomenon for a particular group of people (Patton, 2002). Phenomenology looks for the nature of a phenomenon and what makes a thing what it is and without which it could not be (van Manen, 1990). A phenomenological approach focuses on investigating how people make sense of experience and change it into consciousness, both independently and as collective meaning (Patton, 2002). Collecting these data required conducting in-depth interviews with those who directly experienced the phenomenon of interest rather than having an experience that is secondhand. Phenomenology has a number of philosophical assumptions that made the paradigm choice appropriate. The ontology of phenomenology holds that there are multiple, socially constructed realities (Mertens, 2005). Epistemologically, there is an interactive connection between the researcher and participants that allows values to be made clearly. The methodology is mainly qualitative with an account of both dialectical and contextual aspects. These philosophical assumptions are suitable for this study because curators encounter different dilemmas in their practice. For example, curators

work with various art objects that may be composed of different materials (i.e. silver, ceramics, paper) or are from distinct styles or periods. These factors may affect display methods and interpretation. Curators must also face uncommon ethical issues in which they must rely on their own judgment (i.e. ethnographic objects). Because there is no single way for curators to function, phenomenology will allow for curators to share meaning independently. It will also convey how curators function in a broader sense. Definitions of Terms The terms below provide definitions for the purpose of this study. These definitions derive from the International Council of Museums (ICOM) for the purpose of neutrality and its international scope rather than the American Association of Museums (AAM). Accession (or accessioning) is the official acceptance of an object into a collection and its recording into the museum’s assets. It usually includes a transfer of title (Boylan, 2004). Acquisition refers to an addition to the collection of a museum either by bequest, donation, exchange, field collecting, or purchase (Boylan, 2004). Cataloging is the assignment of an object to a classification system and with a record that includes areas such as provenance, identification, accession, and catalog numbers, and the object’s location in the collection storage area (Boylan, 2004). Collections management refers to the organization and care of collections with concern for their enduring safety and physical well-being. It includes the issues of conservation, access and use, inventory, and record keeping as well as administration of the overall composition of the collections in relation to the museum’s mission and goals (Boylan, 2004). Collection management policy is an inclusive written statement that explains how, what, and why a museum collects. It is a document that is public and expresses a particular museum’s professional standards regarding collecting and care of collections (Boylan, 2004). Condition report is a precise, written, and photographic description of an object. It is also the documentation of an object’s state of preservation at a particular moment that is updated each time the object is included in an activity, such as being in an exhibition or put on loan (Boylan, 2004).

Conservator (or restorer) is a person who technically examines, preserves, conserves, and restores cultural property (Boylan, 2004). Deaccession is to permanently remove an object or collection from a museum’s holdings and records (Boylan, 2004). Documentation refers to all records of information that pertain to an object or collection (Boylan, 2004). The term also means the procedure of creating records relating to each object in a collection. Exhibition designer refers to a professionally trained individual who makes forms and solutions for an exhibition structure or space, and creates and organizes useful, decorative, and artistic design (Boylan, 2004). Exhibition design is the planned structure for stages of an exhibition. Exhibition project is a description of a proposed exhibition (Boylan, 2004). Loan refers to the temporary loan of an artifact or collection from a museum, institution, or individual to another museum without a change of ownership (Boylan, 2004). Mission is the summation of a museum’s reason for existence that generally includes who it is, its function, whom it functions for, and why it functions (Boylan, 2004). Museum is a non-profit, permanent institution that serves society and is open to the public. It also researches, acquires, conserves, exhibits, and communicates for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, the tangible and intangible evidence of people, and their environment (Boylan, 2004). Museum professionals consist of museum personnel (whether paid or unpaid) who have specialized training, or possess equivalent practical experience in any field relevant to the management and operations of a museum (Boylan, 2004). Preservation is the reduction of any and all future losses to museum collections (Boylan, 2004). Preventative care is the maintenance of collections in stable condition through preventive maintenance, condition surveys, environmental controls, and pest management rather than using processes involving physical intervention (i.e. restoration) (Boylan, 2004). Records are part of a system to collect management or program information (Boylan, 2004).

Risk refers to the amount of danger of loss to museum collections that can be total and catastrophic, or gradual and cumulative from any cause (Boylan, 2004). Visitors (or audience) can be actual, potential, and virtual. Actual visitors are a museum’s current audience, potential visitors are those within the same community or region who a museum may hope to draw in the future, and virtual visitors are those utilizing the Internet for a museum’s information and other resources, generally through websites and on-line databases of the museum’s collections (Boylan, 2004). Summary Recent changes in U.S. art museums have put them in a state of crisis. These changes include focusing on visitors rather than art objects and the use of business management techniques. As a result of these transformations, museums now have broader public programs and widely interpret stories. These changes also affected curators, who are no longer the focus of art museum practice (Willumson, 2007). As a result, curators have new priorities and relationships with other museum professionals that can potentially cultivate conflicts. With these developments, it remains unclear how curators should function in such environments. This study explored curatorial practices at a non-U.S. institution and paradigm of excellence (the Rijksmuseum) to see if they could inform U.S. practices. This was a significant study due to the current conflicts curators face in contemporary U.S. museum environments. Qualitative methods facilitated an in-depth description of curatorial practices and settings. Van Mensch’s (1990) reconceptualized framework structured the study while the use of a phenomenological paradigm looked for the meaning, structure, and essence of a phenomenon for this particular group of people (Patton, 2002). The experiences of curators at the Rijksmuseum may have the ability to determine trends that can inform contemporary U.S. practice. In chapter two, I will discuss the literature related to the field of curatorship. I will frame the literature using van Mensch’s (1990) reconceptualized functions of museums: (a) to preserve; (b) to communicate; and (c) to study. This framework will also develop the methodology described in chapter three. The methodology will include: (a) research questions; (b) research design; (c) sample; (d) measures; (e) data collection procedures; (f) data analysis; (g) limitations of the study; and (h) timelines.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW There are three major sections in the literature review. The first provides a background of curatorship in conjunction with museum development. The second is a review of the current relevant literature regarding curatorship. The third discusses the research problem in relation to the literature. Background of Curatorship Curatorship evolved along with museums. The functions associated with curatorship can be seen as following the larger goals of the museum and the trends of particular historical periods. In the United States, museums and curatorship developed according to U.S. cultural needs and changed along with the developing U.S. culture (Orosz, 1990). Origins of Museums and Curatorship U.S. museums and curatorship have European origins (Hooper-Greenhill, 1992; Orosz, 1990). Individual European collectors helped to lay the foundation for curatorship and the modern museum. Collectors of rarities. There is evidence that curatorship began with the individual collector and that the origin of the museum lay in private display (Hooper- Greenhill, 1992). These phenomena were prevalent in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, when museums existed as cabinets of curiosities or Kunst-und Wunderkammern (rooms of art and marvels) (Kenseth, 1992). During this time, the features that defined most cabinets of curiosities included diversity, abundance, and an interest in the unique and unusual. Collectors of rarities were in a sense pre-curators. Although collections of rarities existed in earlier periods such as the treasuries of medieval churches and feudal lords, they became prevalent in the 16th century (Kenseth, 1992). The collectors of these early collections included monarchs, princes, natural scientists, and professionals in medicine, the law, and education. These collector-curators established collections of rarities throughout Europe that could be numbered in the thousands. The Renaissance encouraged the increase of these types of museums and the development of collecting overall. This period concentrated on inquisitiveness, understanding all facets of the physical world, and highlighting the accomplishments of individuals. The principle belief behind the establishment of early museums was the

humanist goal of complete knowledge - a notion that held that man could know everything throughout his lifetime. As such humanist ideas spread throughout Europe, so did the creation of all-encompassing encyclopedic collections. Organized application and scientific method. By the time of the Enlightenment, organized application and scientific method were well in progress (Lewis, 1984). This age of development had learned societies – many of which created collections. For example, the Etruscan Academy founded in 1726 arranged excavations and eventually opened its Galleria del publico to show archaeological and art objects from its collection. At the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century, collections began to open in various parts of Europe. However, these were mostly the result of royal preference rather than public support. National heritage. It was during the 19th century that Europeans recognized the contribution museums could make regarding national awareness (Lewis, 1984). Also realized was that museums were suitable establishments for preserving a nation’s history and heritage. Museums were understood to be cultural centers where the general public could experience intellectual and moral improvement (Orosz, 1990). Curators conveyed information through the collection and exhibition of three-dimensional objects and the utilization of didactic displays. Local and state museums. Museums in industrialized nations changed dramatically at the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century due to the movement of populations to urban centers (Lewis, 1984). Local authorities or patrons began to develop their own museums. In the United States, many local groups of citizens initiated the creation of museums. In countries such as France and Russia, centralized state museums developed to make cultural heritage widely accessible. Specialized museums. New, specialized kinds of museums emerged in the 20th century (Lewis, 1984). These diverged from the previous encyclopedic museums. For example, a museum specifically dedicated to Scandinavian folklore opened in Stockholm in 1873. Museums also made an effort to preserve and exhibit a nation’s recent history. Sometimes nations used museums as places for propaganda. Germany, for instance, created more than two thousand Heimatmuseen (local history museums) after World War I.

Professional and governmental awareness. Another development affecting museums that began in the late 19th century and into the 20th century was professional and governmental awareness (Lewis, 1984). This awareness was national and international and provoked cultural action. It also encouraged a number of professional associations such as the Museums Association (1889), the AAM (1906), the Russian Museums Conference (1919), and the Japanese Museums Association (1928). The League of Nations, created after World War I, promoted peace and security and developed the International Museums Office from its Committee of International Co- operation. In 1946, the United Nations formed the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO incorporated a Division of Cultural Heritage that includes museums, sites, and monuments, and promotes cultural understanding and peace among nations. Also formed in 1946 was ICOM, a professional non-governmental organization based on national committees. UNCESCO recognizes ICOM, which sometimes provides the former professional advice. The Development of U.S. Museums U.S. museums have a history linked to education. Conversely, elitism, affluence, and high culture are other characteristics associated with the development of U.S. museums (Blau, 1991; Orosz, 1990). It is only recently that museums began to focus on the needs of the general public (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Weil, 1990). Origin of U.S. museums. Although most acknowledge that education is the basic function of U.S. museums since their founding, there is debate concerning the purpose of their existence prior to 1870 (Low, 1942; Orosz, 1990; Taylor, 1945; Zeller, 1989; Zolberg, 1984). Orosz (1990) asserted that U.S. museums were founded by Americans according to U.S. cultural needs and changed along with the developing culture. This view refuted Low’s (1942) notion that U.S. museums prior to 1870 were mediocre reproductions of those in Europe. Taylor (1945) also held that U.S. museums were a U.S. phenomenon. However, Taylor was like Low in that he did not believe there was a substantial U.S. museum movement prior to 1870. Orosz (1990) contested the notion that museums prior to 1870 were elitist depositories for fantastic objects. Although Orosz acknowledged that European museums did influence U.S. museums, the main force driving the development of museums in the

United States was American in nature. Orosz maintained that there was an unofficial museum movement in the United States between 1740 and 1870. This informal movement possessed educational worth and showed inclinations toward scholarship. However, the features of education and professionalism were in constant conflict. When they were brought together during the period between 1850 and 1870, the formation of the model of the current museum organization occurred. Modern U.S. museums. The majority of historians accept that the U.S art museum emerged at the end of the Civil War (Blau, 1991; Burt, 1977; Zeller, 1989). According to Burt (1977), the modern art museum in the United States surfaced in the 1870s. This decade saw the appearance of some of the most important U.S. museums including the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the Metropolitan, and the Pennsylvania Academy of Arts. These art museums set the example for later institutions. Unlike the European precedents, nearly all U.S. museums are public (Weil, 1983). Elitism and affluence characterized U.S. art museums in the 19th century (Blau, 1991). The patrons for early U.S. cultural institutions were the wealthy upper class (Whitehall, 1970). Upper-class patrons asserted their prominence and rank through their support of the arts (Burt, 1977; Hall, 1984; Trachtenberg, 1982). For example, wealthy patrons in the late 19th century donated money for libraries, museums, and galleries just when the urban middle class became interested in culture and had adequate means and time to invest in it (Hall, 1984). A number of historians asserted that high-cultural trends developed after U.S. society became less divisive (Blau, 1991). Disparities in race, class, and ethnicity encouraged this divisiveness. Hall (1984) observed that in the 20th century the appearance of a national culture began to bring groups of people together through the connection of ways of life and local economies. Allen (1983) also described how consumer capitalism functioned in ways that combined communities. With popular culture democratized, places that promoted common interests and perceptions emerged (Blau, 1991). These places aided in the creation of an agreement of the worth of different types of cultural expression. At the beginning of the 20th century, the U.S. public became curious about elite culture (Blau, 1991). The stimulation of this interest in elite culture may have been the

profusion of wealth in the 19th century that provided the means for creating cultural institutions. According to historians and sociologists, it was the educated middle class that supported them (Blau, 1989; DiMaggio, 1987; Gans, 1985). Traditional functions of museums. For most of the 20th century, the primary functions of U.S. museums focused on the objects to be displayed (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Noble, 1970; Weil, 1990). The main audiences for museums, and thus curators, were the educated middle class and elite. Noble (1970) provided a description of the traditional functions of museums. He described five responsibilities: (a) acquisition; (b) conservation; (c) study; (d) interpretation; and (e) exhibition. According to Noble, the first responsibility of museums was to collect and those that avoided this duty had to rely on borrowing from other institutions. He stated that it would be useless to collect objects if they could not be properly cared for. Therefore, the second responsibility of museums should be conservation because it was important that they ensure that their objects did not deteriorate. Noble described study, the third responsibility of museums, as the principal role of the curator, who must obtain scholarly information concerning the object. The fourth responsibility of museums Noble mentioned was interpretation, which he described in terms of knowledge and maintained that it could take the form of publications, bulletins, newsletters, lectures, audio-visual tools, television, and well- written labels. The last responsibility Noble mentioned was exhibition. He thought exhibition was the culmination of the other four responsibilities and provided the public with direct access to actual objects. Noble compared each of the five responsibilities to fingers on a hand – each being separate, yet unified for the same goal. Shift in museum functions. At the end of the 20th century, a change occurred in U.S. museums. They began to concentrate on visitors rather than collections (Hooper- Greenhill, 1994; Weil, 1990). The museum functions began to focus on their potential impact on visitors and the community (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994; Weil, 1990). Weil (1990) described three factors that could account for this shift in museum focus. The first was the AAM’s accreditation program that began in 1970 that studies the success of museum programs. The AAM is an organization that represents museums, museum professionals, and non-paid museum staff in the United States. The second theme was the increasingly

technical character of museums that adds to their expertise. The third was the accountability felt by nonprofit organizations for the resources they care for and the results attained through their assets. The current purpose of U.S. museums is to function for the public they serve. The AAM stressed this idea by affirming that the mission of a museum must clearly state its dedication to serving its public and be crucial to its activities (Cochran, 1992). The AAM also maintained that museums should be responsive to and represent the public they serve by including everyone in their communities equally (Cochran, 1992). Although education was important in the foundation of U.S. museums, it did not become their main function until recently. The current view of museums in the United States is that they are educational institutions – an idea that popularized after the AAM created the report Museums for a New Century (1984; Willumson, 2007; Zeller, 1985). This report incited debates over the educational role of museums and stated that museum learning should expand the capacity to produce ideas and develop opinions as well as form an aesthetic and cultural awareness. Museums for a New Century also claimed that the needs of schools should shape museum programs rather than the strengths of museums. Museum educators in the United States inspired by Museums for a New Century (1984) created a task force to examine the development of museum education. Their report, Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums, claimed that education was the main task of museums (Cochran, 1992). The report focused on three central ideas: (a) dedication to education should be fundamental to a museum’s public service, and it should be expressed in the mission and in critical activities; (b) the operations and programs in museums should reflect the diversity of society and should be inclusive and welcoming for different types of visitors; and (c) it is important for a museum to have active and strong leadership inside and outside the museum community in order to satisfy the possibility for public service. Summary In Europe, curatorship most likely began with individual collectors (Hooper- Greenhill, 1992). Likewise, the origin of the museum lay in their private displays. As such collections grew, institutions emerged to house and show them (Kenseth, 1992). By

the time of the Enlightenment, organized application and scientific methods structured collections (Lewis, 1984). During the 19th century, museums became places for national heritage and developed in local and state levels when populations moved to urban centers. In the 20th century, museums became focused with the appearance of specialized museums and creation of professional and governmental associations related to museums. Education defined U.S. museums since their inception. Many historians agree that the modern U.S. museum emerged after the Civil War in the 1870s (Blau, 1991; Burt, 1977; Zeller, 1989). Elitism and affluence characterized U.S. museums in the 19th century, and these features, therefore, influenced the functions of museums (Blau, 1991). It was not until the end of the 20th century that the functions of museums began to consider visitors as their main priority rather than the objects they collected (Hooper- Greenhill, 1994; Weil, 1990). Because education became the main function of museums, they began to undergo a number of changes that affected the way they operate. As discussed in the previous chapter, the new focus of museums impacted curatorial functions (Bryk, 2001). Current Literature Because this study examines curatorial practices, the current literature focuses on the field of curatorship. Curators must account for the welfare and scope of the collections they supervise (Edson & Dean, 1996). They are experts in their specific areas and supply information, conduct research, and supervise the preservation, use, and improvement of the collections in their care. Curatorial practices constantly deal with issues of preservation, access, interpretation, exhibition, acquisition, disposal, research, and publication. These issues should enhance and facilitate the functions of museums. The literature examined in this study relates to these issues. Van Mensch’s Paradigm for Museum Functions A new paradigm concerning the functions of museums emerged from van Mensch (1990). This paradigm modified the five traditional functions of museums by reconceptualizing them into three: (a) to preserve; (b) to communicate; and (c) to study. Van Mensch retained the missions to preserve and to study. However, the paradigm considered the mission to collect as a prerequisite of preservation and combined the functions to interpret and to exhibit in the mission to communicate.

Van Mensch’s (1990) paradigm closed the gap between collecting and preserving and approached these as different functions with the same purpose (Weil, 1990). This paradigm is also different from much of museum practice that holds that interpretation is separate from the exhibition of objects and occurs following their display. Van Mensch’s view of communication acknowledged the influence that exhibition designers have regarding the display of objects due to their personal point of views and assumptions. The paradigm described by van Mensch (1990) structured the following review of current literature. The organization of the literature is according to the main functions of museums: (a) preservation; (b) communication; and (c) study. Preservation Preservation refers to the preservation of collections and is “the reduction of any and all future losses to the collection” (Boylan, 2004, p. 210). The area of preservation includes: collections management; acquisitions and deaccessioning; cataloging, inventories, and records; and conservation and storage. Curators are experts regarding the collections they manage. Their position requires the advancement and preservation of comprehensive, current, and intelligible information about the collections in their care (Edson & Dean, 1996). According to Edson and Dean (1996) curators should collaborate with registrars, conservators, collections managers, and related staff to appropriately manage collections. Likewise, curators working in small museums must hold a number of preservation responsibilities. Collections management. Effectively controlling the collections in their care is a priority of museums. Genoways and Ireland (2003) held that museums must effectively manage their collections as they preserve them for long-term use as well as follow their missions and ensure public trust. In addition, museums should create articulate collection management policies that define goals for the development and use of the collection. Genoways and Ireland claimed that a collection management policy should include eight issues: (a) collection management and scope; (b) acquisitions and accession; (c) cataloging, inventories, and records; (d) loans; (c) care of the collection; (f) collection access; (g) insurance; and (h) deaccession. Case (1995) stated that strong collections management policies are governing tools used by museum administrators that ensure the regulation, use, and nature of

museum collections. Although curators have collection management responsibilities, Case maintained that registrars normally advocate for newer and better collection management policies. Case also wrote that the most important component of a collections management policy is the museum’s overarching statement of purpose. Regarding collecting plans in collections policies, Gardner and Merritt (2002) asserted that many museums do not have these although they believe they do. According to Gardner and Merritt, collections planning should include staff from all museum departments and in some cases external stakeholders. Gardner and Merritt listed the components of most collection plans: (a) identifying the museum’s audience(s) and how their needs will be served by the collections; (b) reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the existing collections; (c) including a “gap analysis” contrasting the real and ideal collection; (d) setting priorities for acquisition and deaccessioning based on the needs assessment and gap analysis; (f) identifying “complementary collections” held by other museums or organizations that may affect the museum’s collections choices; and (g) taking into account existing or needed resources. Acquisitions and deaccessioning. Curators typically initiate or authorize the acquisition and deaccession of objects in museum collections (Edson & Dean, 1996). They must encounter a number of issues and ethical dilemmas associated with acquiring and disposing objects in their collections. An accession is an object obtained by a museum and placed in its permanent collection (Carnell & Buck, 1998). It can also refer to the act of recording or processing an addition to a museum’s permanent collection. Carnell and Buck wrote that acquisitions portions of collections management policies should list all permanent collections and special collections (i.e. educational use or on loan). In addition, acquisitions sections should define types of collections such as art, history, archival, anthropology, archaeology, etc. Carnell and Buck stated that sets of procedures should supplement acquisitions policies concerning objects in permanent collections that may be accessioned, placed in secondary collections, researched, or sold. Carnell and Buck (1998) described a museum deaccession as “an object that has been removed permanently from the collection” or “the formal removal of accessioned objects from the museum’s permanent collection” (p. 362). Objects taken from a

museum’s unaccessioned collections do undergo a removal process, however, they are not deaccessions. Although deaccessioning was a common practice in museums, Morris (1998) mentioned that in recent years, new perceptions regarding the issue have brought forth debate regarding legal matters, public expectations, and ethical codes. According to Morris, major factors in this debate include upset donors of deaccessioned objects, the violation of legal and ethical codes by staff or trustees who gain financially from deaccessioned objects, and the use of money generated from deaccessioned objects to assist other museum functions or financial responsibilities. Morris stated that these controversies encourage curators to carefully make decisions and follow ethical policies and procedures prior to deaccessioning objects from the collections in their care. Professional museum organizations address the issue of deaccessioning by providing guidelines for when it is or is not appropriate. ICOM (2006) wrote that museums must have legal powers allowing for disposals or meet the conditions concerning disposals stipulated during the time of acquisition. It also declared that deaccessioning should occur from museum collections only when there is sufficient knowledge of the object’s significance, character, legal standing, and if this action will harm the public’s trust. The museum’s governing body should be accountable for deaccessioning and must act in conjunction with the museum’s director and curator of the particular collection. According to the AAM (2000), the disposal of collections can be done only if it advances the museum’s mission. Proceeds from the disposal of collections must be used for acquisition or direct care of collections. Morris (1998) revealed that even though deaccessioning is controversial, there is a convincing case for it. Morris claimed that deaccessions should be considered only when objects are: (a) not within the scope or mission; (b) beyond the capability of the museum to maintain; (c) not useful for research, exhibition, or educational programs in the foreseeable future; (d) duplicates of other collections; (e) poor, less important, incomplete, or unauthentic examples; (f) physically deteriorated/hazardous materials; (g) in the case of zoos, the death of a specimen; (h) subject to legislative mandate (e.g. repatriation); and (i) subject to contractual donor restrictions the museum is no longer able to meet.

Regarding deaccessioning, Besterman (1992) maintained that curatorial ethics should stipulate that curators show the same duty of care for all accessioned objects however they were acquired. Besterman also thought that it is unethical to neglect material (i.e. thievery, deterioration). Cataloging, inventories, and records. Keeping track of objects and their condition is a function commonly associated with registrars (Case, 1995). However, curatorial knowledge of these areas influences the display of objects. Cataloging, as described by Genoways and Ireland (2003) refers to “the creation of a full collection record” that “will contain full descriptive detail about that object, assembly, or lot, cross-referenced to other records or files, such as accession records and donor files” (p. 181). Items receive cataloging numbers that connect them to records. Museums utilize inventories to determine the status of objects and their records. Genoways and Ireland (2003) maintained that museums need consistent methods for inventorying objects including routine spot-check inventories. Also described were three types of records: (a) photographs; (b) condition reports; and (c) conservation reports. Genoways and Ireland explained that photographs are important for documenting the condition of an object and providing a visual description of it. Likewise, condition reports must be created for valuable or vulnerable museum objects and allow the museum to note any damage. General staff and conservators find condition reports essential for indicating the alteration of objects. Preventative care, conservation, and storage. Another area of collections management that curators must consider is preventative care, also called preventative conservation. Fisher (1998) defined preventative care as the “mitigation of deterioration and damage to cultural property through the formulation and implementation of policies and procedures for the following: (a) appropriate environmental conditions; (b) handling and maintenance procedures for storage, exhibition, packing, transport, and use; (c) integrated pest management; (d) emergency preparedness and response; and (e) reformatting/duplication. In regards to planning and constructing museums, Genoways and Ireland (2003) wrote that museum professionals such as curators, conservators, and facilities managers

should consult architects throughout the planning process to meet the preservation needs of collections. Concerning museums’ collection storage, Wilcox (1995) recommended reducing the amount of actions in given areas because there is a greater chance that activities will come into contact with one another. This is also important in museums’ collection storage areas for security and conservation reasons. Wilcox also explained how a collection storage area should: (a) sustain the best environmental conditions to guarantee preservation of the collections; (b) allow for physical accessibility to the collections; and (c) provide an organization of the collections that efficiently utilizes space. Conservation includes both preservation and restoration. Staniforth (1992) explained how ensuring the preservation of art works involves controlling and measuring: (a) light; (b) temperature; (c) relative humidity; (d) air pollution; (e) air-conditioning; and (f) exhibition cases and packing cases. Bradley (1992) stated that the conservation aspects of storing and displaying art works include: (a) security; (b) handling and mounting; (c) environmental considerations (i.e. dust, insects, pollutant gases); and (d) control of relative humidity, temperature, and light levels. There are a number of differences between conservation and restoration. Bomford (1997) asserted that museums currently emphasize conservation, an approach that prevents deterioration. This is because restoration is questionable since it means returning a painting to its original condition – a task that is not realistic. However, Ashely-Smith (1994) held that restoration should conserve objects so that they can be viewed, used, and restored with historical accuracy to their original purpose and beauty. Although, conservators should employ reversible processes in order to ensure that restoration is not subject to the standards of a particular period. The curator’s involvement in matters concerning conservation is another common issue in museums. Barclay (1990) wrote that curators intellectually care for art works while conservators physically care for art works. This is because curators situate art works in historical and contemporary contexts using their knowledge of art history. Conservators, on the other hand, attend to an art work’s appearance and structural well- being. Barclay asserted that clear communication among curators and conservators is fundamental for maintaining and using the collections. Cannon-Brookes (1994) explained

how trained scholar-curators are essential for the conservation of museum collections. The scholar-curator’s specialized knowledge of museum objects and interpretive and educational functions can help solve common conservation problems. However, scholar- curators need resources and training to be vital components during conservation processes. According to Swain (1998), curators and conservators manage museum storage, although managers and registrars also consider this area as a major concern. Swain viewed storage as significant to the preservation process because more than 80 percent of museum collections are in storage areas. Communication The literature that relates to communication in art museums includes the areas of exhibition, interpretation, and education. Concerning exhibition design, the information consists of design approaches, frameworks for communication, visitors, and object interpretation. Regarding education, the literature includes museums’ educational missions and methods of learning. Hooper-Greenhill (2004) described a number of aspects related to communication in museums. Most notably that there were four main changes regarding communication in art museums: (a) the introduction of new curatorial roles; (b) the concept of differentiated audiences; (c) the emergence of new voices; and (d) the development of new narratives. Hooper-Greenhill considered communication to be a process of transmission and communication as a part of culture. Likewise, communication could be compared to educational theory because each notion of communication is straightforward and considers the “audience” or “partner.” Improved communication in museums is another topic discussed in the literature. Hooper-Greenhill (2004) described how museums could become better communicators. This could be achieved by developing a type of action research that allows curators or educators to contemplate personal practices and then modify them for improved procedures. Curators and educators could advance their personal practices regarding communication by focusing on action research that facilitates self-awareness and self- evaluation. A challenge for art museums when trying to communicate information is the ability to convey the issue of identity. Hooper-Greenhill (2004) explored the

considerations of narrative and voice – that is what is said and who says it, as well as interpretation, or who is listening. These cultural approaches strongly concentrate on creating meaning. Hooper-Greenhill affirmed that curators either do not know or do not consider issues related to cultural identity and that museums have yet to define their roles as communicators. Ravelli (2006) provided a set of frameworks for examining the difficulties of museum communication. Ravelli argued that communication is an active process of meaning-making and is at the core of institutional procedures. Concerning the communication of contemporary art, Bonami (2001) stated that it is not possible to succeed in curating for a broad or small audience. Curating for a general audience will lead to claims that the exhibition was one-dimensional. Likewise, curating for the art world will lead to accusations that the exhibition included only a small number of people. Bonami held that no one will care about an exhibition that curators curated only for themselves. When exhibiting contemporary art, Bonami concluded that curators should have a message when they curate – otherwise they should not attempt the exhibition. Exhibition. Exhibition design is the method that allows curators to communicate information. There is much literature concerning the creation of exhibitions. For example, Miles (1982) and Screven (1986) described exhibition design approaches using research and educational theories. Braverman (1988) discussed how to design exhibits for instructional purposes. Glaser (1976) advocated a psychology of instruction in the design process. According to Lan, Hsui, and Wei (2005), exhibition areas are products of designers’ experiences. Lan, Hsui, and Wei proposed a scientific method by designing the spatial arrangement of artistic exhibits. Regarding the purpose of exhibitions, Vergo (1994) stated that they should not just serve as enjoyment or appreciation, but provide insight of the objects on display. This understanding encompasses the unraveling or explanation to oneself of the different meanings the artist gave to the objects. Vergo also described exhibitions whose sole objective is to draw in large crowds and make money as “unreflective exhibition making” (p. 149).

The curator’s role in exhibition design is another issue associated with museum communication. Rice (1997) stated that curators’ desire for advancement in their fields through ground-breaking scholarship is a priority in exhibition design. This aspiration, however, does not consider visitors’ needs during the planning process of an exhibition. As a result, visitors have problems understanding exhibitions due to the intellectual tendencies of curators. Nicks (2002) considered interpretation as the primary concern for curators during exhibition development. This is because curators facilitate the presentation and interpretation of collections while developing exhibitions. Nicks asserted that curatorship is at the core of exhibition projects and is necessary to present museum collections or borrowed collections. Curatorial practices provide significant insight during the exhibition process including devising exhibition concepts, curatorial research, collection evaluation, selection and development, documentation, and conservation. Timms and Williamson (1997) discussed the initial ambiguity of curatorial practices. They explained how curators begin projects by asking themselves what they are going to curate and why they should select particular artists, ideas, or periods. Curators experience problems when they begin curation projects and have to choose the focus – especially those that work in publicly funded, state institutions. Timms and Williamson also revealed the pressures associated with curation including the representation of projects in ways that are neutral and unbiased. Although there is a belief that curators should be neutral mediators who work with artists and audiences without letting their own preconceptions or partialities affect the curation process, Timms and Williamson contended that this is unlikely. They maintained that it is okay for curators to acknowledge their particular biases regarding the artists they choose to work with. Corral (2001) also mentioned how the curatorial profession cannot be neutral. As stated by Corral, it is tied to an enthusiasm, ardor, and reverence for art. Likewise, the range of art chosen is a position and concept. Contrary to the belief held by Timms and Williamson (1997) and Corral (2001) that curators cannot be neutral, Rosenthal (2001) wrote that visitors come to museums to hear the artist’s “voice,” not the curator’s. Rosenthal claimed that curators are facilitators

and their primary function should be conveying the artist’s viewpoint in each work they install. Heartney (2001) described how curators address issues related to the ideologies that museums represent. According to Heartney, curators created exhibitions that provided insight into how the Victoria and Albert Museum in London gives the impression of a national identity and an aestheticism. Curators highlighted how the Victoria and Albert Museum tended to aestheticize works that were functional. Heartney claimed that the curators’ ability to surprise viewers by changing the standard display methods facilitated renegotiation. Education. Even though museums are built around collections, most regard education as the main function of museums (Genoways Ireland, 2003; Willumson, 2007; Zeller, 1989). The state and federal governments in the United States acknowledge museums’ educational missions by providing them with tax breaks (Zeller, 1989). Although education is the main function of museums, there are conflicts surrounding its application. Talboys (2005) claimed that there is an obvious dichotomy between conservation and education. For example, he stated that there is a fear that museums cannot use artifacts for education and uphold curators’ high standards of conservation. This fear is understandable because curators must protect the artifacts in their care. However, Talboys, mentioned that this fear shows a lack of respect for educators who do understand the importance of conservation. This conflict can be resolved if curators understand that one of the goals of museum education is to educate about the fragility of the object. Museum education using collections is a basic right of the public that Zeller (1989) expressed as both physical and intellectual in nature. Providing outreach, program formats, and educational exhibition materials give visitors physical and intellectual access. Zeller explained how museum educators attempt to generalize the museums’ academic appearance to diminish the psychological difficulties experienced by some people that deprive them of access to the museum. Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1995) wrote about additional learning in museums. They explored how presenting intrinsically rewarding information stimulates people to engage in additional learning. Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson held that

museums can help visitors experience “flow,” an enjoyable and unplanned state of mind, for more extensive interaction. Piscitielli and Weier (2002) identified aspects of high quality informal learning experiences for young children in art museums. They found that aesthetic appreciation and art production expand the conceptions of learners of all ages as they partake in meaning-making activities. Likewise, social and technical assistance is necessary for children to gain conceptual understanding. Art education as viewed by McPhee (1994) refers to all ways of learning in an art museum. McPhee considered the placement of art works, labels, and extended texts to be practices that facilitate learning. Other methods described were guided tours, lectures at all levels (formal and informal), conferences, seminars, and all types of catalogs. Study The literature concerning the study of art collections related to art research and publications. The information regarding the research of art collections covered the different types of information about art objects and how to attain credible information about collections. The literature related to publications included important types of publications and discourse about the inclusion of scholarship in publications. Research. A function of curators is to research the collections in their care. Research of art collections includes all media: paintings, prints, sculpture, watercolors, drawings, and applied arts (i.e. glass furniture, ceramics) (Farr, 1984). However, curators employ different types of research. Farr (1984) distinguished between academic research and research that benefits non-scholars. Farr explained how some academic research concerning art objects does benefit non-scholars. Those mentioned were: (a) general information; (b) size and physical shape; (c) materials: (d) subject matter or function; and (e) information about the creator. Other academic research described by Farr included the object’s provenance that establishes where the art object is from, who commissioned the art object, and those who owned the art object throughout its existence. The credibility of information obtained in research is another issue museums face. Farr (1984) wrote that established information regarding art objects should be linked to known facts concerning comparable works or objects by the same creator. This can be

done using works that already exist in the museum collection and through physical evidence. Farr explained three types of physical evidence: primary sources (i.e. contract notes, letters, artist biographies by contemporaries); secondary sources (i.e. accounts written after the work was completed); and tertiary sources (i.e. recent research that is historical, commentaries). There are a number of approaches that curators use when conducting research. Nicks (2002) discussed two types of curatorial research: thematic and object. Thematic research serves as a general foundation of contextual information and creates the structure and theme of the exhibition. Object research, however, documents the objects that make up exhibitions such as art works, artifacts, specimens, graphics, or audio- visuals. Nicks held that museums that incorporate both thematic and object research in their curatorial programs will lay the foundation for an ongoing exhibition program. Nicks acknowledged that it is popular to use strong thematic ideas as a basis for conducting institutional research and those evaluating prospective exhibitions use them to make decisions. Nicks (2002) claimed that curators need to supplement research when planning exhibitions. In addition to thematic and object research, curators must use their judgment when considering collection evaluation, selection, and development. Nicks explained how museums need curatorial judgment for determining the requirements of prospective exhibitions including the degree of loans from other collections and additions to the collection through purchases, donations, or fieldwork. Curatorial decisions concerning the extent of additions or borrowing are difficult and it is necessary for curators to determine whether an exhibition needs exceptional and/or representative objects. Nicks maintained that curators favor outstanding objects, such as an artist’s best work or the most eye-catching objects or artifacts. Curators may also choose objects that are typical such as those that represent a culture. Pearce (1990) described an approach of study regarding objects and one’s connection to them. This approach involved examining objects as written narratives, which would consider them in terms of the past. Pearce stated that the past exists as: (a) physical landscapes (artifacts are traditional rather than essential); (b) objects or material culture; and (c) narratives (i.e. film, written text). Also noted by Pearce was that the past

can exist in individual memory because it develops itself as images of places and objects. Pearce further distinguished narrative as either historical or fictional writing. Narrative as historical writing attempts to convey the truth regarding the past while narrative that is fiction becomes weaker the more viewers examine it. Publications. Museums use publications to disseminate information about the objects they display. Bassett (1992) described the most important type of museum publications: (a) catalogs and handbooks to permanent collections; (b) exhibition catalogs, handbooks, and handlists; (c) periodicals; and (d) museum guides. Bassett also discussed how changes in museums in the last quarter of the 20th century resulted in the commerciality of publications. The importance of well-written catalogs is a topic discussed by Bonyhady (1998) and Cole (1993). MacGregor (1995) discussed scholarship at museums and its relation to the public. Concerning the commerciality of exhibition catalogs, MacGregor stated that catalogs should be scholarly rather than packaged, amusing, or money-making. Summary The literature concerned with curatorial practices related to the areas of preservation, communication, and study. There is a wealth of information concerning the preservation of art collections. Regarding communication, there is discourse concerning different approaches to exhibition design and education as well as methods conveying information about objects to visitors. There is little literature directly concerned with studying art collections – especially the creation of publications. The literature discussed in this chapter serves as a framework for the methodology described in chapter three.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY This chapter explains the proposed methodology using van Mensch’s (1990) reconceputalized framework. As discussed in chapters one and two, van Mensch’s framework holds that there are three functions of museums: (a) to preserve; (b) to communicate; and (c) to study. These functions will structure the methodology. This chapter describes the: (a) research questions; (b) research design; (c) sample; (d) measures; (e) data collection procedures; (f) data analysis; (g) limitations of the study; and (h) timelines. Research Questions This study asked: What is the nature of curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum and how do these practices reflect recent changes in the focus and structure of art museums? When answering the first part of this question that addresses the nature of curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum I considered van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums: (a) to preserve; (b) to communicate; and (c) to study. This included: (a) what are curators’ roles in preservation?; (b) how do curators communicate information and to whom?; and (c) how do curators study art collections? I placed an additional emphasis on curators’ involvement in education and relationships with museum professionals due to the repeated mention of these topics in the literature. The questions I explored included: (a) how do curators fulfill their institutions’ educational mission? and (b) what are curators’ relationships with other staff members? The responses to the first part of the question helped me answer the second part of the question that asked how curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum reflect recent changes in the focus and structure of art museums. The answer to this question considered two main aspects: (a) how the institution focuses on visitors and (b) the extent to which the institution employs business management techniques. The answers to both parts of the question exhibited how curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum inform U.S. art museums that are in a state of crisis due to recent shifts in focus and structure (Weil, 2003; Willumson, 2007). Research Design This investigation was a phenomenological case study that focused on the functions of curators at the Rijksmuseum. The purpose of phenomenological research is to describe one or more individuals’ experiences of a phenomenon (Patton, 2002).

Phenomenology allowed this study to determine the meaning, organization, and nature of the experience of a phenomenon for a particular group of people (Patton, 2002). A case study was an appropriate choice for the research design because it looked at the characteristics of a single case (Patton, 2002). It also described the case in depth and allowed for multiple data collection methods (e.g. interviews, observations, documents). The data analysis approach helped to answer the research question through holistic description and a search for themes that provided insight into the case. As a case study, this investigation looked at a single curatorial environment (best practices) in depth that U.S. museums may be able to use as an example. Sample I used certain criteria when selecting the institution in this study. The setting of the study was dependent on the nature of the particular sample. The sampling technique facilitated an adequate sample in this study. Criteria for Selection In this study, I focused on the Rijksmuseum. The main criteria I used when selecting an art museum for this study was that it had to be both a national institution and paradigm of excellence. National museums have a number of common features. They have similar missions focused on providing a distinct view of a nation’s issues and people (Broun, 2004). In addition, national museums are always included as part of a nation-building concept and national governments are aware of their prospective impression on the public (McIntyre, 2006). Likewise, they receive public funding and should hence serve their public. As institutions that represent their countries globally, national art museums often communicate information in multiple languages. They also have high standards regarding research and education. Examining a national museum permitted the findings to extend beyond the individuals in this study’s setting (Mertens, 2005). Because this study used a phenomenological paradigm, it viewed every occurrence of a case or process as an example of a broad type of phenomenon as well as being specific and distinct (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).

As a paradigm of excellence, the Rijksmuseum employs high standards regarding van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums: preservation, communication, and study. Regarding preservation, the Museum has a conservation and restoration department and states in its mission that it “maintains, manages, conserves, and restores” its collections (Mission, n.d.; Rijksmuseum, 2008). Likewise, while I conducted this study, the Rijksmuseum was in the midst of an extensive renovation program to better preserve its collections (de Leeuw, 2003). The Museum communicates information to both a domestic and international public through its exhibitions, its interactive website, and a diverse range of publications (Mission, n.d.). It also has specific departments devoted to exhibition, publication, and education (Rijksmuseum, 2008). Study is a prominent function within the Rijksmuseum. The Museum states that “research is the basic premise of all museum activity, from acquisition, conservation and restoration, to publication, education and presentation” (Research: The basic premise, n.d.). In addition, the Rijksmuseum fulfills the function of study by participating in a number of research projects as well as collaborating with universities and museums (Research: Collaboration, n.d.; Research: Projects, n.d.). It was appropriate to examine curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum for a number of reasons. First, it is a national and publicly funded institution. Second, in addition to the Dutch language, the Museum uses English in its displays, publications, and educational materials. The Rijksmuseum also collaborates in academic research and education in the field of art history (Research, n.d.). The Museum trains young people and works with the art history departments of the University of Amsterdam and the Free University of Amsterdam, and with several Amsterdam museums. In the future, the Rijksmuseum will also participate in a master’s degree course for museum curators. Setting of the Study Due to issues of accessibility, the study took place with senior curators at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This was due to the difficulties associated with engaging participants in research due to busy schedules (Mertens, 2005). Therefore, I interviewed curators in a place that was convenient and comfortable for them.

Sampling Technique When selecting a sample for this in-depth study, I employed a purposeful sampling technique to find information rich cases. I used Patton’s (2002) approach of criterion sampling. This method determined a certain criterion and then identified cases that satisfied this criterion (Mertens, 2005). In this study, the main criterion was that the sample had to consist of senior curators due to their extensive experience and knowledge. In the Rijksmuseum, there were 12 senior curators spread across three different departments that met this criterion. I approached all 12 senior curators to partake in the study, although not all of them participated. I used two criteria to determine if my sample was adequate: (a) sufficiency and (b) saturation of information (Seidman 2006). I determined the final number of participants sufficient when the responses reflected the range of participants and allowed others outside the sample to relate their experiences to those in it. Saturation of information ensured that participants reported the same information and that there was no new information. Using this approach of in-depth, phenomenological interviewing with this sample of senior curators that had comparable structural and social environments provided strength to the accounts of a comparatively small number of participants. Measures As researcher, I was the data collection instrument in the study. Consequently, I brought my particular values, beliefs, assumptions, and biases to this study (Mertens, 2005). I have extensive knowledge concerning the topic of curatorial practices. Likewise, my studies in art curation and arts administration have also made me sensitive to related issues such as museum accessibility and art education in museums. I feel that art museums are often inaccessible, can be intimidating, and do not always clearly communicate information and ideas. I addressed and monitored these values, beliefs, assumptions, and biases throughout the study. Data Collection Procedures I used three main methods for collecting data (a) interviews; (b) observations; and (c) documents and records review (Mertens, 2005). The data collection procedures included the gathering of primary and secondary sources of information as described by Hedrick, Bickman, and Rog (1993). Primary sources of information included personal

interviews administered to curators at the Rijksmuseum, and observation of the Museum’s displays. Secondary sources of information consisted of the Museum’s publications and online website. Interview Data I digitally recorded interview data and later transcribed it. I identified curators by their area or specialty (i.e. prints, decorative arts). When I conducted interviews, I used a semi-structured interview guide (Appendix B). This semi-structured interview guide facilitated four main functions: (a) the administration of interview topics in the same order for each participant; (b) the preparation of cues that will create distance; (c) the establishment of channels for the direction and scope of the discourse; (d) the channeling of my thoughts on the participant’s statements (McCracken, 1988). These functions were important for this study because I administered a long qualitative interview. The semi-structured interview consisted of three parts. The first and third parts of the interview had open-ended questions that did not limit the responses of the participants (Mertens, 2005). The second part of the interview asked curators to rank preservation, communication, and study in order of importance. The first part of the interview asked curators how they would handle four different situations from the perspective of their particular curatorial departments (see Appendix B). The purpose of this section was to determine what curators do in relation to van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums (preservation, communication, study). I did not want to inform curators’ answers so I used hypothetical situations rather than explicit questions. The directions for this part of the interview stated: “From the viewpoint of your particular curatorial department, please state how you would handle the following situations.” The first situation asked: “You have the option to restore an art object to its original condition. After the original artist's death, another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. What do you do and why?” This situation directly related to the functions of preservation and study. Many times, curators face dilemmas concerned with an art object’s physical and intellectual state (Bomford, 1997). How they handle this situation reveals curatorial practices regarding preservation and study.

Preservation and communication were themes of the second situation: “You are organizing an exhibition and want to display a historically significant collection of artworks. The artworks are sensitive to light and their display could damage them. If shown, the artworks will be the highlight of the exhibition. What do you do and why?” Exhibiting objects is an activity associated with curators who often make difficult decisions regarding their display (Barclay, 1990; Cannon-Brookes, 1994; Staniforth, 1992). These decisions often pit the functions of preservation and communication against one another. This question displayed curatorial practices regarding this issue. The third situation related to communication. It posed the question: “You are organizing a highly specialized exhibition concerning a controversial topic. Your audience ranges from students (ages 5 to 17) to the elderly. How do you express information concerning the exhibition?” This question exposed how curators communicate information, especially to broad audiences that range from the young to the elderly (Hooper-Greenhill, 2004). Likewise, it induced the methods that curators use to communicate information to the public concerning topics that they may find offensive or upsetting. The fourth situation asked: “The director of your institution informs you that a generous and consistent patron wants to donate an artwork to your department. The work does not match the scope of the collections in your department. What do you do and why? This question addressed preservation issues, especially that of collections management (Case, 1995; Gardner and Merritt; Genoways & Ireland, 2003). Part two of the curatorial interview asked curators to rank communication, preservation, and study in order of importance. I compared curators’ ranking of these functions to their interview responses. This determined if their answers reflected what they believe is most important. The third part of the interview asked curators what they did in a direct manner. I also evaluated curators’ answers in relation to van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums. The first question in part three of the interview asked: “How do you stay current in your practice?” Keeping up-to-date in a field that constantly changes is an important part of curatorial practice (Farr, 1984; Nicks, 2002; Pearce, 1990). The main purpose of

this question was to discover how curators fulfill the function of study to stay current in their field. The last interview question stated: “Describe something innovative that you've done in the past 12 months.” This question had the ability to relate to any of van Mensch’s (1990) functions. It uncovered additional curatorial practices not addressed in the other interview questions. I generated questions in the first and third parts of the curatorial interview with the expectation of receiving information about particular functions described by van Mensch (1990). However, it is possible for curators to describe other functions besides those that the questions aim to uncover. For example, if the main purpose of a question is to look for information about the functions of preservation and study, it is possible for a curator’s answer to address the function of communication. All of the questions in the first and third parts of the curatorial interview have the ability to expose information concerning other issues. The role of education in curators’ practice, the relationship between curators and other staff, the focus on visitors, and the use of business management techniques may be evident. Education is of importance in museological practice and there are different methods to facilitate museum learning (Csikszentmihalyi & Hermanson, 1995; McPhee, 1994; Piscitielli & Weier, 2002; Zeller, 1989). For example, curators may discuss the role of the education department or the implementation of learning techniques regarding exhibitions in their responses. The relationship among curators and other staff is an area that may also arise in the interview responses. For instance, if a curator mentions that he or she discusses restoration treatments with restorers prior to implementation, one can assume that they have a collaborative relationship. Curatorial interviews may also reveal how and if curators focus on visitors and the extent to which the Museum employs business management practices. A hypothetical response by a curator could describe the importance of communicating information to the public in exhibitions. Likewise, if curators described a protocol that makes operations more efficient, they could divulge information related to business management techniques.

Observational Data Observing curatorial displays at the Rijksmuseum was another primary source of data. As Patton (2002) suggested, I observed the program setting that included the environment where the program took place. I examined both physical information that included the selection and placement of artworks and semantic information that consisted of labels, diagrams, and other written information. I sorted data according to van Mensch’s (1990) functions of museums (communication, preservation) that related to the physical environment. Data from Website and Publications The Rijksmuseum’s publications and website related to the function of study (van Mensch, 1990). They also served as a secondary source of information about the collections, exhibitions, and programs. The examination of publications showed how curators fulfilled the function of study through the types of publications they completed. The Museum’s online website provided material that related to the Museum’s mission, programs, etc. Researcher’s Role My role as researcher focused on equality, closeness, and informality during encounters with participants – a fieldwork relationship designed to maximize access (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I used an overt role in my study that made my general interests known. This also provided me with greater access to those in the setting. Supplemental Methods of Data Collection In order to collect interview data, I used a digital audio recorder during my interviews with curators. This was an appropriate method due to the length of the interviews with curators (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Transcripts were the main data of this interview study. Time Period for Data Collection The time period for data collection depended on the number of curators interviewed as well as their availability. I scheduled a one hour interview period with each curator at the Rijksmuseum. I devoted a period of one week for observation at the Rijksmuseum to ensure that I collected high-quality and descriptive data. Data collection

and analysis overlapped in this qualitative study and incorporated changes in the focus, time, and strategies I used (Mertens, 2005). I made note of any such changes. Ensuring High-Quality Data In order to ensure high-quality data, I addressed the following criteria: (a) credibility; (b) transferability; (c) dependability; and (d) confirmability (Mertens, 2005). The use of methodological strategies concerned with these facilitated the collection of high-quality data. Credibility guaranteed that the way respondents viewed social constructs reflected my viewpoints as researcher (Mertens, 2005). I guaranteed credibility through triangulation and member checks. Triangulation entailed the examination of information from different sources of data. I triangulated personal interviews, observations, and publications and online information. Conducting member checks with curators verified that their interview data is accurate. After I transcribed the recorded interview data with curators, I provided them with copies of the transcripts. Curators were able to review their transcripts to see if they accurately reflect what they said. Sufficient detail ensured that the results had transferability and related to other situations (Mertens, 2005). I included thick descriptions in both the participants’ interview data and in my observations. Thick description consisted of extensive and careful detail including the time, place, and context of my interviews and observations. Because it was possible for change to transpire in this study, dependability was another area that I addressed. Due to the qualitative nature of this study, there were changes in focus due to emergent patterns in data (Mertens, 2005). I documented all instances of shifts in focus due to emergent data trends. Incorporating confirmability in this study meant that there was objectivity (Mertens, 2005). Thus, I reduced the influence of my judgment as researcher by having peers in the field of arts administration review my field notes and interview transcripts to see if my conclusions supported the data. I critically analyzed data by making sure that it was credible, transferable, dependable, and confirmable (Mertens, 2005). Considering each of these criteria enhanced the quality of the research in this study.

Pilot Test Because this study is qualitative, it was necessary for me to conduct a pilot test of the interview questions (Mertens, 2005). The pilot test used the question format to interview a curator at a national art museum outside of the United States (see Appendix B). The curator’s responses accurately reflected the questions posed in the interview question format. I, therefore, did not need to reformulate the interview questions. I used an opportunistic sampling technique to select a curator for the pilot test. I selected this method due to time constraints and due to the busy schedules of curators. Therefore, when this opportunity to interview a curator at a national museum outside of the United States presented itself, I made the decision to conduct the pilot test. Data Analysis The data analysis in this study was a constant process due to its qualitative nature (Mertens, 2005). I created and constructed findings as I collected consecutive pieces of data (Bogdan and Biklen, 2003). When analyzing data, I triangulated it and used the strategy described by Miles and Huberman (1994). Data triangulation served as a data analysis strategy to ensure validity (Mertens, 2005). It included: (a) personal interviews; (b) observations; and (c) online data and written sources. The analysis of data followed the steps provided by Miles and Huberman (1994). First, I coded field notes drawn from interview data, observations, and the review of websites and written sources. Second, my field notes documented personal reflections. Third, I identified similar phrases and relationships between patterns, themes, and differences among curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum. Fourth, the trends, commonalities, and differences found informed further data collection. Last, I developed generalizations that I examined in conjunction with formalized knowledge. Coding I organized data from interviews, observations, and publications and online information with a preassigned coding system. This study had assigned codes in order to explore the issues associated with a particular subject (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The codes were general and addressed the topics that emerged from the literature review. Interviews included the following codes: (a) preservation; (b) communication; (c) study;

(d) fulfillment of educational missions; and (e) relationship with other staff members (see Appendix C). I coded observations according to van Mensch’s (1990) museum functions of communication and preservation (see Appendix D). Communication had the subcategories of physical communication and semantic communication. Preservation had the subcategory of physical environment. I coded terms from publications and online information according to van Mensch’s museum function of study (see Appendix E). The category of study had the subcategories of research and publications. I developed additional coding categories from the interviews, observations, and publications and online information during and after the completion of the data collection. This coding system involved searching through data for regularities, patterns, and topics (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I recorded the patterns and themes that emerged from these codes under the appropriate category in the spreadsheet. Units of data received multiple codes in cases where they overlap. Interview Responses and Coding Each question in the interview related to van Mensch’s (1990) functions of museums and the sub-questions that emerged from the literature (See Appendix B). In part one, question one corresponds to preservation, study, and relationship with staff members. For example, the question asks: “You receive a new art object. You discover another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. You have the option to restore the object to its original condition. What do you do and why?” A curator’s possible answer to the question might be: “At my institution this decision would really involve a discussion between a curator, conservator, and the deputy director. In general, there seems to be the general preference for preventative conservation, as opposed to restoration. For example, it is preferable to not have to do interventive treatment if necessary, as any work done should really be reversible. I personally would be reluctant to remove the latter artist's work. Researching each artist may help determine whether or not this is appropriate.” When coding this answer for the first question (see Appendix C), I would code “discussion between a curator, conservator, and the deputy director under the heading “relationship with other members.” Under the heading of “preservation” I would list: (a) conservator; (b) preventative conservation; (c) preference for preventative conservation; (d) restoration (opposed to); (e) interventive treatment (not preferable);

and (f) reversible. I would list the curator’s mention of researching artists under the heading of “study.” Examination of Data The repeated occurrence of key terms in the interview answers, observations, and analysis of the Rijksmuseum’s publications and online sources determined themes or topics in the curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum. Themes emerged from concepts or theories in the data that signify trends, conceptions, or main features (Bogdan and Biklen, 2003). Topics are more descriptive and derived from specific features in the study. I compared the responses provided by curators in parts one and three of the interview to their ranking of van Mensch’s (1990) functions of museums in part two. The observations I made at the Rijksmuseum and the data collection from the Museum’s publications and online sources also served as means of assessment for the curatorial interviews. My examination of the data obtained from interviews, observations at the Rijksmuseum, and the Museum’s publications and online sources determined curatorial practices at the institution. I organized these practices according to van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums. Likewise, I described whether these practices relate to this study’s sub-questions concerning education and staff relationships. The trends I uncovered at the Rijksmuseum determined whether curatorial practices reflect recent changes concerning the focus and structure of art museums. Using this information, I concluded whether curatorial practices displayed a shift from collections to visitors and the employment of business management techniques. Limitations of the Study There are limitations to this study. Due to the employment of a phenomenological paradigm, I viewed every instance of a case or process as both an exemplar of a general class of phenomenon and particular and unique in its own way (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). As researcher, I provided sufficient thick description about the case so that the readers were able to understand the contextual variables operating in that setting (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). The burden of generalizability then lies with the readers, with the assumption that they are able to generalize subjectively from the case in question to their own personal experiences (Stake, 2000).

There may be limitations in the interviews because the participants were non- native English speakers. This could have affected their ability to clearly or fully express answers. Interviewing curators in person with a semi-structured interview format allowed me to clarify such misunderstandings and, therefore, minimize such limitations (Mertens, 2005). Another limitation was that four out of 12 senior curators agreed to participate in the study. These curators did, however, come from all three curatorial departments: the Fine and Decorative Arts Department, the History Department, and the Print Room. Likewise, the information the curators provided corresponded. Limitations may also exist in this study concerning data collection due to my own biases and prejudices (Mertens, 2005). I addressed these biases and prejudices in the study to inform the reader of my disposition and to help them to critically analyze the procedures and findings. Likewise, I used a standardized interview guide that limited me from focusing on personal biases and prejudices (see Appendix B). The use of predetermined codes that derived from the literature and framework also directed my concentration to curatorial functions within the larger institution (see Appendices C, D, E). Time-lines Conducting personal interviews with curators at the Rijksmuseum lasted approximately one hour. I designated a two month period to interview curators due to problems associated with their availability. During this two month period I also conducted observations at the Rijksmuseum and reviewed the Museum’s publications and online sources. Summary Van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums (preservation, communication, study) structure the methodology. Due to the similarities among national museums, this study concentrated on the Rijksmuseum. The institution is also a paradigm of excellence. Personal interviews served as the main data collection source along with observations at the Rijksmuseum and information from the Museum’s website and publications. Coding data helped to establish trends or topics in curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum. Ultimately, I concluded whether curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum reflected recent

changes in the focus and structure of art museums including a shift from collections to visitors and the employment of business management techniques (Willumson, 2007). The next chapter will provide background information regarding the Rijksmuseum and its organizational structure. This will help readers understand the environment in which curators must work.

CHAPTER FOUR: BACKGROUND OF THE RIJKSMUSEUM AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE This chapter provides background information regarding the Rijksmuseum, the national art museum selected for this study, and its curatorial departments. This information helps one understand the setting in which curators at the institution work. Background of the Rijksmuseum In regards to its establishment and collection, the Rijksmuseum is a unique national art museum. It has a comprehensive mission and a large collection of Dutch art and history. While this study took place, the Museum had a special exhibition on display due to renovations. Establishment In 1798, Izaak Jan Alexander van Gogel, the Dutch Minister of Finance during that time, initiated the creation of a Dutch national museum (History of the Rijksmuseum, n.d.; van Thiel, 1976). The Rijksmuseum, then known as the National Art Gallery, opened to the public in 1800 in the Huis ten Bosch palace in The Hague (de Leeuw, 2003; vels Heijn, 1995). In 1808, Napoleon Bonaparte’s brother, King Louis Bonaparte moved the Rijksmuseum to Amsterdam and added works owned by the City of Amsterdam including Rembrandt’s ‘Night Watch’. The Museum moved to its present location in 1885, a building designed by Dutch architect Pierre Cuypers. The Rijksmuseum is different from other national museums. Since its inception, the Museum was a national symbol and its circumstances connect to the development of the Netherlands (Gijs van der Ham, 2000). The collecting tradition in the Netherlands is different from most countries because it rested with official bodies (i.e. the municipalities) rather than royal families. When the Rijksmuseum moved to its current building in 1885, it was almost exclusively Dutch in orientation and as a result has a strong collection of Dutch art from 1500-1900. Mission The Rijksmuseum’s mission states: As a museum of art and history the Rijksmuseum aims to provide a domestic and international public with a representative survey of Dutch art and history since the Middle Ages as well as key aspects of European and Asiatic art. To this end, the

Rijksmuseum maintains, manages, conserves, restores, researches and publishes, collects, presents and makes objects accessible as well as organises exhibitions (Mission, n.d.). Since the Rijksmuseum is a national and public institution it acknowledges its service to the public. It also lists tasks associated with van Mensch’s (1990) functions of preservation, communication and study. Regarding preservation, the Museum collects, maintains, manages, conserves, and restores. Concerning communication it presents objects, makes objects accessible, and organizes exhibitions. It achieves the function of study by researching and publishing. Collection The Rijksmuseum is the largest museum of art and history in the Netherlands (de Leeuw, 2003). It has more than one million objects that span the period from 1400 to 1900. The collection focuses on Dutch painting, Dutch and foreign prints and drawings from the 15th to 19th centuries, Dutch history from the Middles Ages to present, and sculpture and decorative arts (ceramics, costumes, furniture, glass, jewelry, silver, and textiles) from the Middle Ages (vels Heijn, 1995). Renovations In 2000, the Dutch government provided 45 million euro to begin a renovation program for the Rijksmuseum (de Leeuw, 2003). Philips Electronics, Loterij, and ING are sponsors that also contributed to this project. After the renovations are complete, the collection at the Rijksmuseum will expand its collection to include objects from the 20th century (de Leeuw, 2003). Current Display The Rijksmuseum installed the display Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces in the Philips Wing of the Museum due to renovations in other parts of the building (de Leeuw, 2003). Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces covered what it considers the best art from the Dutch 17th century Golden Age. It included paintings from Dutch Masters (i.e. Hals, Vermeer, Rembrandt), unique dolls’ houses, a ship’s model, and delftware. There was also an extensive display of Dutch furniture, ceramics, silver, and glass from the Dutch Republic of the United Provinces.

In general, Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces attempted to convey how 17th century Holland was a powerful country in Europe (de Leeuw, 2003). For example, it described how the Dutch East India Company (VOC) was the first multinational. The exhibition also conveyed the association between affluence and the thriving of the arts. Organizational Structure of the Rijksmuseum The Rijksmuseum has a hierarchical organizational structure. Curators are spread among different departments within the structure. Rijksmuseum Departments Departments: (a) Board of Directors; (b) Housing Department; (c) Executive Secretariat; (d) Communication and Marketing; (e) Library; (f) Department of Collections (Registrar’s office, administrative management of collection); (g) Conservation and Restoration Department; (h) Fine and Decorative Arts; (i) History; (j) Print Room; (k) Exhibitions; (l) Publications; (m) Education; (n) Finance; (o) Information Communication Technology (ICT); (p) Facility Management; (q) Department of Commercial Affairs; and (r) Human Resource Management (HRM) (Rijksmuseum, 2008).

Figure 1. Rijksmuseum Organizational Chart1

The hierarchical organizational chart shows the relationship among Rijksmuseum staff. Curators at the Rijksmuseum work within three main departments: (a) fine and decorative arts; (b) history; and (c) print room. These departments are on the same lateral level as the Conservation and Restoration Department within the Collections Sector. Although the Exhibitions Department, Publications Department, and Education Department are a part of the Presentation Sector, they are on the same lateral level as the Department of Collections and Library. The organization of the Museum’s structure and the presence of the Business Sector exhibits the use of business management techniques.

1 Rijksmuseum Organization Chart modified from Rijksmuseum annual report (Rijksmuseum, 2008). 46

Curators at the Rijksmuseum At the Rijksmuseum there are 12 senior curators that work within the Fine and Decorative Arts Department, the History Department, and the Print Room (P. van de Wiel, personal communication, August 11, 2008). Four senior curators agreed to participate in this study: (a) the Curator of Dutch History; (b) the Curator of Prints and Drawings; (c) the Curator of Furniture; and (d) the Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. The Curator of Dutch History works within the History Department and the Curator of Prints and Drawings in the Print Room. The curators of furniture and 17th century Dutch painting are part of the Fine and Decorative Arts Department. Fine and Decorative Arts Department. The Department of Fine and Decorative Arts has three main areas: (a) paintings; (b) sculpture and applied art; and (c) Asiatic art (Department of Fine and Decorative Arts, n.d.). The paintings consist of a collection of Netherlandish painting from the 15th to the late 19th century and paintings from foreign masters (Painting, n.d.). The collection of paintings highlight schools, themes, and artists. Sculpture and applied art has a diverse assortment of Dutch art with a minor international area (Sculpture and applied art, n.d.). The sculpture and applied art includes 45,000 objects that range from costumes, furniture, paneling, jewelry, earthenware, porcelain, glass, textiles, bronze and iron objects, and metal. The Asiatic art collection emerged from numerous collections and provides an impression of Asian art movements and stylistic developments (Asian art, n.d.). Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Indonesian art have the best representation regarding history and particular art forms. The History Department. The Rijksmuseum’s History Department contains a cultural history collection that consists of a range of objects (Department of History, n.d.). For example, the collection has ship models, historical prints, sculptures, archaeological artifacts, clothing, and weapons. There are hundreds of thousands of objects in this collection that are meant to provide an explanation of the Netherlands’ history within the larger world. The History Department acquires objects based on four conditions: (a) authenticity; (b) power of expression; (c) a lucid provenance; and (d) a strong relation to Dutch history both nationally and internationally. Within the History Department there is a distribution of curatorship shared with the Visual Arts Department (i.e. curation of paintings) and Department of Prints and

Drawings (i.e. curation of historical prints) (Department of History, n.d.). Regarding curatorship, the History Department is responsible for a range of objects spanning from the Middle Ages to the 20th century. Although the curators of the History Department are responsible for their collections, curators from the other two departments have certain roles. The Print Room. The Print Room contains the biggest collection of prints, drawings, and photographs in the Netherlands (Collection, drawings, prints and photographs, n.d.). Works on paper are not put on permanent display because of their size and fragility. Rather, temporary exhibitions lasting three months display chosen works. Those who wish to look at prints can do so in the reading room after placing a request. Summary The establishment of the Rijksmuseum and almost exclusively Dutch orientation make it a unique national museum (Gijs van der Ham, 2000). The Museum’s mission acknowledges its service to the public and comprehensively addresses the functions of preservation, communication, and study (van Mensch, 1990). While this study took place, the Museum had a special exhibition, Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces, on display in the Philips due to renovations in other parts of the building (de Leeuw, 2003). Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces focused on a specific theme by solely displaying art from the Dutch 17th century Golden Age. Curators work within the Rijksmuseum’s hierarchical organizational structure (Rijksmuseum, 2008). Curators are spread among three different departments within the structure: (a) fine and decorative arts; (b) history; and (c) print room. These departments fall under the Library and Department of Collections and are laterally equal to the exhibitions, publications, and education departments. Curators within the History Department have a unique relationship with Curators in the Fine and Decorative Arts Department and Print Room due to shared distribution of curatorship (Department of History, n.d.). The next chapter will present the data obtained from interviews, observations, and the Rijksmuseum’s website and publications. I described these data in relation to van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums: preservation, communication, and study.

CHAPTER FIVE: PRESENTATION OF THE DATA This chapter presents the data acquired from interviews conducted with Rijksmuseum curators. Also provided are data obtained from observations at the Rijksmuseum and the Museum’s website and publications. Interviews I interviewed four senior curators in this study based on their availability and willingness to participate. The curators included: (a) the Curator of Dutch History; (b) the Curator of Prints and Drawings; (c) the Curator of Furniture; and (d) the Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. In this chapter, I organized the data obtained from the interviews (Appendix F) by individual questions. Under each of the questions, I listed the answers provided by individual curators. This makes the similarities and differences among the curators’ answers clearer in relation to specific questions. Part One, Question One Question: “You receive a new art object. You discover another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. You have the option to restore the object to its original condition. What do you do and why?” Curator of Dutch History. The Curator of Dutch History discussed issues related to the functions of preservation, study, communication, and his relationship with other staff members. Regarding preservation and study, the Curator stated his decision in this situation would depend on the type of change. Likewise, there would be different decisions based on one’s perspective, for example, a historical perspective versus an art historical perspective. He mentioned that he is currently participating in a discussion within the curatorial department among historians and art historians concerning a Frans Hals (1582/1583-1666) painting (Vels Heijn, 1995). The painting has an 18th century coat of arms added 100 years after its creation. This example shows how the Rijksmuseum staff collaboratively handles issues associated with preservation and study, but also the collaborative nature of the Curator’s relationship with other staff working at the museum. The Curator further assessed the hypothetical situation according to preservation, study, and communication when he explained that he would examine an object in its

“own context” and “for itself.” He also added that the addition to a work may have “worth in itself.” An example that illustrated his notion of these concepts concerned a painting of the Dutch queen received by the Rijksmuseum. The painting hung in a representative office for the Dutch government in Indonesia. A few years after Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands, the country still experienced a struggle over its former state as a colony. As a result, Indonesian students used knives to damage the painting of the Dutch queen. Those working at the Museum chose not to restore the painting, but instead stabilize it with the knife marks. They decided to do so because there are many pictures of the queen and they found the story of how this painting was attacked by students interesting. This illustration exhibits a connection among the functions of preservation, study, and communication. Studying the painting revealed that its history was both interesting and important – a message that the Museum wanted to communicate. This resulted in the Museum preserving the painting in its current state. The Curator further addressed his relationship with other staff members when he responded to the question. He mentioned that both curators and restorers should evaluate such a situation. This is because restorers have their own reasons for “deciding” and their “own responsibilities.” Curator of Prints and Drawings. The answer provided by the Curator of Prints and Drawings regarding the first situation related to the functions of preservation and study. According to the Curator, such a situation does not happen often in his department. However, if he did receive a rework done by an artist, it may be that it is a “historical thing in itself.” In such a case, he would “respect the addition.” Conversely, he would not do this if the addition was doing damage to the other 50% of the work. In other words, studying an object’s history would affect a decision regarding a method of preservation. However, this would not be a factor in cases when the addition damages the object. Curator of Furniture. The Curator of Furniture spoke about his relationship with other staff members when he said that he always consults the Department of Furniture Restoration regarding the treatment of furniture. He did mention that his personal inclination under these circumstances would be to keep the object in its current state, a decision that related to the function of preservation. He based this decision on the fact that someone changed the work deliberately and wanted it to look another way at a

different period in time or from another artistic point of view. The function of study is at the core of this justification. He alluded to this when he added that the Museum would find the change interesting and would try to preserve it. He addressed study and preservation again when he mentioned that if the Museum purchased a work and later discovered that an artist changed it, they might decide to remove it from their collection. Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. The Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting responded to this situation by first saying that he would most likely not accept a work changed by another hand due to the high standards of his department. However, he would base his decision on “when” and “who” – questions related to the function of study. As an example, he described a Hercules Seger (1589/1590 - c. 1638) landscape painting changed by Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669) currently in the Rijksmuseum collection. In this case, they decided to maintain its present state because it is an artwork created by two important artists. However, if the Museum hypothetically received a Rembrandt painting changed in the 19th century, there would be a discussion among staff about whether or not to remove the rework. In this case, the decision regarding the function of preservation relied on the information found from studying the work. The Curator also addressed his relationship with other staff at the Museum when he said that he would consult them before reaching a conclusion. The Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting also brought up the same Frans Hal painting described by the Curator of Dutch History. According to the Curator, Hals created the painting in 1639 and another painter added a coat of arms around 1735 or 1738. The current discussion they are having is whether to paint the addition out and restore the artwork as Hals originally painted it or to maintain its present state because it tells about the history of the object. The Curator said that there is no general rule and that he looks at every art work as “an independent artwork” that has a “unique and original background with original and unique arguments.” This example described his collaborative relationship with other staff members at the Museum. It also illustrated how the Curator would establish a decision regarding the function of preservation based on what he discovered while completing the function of study.

Part One, Question Two Question: “You are organizing an exhibition and want to display a historically significant collection of artworks. The artworks are sensitive to light and displaying them could damage them. If shown, the artworks will be the highlight of the exhibition. What do you do and why?” Curator of Dutch History. The first part of the Curator of Dutch History’s answer related to the function of preservation when he described general conditions of display for exhibitions. The Curator said that institutions lending exhibits to the Rijksmuseum want to know their display conditions in advance. For example, the lending institution stipulates aspects such as climate, light levels, and security. If the Rijksmuseum does not or cannot meet the required conditions, they are not able to borrow the objects. The Curator of Dutch History used an exhibition he made the previous year in a church as an example to illustrate how he solved a dilemma concerning high light levels and art works. The church had large windows that let in a large amount of light. As a result, he put curtains on the windows to limit the amount of light on the objects. When speaking of the Rijksmuseum’s collections, the Curator of Dutch History’s comments touched upon aspects of the function of preservation as well as his relationship with restorers. He said that the institution takes the same display measures as it does with borrowed collections. The Curator did admit that curators sometimes feel they can be more flexible when displaying works from their own collections. However, restorers remind them to think about the condition of objects. He said that the safety of objects is a priority. However, 100 percent security is not possible and you “can hamper the exhibition too much.” Rather “it’s a play between what is possible and what is necessary.” Preservation is thus an important function, however, placing too much emphasis on it can impede an exhibition because it is impossible to completely protect objects. Curator of Prints and Drawings. The Curator of Prints and Drawings’ response to the question touched upon the functions of preservation, communication, and study as well as his relationship with other staff members. Concerning the function of preservation, the Curator stated that there is always damage when exhibiting works on

paper regardless of how small it is. Basically, one has to try to limit the damage. The Curator referred to a project being completed by his restorers that attempts to limit the damage to artworks. The restorers are attempting to learn more about the exact damage caused by light to works on paper. They are doing this in order to be able to make more rational decisions regarding the exhibition of such works. In order to illustrate this notion, the Curator stated that if he knew “a particular print or drawing has a lifespan of 500 years” and “exposing it three months with 50 lux could shorten its life with three or four or five years” he could “make a rational decision about it.” He said although his department thinks they are making the correct choice when they use 50 lux for works on paper, it is still a guess. This project also exhibited the collaborative relationship the Curator of Prints has with restorers. This relationship appears to be essential due to the fragility of works on paper. The Curator addressed other issues related to preservation, communication, and study when he described how he evaluated the works he exhibits. He mentioned that three months does not do a lot of damage to works on paper. In some cases the Museum can display works on paper for longer periods of time, however, this depends on the type of exhibition. When a work is a loan, the Curator said he looks at the “intrinsic value” of the artwork in order to see if the exhibition is important enough to lend to the exhibition. Therefore, after the studying an artwork, the Curator determines its value, which can be interpreted as its communicative worth. This importance leads to whether or not the Curator will compromise the work by displaying it in an exhibition. Curator of Furniture. Preservation and his relationship with other staff members, were themes evident in part of the Curator of Furniture’s reply. The Curator stated that he would not want to damage the artworks through their display. In order to accomplish this he would involve technical people to help develop a solution regarding the display of the object so that it did not receive damage. In cases where artworks are “fragile” and “precious,” the Curator declared that he may choose to preserve them as documents. He stated that it is possible for a photograph or replica of the object to function the same way as the original in an exhibition. The Curator of Furniture also brought up the function of communication when he claimed that objects “are to be enjoyed, to be seen, and to enrich…the life of the public to

make a sweeping statement.” So he would find a way “to make the art work come to life.” Although he felt that it is important to preserve an object’s physical condition, he stated that “if a work of art is not seen, okay it may survive but, it doesn’t really fulfill any role.” He mentioned that the prime concern of museum people is preservation so they must be careful. The basic idea conveyed by the curator was that although preservation is important and it is the Museum’s prime concern, they must still devise a way to communicate information about objects whether it is through the original object or a reproduction. Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. Preservation and communication defined the Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting’s response. According to the Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting, objects are the main focus of everything they do. They would not show artworks in a way that would harm them. They must try to figure out ways of “keeping the objects for further generations and presenting them”. He mentioned that the best thing to do would be to preserve the objects by keeping in them in storage with no light, however, one of the Rijksmuseum’s “main tasks is to present these artworks to the public and as many people as possible.” The Curator acknowledged that the function of preservation is important, however, they must still fulfill the Museum’s communicative function by exposing the works to the public. Part One, Question Three Question: “You are organizing a highly specialized exhibition concerning a controversial topic. Your audience ranges from students (ages 5 to 17) to the elderly. How do you develop and express information concerning this exhibition that informs your audience?” Curator of Dutch History. The Curator of Dutch History’s response referred to the function of communication when he stressed that the subject of an exhibition should be relevant to the current society. The Curator mentioned that there are many controversial issues (i.e. Dutch colonies) and it is important to show they happened. He believed in truthfulness and maintained that one should show both positive and negative types of history. According to the Curator, the Museum has an obligation to put forth difficult topics such as discrimination or murder. The Museum should, however, present these difficult topics sensitively. The Curator also stated that controversial exhibitions

must be “honest” and “communication has to be open on all levels.” However, as a curator he must also find subjects that visitors can “make connections” with and “relate to their own experience.” The Curator of Dutch History described an exhibition on Dutch heroes to illustrate how he attempted to present a subject that visitors could connect with. The topic of the exhibition focused on Dutch heroes and how people in Holland still venerate them. Rather than making an exhibition about Dutch heroes and the past, he wanted to ask visitors: “what is for you a hero?; when is someone a hero?; what is important in a hero?; when do you venerate someone else?” These questions help visitors connect to the present. Likewise, the Curator mentioned that there were two political murders in the Netherlands in the last year – something that had not happened for over 300 years. The exhibition mentioned the veneration of the two murdered people which supported the theme of heroism. The Curator did not believe that the main function of the Museum is to give an answer, but pose questions that visitors answer for themselves. Rather, they can provide visitors with information that is “neutral.” He believed that people have the ability to find their own answers that can be different from others. The Curator addressed his relationship with other staff members when he mentioned that he would consult the Rijksmuseum’s Education Department regarding a controversial exhibition. Once the exhibition takes form and has a viewpoint, the Education Department aids in the discussion on how to develop it. This includes the content and communication methods. Regarding the creation of exhibitions and the Education Department, the Curator stated: They have a say because they have their own knowledge and they know about communication more than I do from their professional point of view. So they have a say about the content as well. Not about a choice of objects, but about how the scenes of the exhibition will be up, what subjects you choose. Of course, there is an interaction between me as a curator and they as educators. How you write text, what text do you choose, what information do you give, what other way do you try to give that education, what kind of other communication possibilities are there and so on. So it’s not that the exhibition is ready and that they come and do their thing. But we try to do it during the process.

The curator’s relationship with the Education Department appeared to be collaborative. While the Curator conceives the subjects and objects that go into an exhibition, the Education Department helps with the methods of communicating information to the public. Curator of Prints and Drawings. Communication was the function emphasized in the answer given by the Curator of Prints and Drawings. The Curator said that he recently made a new acquisitions exhibition with Japanese art that included open sexuality. He held that in some cases explicit information is unexplainable. For example, an exhibition with Shunga (erotic prints from Japan) would be difficult to explain to children. The Curator would rather inform the public before they entered the exhibition because it could be offensive. He would also warn parents with children under the age of 12. The Curator would be very explicit in the communication of information to visitors because the images are very explicit. According to the Curator it would be strange to take an under toned or non-explicit approach with obvious images. Curator of Furniture. The Curator of Furniture responded to the question by first addressing issues related to the function of communication. The Curator considered information about art works secondary to the art works themselves – art should speak for itself. In cases where something may be offensive to people, they should be provided with information prior to coming. He stated that he would not try to “come up with a solution in the field of information” because by warning everyone you are interpreting the exhibition for everyone. He felt that the physical presentation of something affects the way one deals with it. He thought that he would find a solution to the problem by finding a sensitive way of showing the exhibition to people. The Curator touched upon his relationship with other staff members when he said that he would discuss the idea of a controversial exhibition with his Director. He also stated that decisions regarding controversial exhibitions should not belong only to curators within an institution. Education was another area discussed by the Curator of Furniture. His initial response was “I’d go to the Education Department.” However, the Curator also mentioned that the Education Department is “almost nonexistent in the museum.” He did

acknowledge that the Education Department, “should be able to…know or ought to know about specific methods of conveying information to the very young or to people who have difficulty in taking everything in.” Although he would not leave the decision of creating a controversial exhibition to the Education Department, the Curator would consult them for technical help or new methods of communicating information. Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. Communication, education, and his relationship with other staff members were brought up in the response from the Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. In such a situation, he would attempt to not offend people and “try to set a story on different levels” so that there are “different instruments to inform specific groups within the audience.” The Curator said that project management teams could help achieve this, particularly when trying to bring different messages to children and adults. Although curators are responsible for the content in an exhibition, they work with an instructor of education, the project manager, and with a staff member from communication and marketing. As declared by the Curator, project management teams discuss the central focus of an exhibition and figure out what they want to communicate to the public. To illustrate an unsuccessful approach to the situation, the Curator referred to a controversial exhibition that occurred a year and a half ago. As maintained by the Curator, the Rijksmuseum attempted to attract new audiences due to the construction at the institution. Thus, the Rijksmuseum decided to utilize its collection in a new way by focusing on four different topics within the masterpieces in the Philips Wing. One of these topics was death. The Museum distributed a flyer with a skull on it that read “Death in the Rijksmuseum.” They hung the posters throughout Amsterdam with one in front of a section of a hospital where people were terminal and “wouldn’t leave the hospital anymore.” The people there were sad and offended because they believed that the Rijksmuseum should bring art and joy to others as opposed to discussions of death. Due to negative responses experienced by these people, the Museum decided to stop the whole campaign. The Museum thought of the topic of death as a “part of life.” The Curator thought that the method of expressing this concept was not a good idea. In other words, communicating information about the exhibition to the public should be planned thoughtfully, otherwise, it can be interpreted negatively.

Part One, Question Four Question: “The director of your institution informs you that a generous and consistent patron wants to donate an artwork to your department. The work does not match the scope of the collections in your department. What do you do and why?” Curator of Dutch History. The Curator of Dutch History stressed the importance of preservation regarding the collection of objects as well as their communication. Although the relationship between the Rijksmuseum and those helping it are important, he affirmed that this cannot influence the works they accept. The Curator said that when the Museum acquires an important object by either gift or purchase, it wants to display it. Likewise, as a pubic institution the Rijksmuseum does not solely collect or preserve, it must present. The Curator described how he would attempt to solve a situation where an object did not fit the scope of his collection. He said that he would be honest with the donor and would offer assistance in finding a place for the object in another museum. He further stressed the function of communication when he contended that in cases where a museum accepts a gift and has no possibility of showing it, it is not good for them nor the donor. He said that one should not accept a gift “when it doesn’t make a connection with the rest of the collection or with the rest of the story you tell”. According to the Curator of Dutch History, a donation out of the scope of a museum’s collections can be the start of something new. However, it should be something that the Museum really wants in its future. In such a case, the curator should have a discussion about it with others in the museum. Thus, serving as a starting point the work would fit in the scope of the Museum’s collections. This idea illustrates that the decision is not solely decided by the Curator, but in conjunction with other Museum staff. The Curator of Dutch History held that the Museum needs to be clear about its goals. He said that if a person even offers such a request, it may be because the Museum’s goals were not clear enough to begin with. The connection between the Museum and the public about what it does and does not do also needs to be clear. This may help avoid circumstances such as these. Ultimately, this idea stressed that communication that clearly conveys the institution’s goals must exist between the Museum and the public.

Curator of Prints and Drawings. The Curator of Prints and Drawings addressed his relationship with other staff members when he said that he would talk to his Director about the situation and whether accepting the object was necessary. He said it was possible that his Department may accept the work. His justification for this was that works on paper do not take up as much room as objects in different collections. He stated that it is not a major preservation issue if “it’s just one sheet in a box,” however, it would be a “completely different problem” if it was “a sculpture that is three meters high.” The Curator of Prints and Drawings did acknowledge that accepting a work out of the scope of his collection could be a preservation concern at another point in time. He maintained that “you must be aware that your decisions are the burden of future curators.” Curator of Furniture. The answered provided by the Curator of Furniture mainly related to the function of communication. According to the Curator, he would not want to accept the object because the Museum “could not do it justice.” He even asserted that by accepting such an object “you kill it.” The Curator mentioned that he had not encountered a situation like this yet, but if it did happen he would “find it very problematic” because they could not accept it. He said that the Rijksmuseum does not put things on the wall with no reason behind them and that no one will gain by doing so. The Curator stated that they “rate the public and the works of art more highly in that sense than our patrons.” He would try to prevent the situation by informing patrons so they could understand the Museum’s point of view. The basic idea behind the Curator of Furniture’s thoughts on this issue was that the Museum could not accept a work that did not fit its collections because there is no way for the object to fulfill a strong communicative function for the public. The Curator discussed his relationship with his Director concerning the situation. He would ask the Director if the donor was his contact and would then offer to speak with this person. The Curator would explain to the donor how they were making a mistake in wanting to give their object to the Museum. He would also add that “although it may be very generous, it’s not going to function within this Museum or within our department.”

Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. The Curator touched upon his relationship with others in the Museum when he said that he always discusses acquisitions with the other curators. He would handle the issue of preservation by speaking with the donor in person to make clear that this particular artwork did not fit the collections of the Rijksmuseum. He would also tell the person that it might fit better in another museum’s collection in the country. Part Two “Rank the following in order of importance (for example: 1, 2, 3): Communication, study, preservation.”

Table 1. Curators’ Rank of Museum Functions at the Rijksmuseum ______

Museum Functions Curator Communication Study Preservation Curator of Dutch History 1 1 1 Curator of Prints and Drawings 2 3 1 Curator of Furniture 3 2 1 Curator of 17th Dutch Painting 2 2 1

Although I did not ask the curators to explain their answers, three of the four provided an explanation for their choices as they made their decisions. Curator of Dutch History. According to the Curator, “different things are important and one without the other doesn’t work”. He stated that because the Rijksmuseum is a public institution, its collection and building belong to the state. Because of this, he finds communication with the public significant. However, communication is a by-product of museum functions such as exhibitions, publishing books, and having a website. He maintained that preservation is important because if “you don’t have anything to communicate, of course, then there is nothing you can communicate.” He said that one of the core functions of the museum is taking care of objects – the heritage. If you do not take care of it or renew it “it becomes dead” and

“doesn’t function anymore within the society.” According to the Curator, there is an interaction between communication, study, and preservation and each one depends on the other. Curator of Prints and Drawings. The Curator of Prints and Drawings did not discuss the reasons for deciding his rank of the functions. Curator of Furniture. The Curator of Furniture believed that communication, study, and preservation are all very important. He maintained that preservation should be number one because everything else is “temporary.” The Curator ranked study as number two and communication as number three only because he functions “within the larger museum where others partly take care of the communication”. However, he thought that it would be ineffective if someone in his department studied works without communicating them to the public. In that sense, he said communication was almost more important, but did not change his initial rank. Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. He also said that this was difficult – that all three go together. He mentioned that in Dutch, curator is conservator. The Dutch word conservator has a similar meaning to conservator in English because it “means that you take care of the holdings of the museum for future generations.” He said that if they do not take care of the Museum’s collection, then they cannot study it or present it to the public. In other words, he must help preserve the objects for future generations and there is a balance between study and communication. Part Three, Question One “How do you stay current in your practice?” Curator of Dutch History. The Curator of Dutch History’s answers related to the function of study. He stated that he keeps current by “reading books and articles” and “having contact with colleagues within other museums, our museum of course, but also with universities and other institutions which are active in the field of history or in the field of museum studies and museum practice.” He also mentioned that since he is a historian, he must keep abreast of what is happening in the fields of history and historical research. As a public institution, they must also “know what happens in the field of museum studies – how to communicate well, what are the newest developments, what are the thoughts about how you have to represent history, which is quite different from

representing art.” In this case the function of study allowed the Curator to fulfill the function of communication. The Curator also discussed how he thought keeping up with current discussions was important. As an example, he said that he does not agree with art historians who maintain that “art speaks for itself.” He added: “I think it is a misunderstanding because art speaks for themselves maybe but, not for the general public.” He picked up the digital audio recorder that I placed on the table and remarked: History is of course when you see an object like this [touches digital audio recorder] it has a historical significance, but you have to explain it in a way. It doesn’t tell about it from itself. You can tell if it is a nice design but you can’t say what the historical importance of this digital and so on instrument is. So you have to do other things to tell a story about it. To give it a context which has meaning. Like every object you can tell different stories – the art historical story or the historical story or the design story or the function story or whatever. Different ways of giving an object significance. So that is very important if you know what is now the actual way of seeing what are the discussions. He further illustrated his point by contending that his museum must react to the current discussions in the Netherlands concerning national identity and multicultural society. He said that this is often difficult because although they have concern for their objects, they “tend to look inside more than outside.” He maintained that the Museum has to do both. Thus, it is important that he knows the current discussions in both the scientific and public worlds. By keeping up with current discussions and fulfilling the function of study, the Curator learns about methods related to the function of communication. Curator of Prints and Drawings. The Curator of Prints and Drawings stayed current through the function of study. He said that he reads, browses through magazines, auction catalogues, and new literature. The Curator added that “sometimes it’s so busy that you feel like there is not enough time to read.” He also said he keeps informed by visiting web-sites and by mailing lists. For example, Curators of Dutch and Flemish Art (CODART) mailing list, a Netherlands-based international organization for museum curators of Dutch and Flemish art used for networking (About CODART, n.d.). Contact with colleagues (i.e. curators, university faculty, historians) and joining committees is

another important way that the Curator stays current. He said although email keeps him informed, it is a “kind of a curse” because it is always full. Curator of Furniture. The response provided by the Curator of Furniture related to the function of study. The Curator described how he must follow the art market, which changes quickly, to “know what’s going on, what’s being offered, and points of view.” He also said he follows sales, attends many viewings of sales, and visits with a lot of dealers. Meeting with colleagues also helps the Curator of Furniture stay current with the function of study. The Curator meets with colleagues in both the Netherlands and internationally. In the Netherlands, the Curator mentioned that the Rijksmuseum often serves as an advisor, particularly with the decorative arts. Because museums in the Netherlands contact the Rijksmuseum for advice regarding the decorative arts, the Curator learns about their collections. However, he stated that his real colleagues are peers from other countries. This is because the Netherlands does not have another museum with specialized curators in the decorative arts. Frequent traveling and involvement in international organizations is something that the Curator must do to keep up with colleagues abroad. For example, the Curator serves on the arts panel at the National Trust in England. Serving on the panel requires him to visit houses multiple times each year with other specialists from England. This allows him to understand current thinking of English specialists in the decorative arts. The Curator also reads new literature and writes reviews. He edits the book reviews in the newsletter distributed by the Furniture History Society based in England. This job requires the Curator to stay current with new books published internationally on furniture. He must decide which books are appropriate for review, review the book or find a reviewer, and then edit the review. In this way, the Curator stated he could “keep abreast of current thinking.” Symposiums are another way the Curator fulfils the Rijksmuseum’s function of study. Sometimes he lectures at symposiums, however, the Curator stated that he tries to avoid them because “there’s usually a waste of time involved.” However, he added that “sometimes it’s very useful, obviously, because you see your colleagues and everything.”

He also said that he participates in a “highly developed network of decorative arts specialists all over the world.” Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings. The Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings talked about how he read, looked at the art market, and networked to stay current in his field. He mentioned that he reads the most recent literature in his field (i.e. Burlington Magazine) and looks at auction catalogues to keep up with new artworks added to the market. He also networks by traveling in the Netherlands and internationally. He has many contacts including art collectors and art dealers. As stated by the Curator, “you always try to, as I said, study as much as possible. Well, both studying and networking – I think these are the most important aspects.” Part Three, Question Two “Describe something innovative that you've done in the past 12 months.” Curator of Dutch History. The Curator made an exhibition concerning Dutch heroism that fulfilled the Museum’s functions of study and communication. He described his concept for the exhibition: …Dutch heroism is kind of an impossibility for a lot of people – even Dutchmen. But nevertheless there are a lot of Dutch heroes. So it has to do with something about society today – about courage, about being a leader, about trying to be an example for others. I think all over the world people need examples, they need people to look up to. The only difference between the different people is how that happens. So when you take a subject like heroism you try to look outside, like I told you, and not inside. You try to connect to society and the discussions that are taking place there. That is not the way it always is and has been in this museum and in a lot of other museums – most other museums I think as well. But it is at the same time what you see with new museums and different parts of the world – especially museums about history or about society. Like a holocaust museum or a New Zealand museum about the Maori people. So they try to make connections with the society as well and give it a historical perspective for that. So not to say it has to be like this and not like that. But to take part in a discussion which is being held within the society. So that is what I try to do.

The Curator’s concept for the exhibition on Dutch heroes not only exhibits the function of study and communication, but illustrates his belief that whatever the Rijksmuseum presents should be relevant to the current society. The Curator of Dutch History described how the exhibition of Dutch heroes served another purpose by showing different exhibition possibilities at the Museum. Since parts of the Rijksmuseum are going through construction, there will be a new permanent exhibition. According to the Curator, they had “a chance to do everything different” and in a “temporary exhibition you can be more extreme than in a permanent exhibition.” The Curator also stated that the exhibition provided an opportunity for necessary discussions within the Museum. Regarding objects, the exhibition posed the questions: “what does an object mean?,” “what kind of possibilities are there to show them?,” and “what context” do you choose? Normally, the Curator said that one goes with “what is traditionally known.” To illustrate his point, the Curator described Rembrandt’s Night Watch. The Curator stated that even though the Night Watch is a masterpiece of Rembrandt’s career, it also tells about society from that time. Therefore, the possibility exists to show it as part Rembrandt’s oeuvre or part of the society it depicts. The Curator said that making a choice in this case is easy – that it would be best to show the work as part of Rembrandt’s oeuvre. In general, however, one has to be aware of such options when making a choice. The Curator said that curators traditionally put works in an oeuvre or a style, but there are many possibilities for showing works of art. Another purpose of his exhibition was to show different possibilities for exhibiting works and to see the public’s reaction. Curator of Prints and Drawings. The Curator of Prints and Drawings’ answer related to study. The Curator described how he put together a new acquisitions exhibition in two months. For the first time, he showed a new area that consisted of Dutch art from the second half of the 20th century. The Curator said that he is also editing a series of print catalogues. While editing he came up with a function in Word: “keep track with corrections.” This function helps to shorten the time it takes to make catalogues. The entire editorial board now uses the function. Curator of Dutch Furniture. The function of study dominated the answer provided by the Curator of Dutch Furniture. The Curator stated that he sometimes makes

discoveries. As an example, he spoke about how his department is attempting to expand its small collection of 19th Century decorative arts. When he saw a suite of furniture for sale at Christie’s Auction House in London, the Curator was able to identify that the furniture was Dutch as well as its specific maker. Because he could attribute the work and Christie’s could not, it was not as expensive. He stated that this incident may not be that innovative because “that’s what you’re meant to do all the time in a way.” Another example described by the Curator of Furniture was a project to write a book on the Rijksmuseum’s collection of French decorative arts between 1650 and 1900. According to the Curator they have a good collection in every field that ranges from porcelain to silver to gold boxes. The Curator stated that: Now, almost everywhere when such a collection is catalogued or a book is written on it, a separate specialist is asked to do their little bit. So somebody writes the entries and introduction on furniture and somebody else writes them on porcelain and so on. I think all of the books are very alike and also I think nobody takes really care to look at all the sort of crosscurrents. So what I suggested here, which in that sense is innovative, is that every curator has a tendency to think that their little field belongs to them. But within curators of decorative arts I’m the only one who works on French things quite a bit. So I suggested that I do all the entries. I deal with the porcelain, I deal with the gold, although I’m not that curator in that field, in order to try and tell a sort continuous story through all the objects. I would also involve engravings and drawings when they show decorative objects. I think some curators have reacted rather defensively, and said “but that’s mine.” But I think the plan has been agreed and that’s a long term project. But I hope that I’ll be able to come up with a book that really adds something new to a field in which a lot of people are working. But almost everybody seems to be concentrating on the small details. So that perhaps is innovative on a slightly longer range. Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting. The Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting’s answer related to study, preservation, communication, and education. The Rijksmuseum is refurbishing parts of the Philips Wing and the Curator said he is currently participating in discussions regarding the field of conservation. These

discussions include the care of artworks and new methods of research concerning restoration, conservation, or the cleaning of paintings. The Curator said that he is an editor for a new Rijksmuseum magazine called Oog. He is responsible for discussing communication. Regarding the purpose of Oog, the Curator stated: So we try to bring the Rijksmuseum especially to women aged between 30 and 50 years old who don’t have time to come to the Museum itself, but who really love to read about art and to, well, look at art. And that’s the thing, I mean in long term you want to, well, get them acquainted with the Museum and the collection and to become, well, more or less a friend or member of the Museum. But now you just want to express the message of the Rijksmuseum and of course also to give the idea to a broad audience that the Rijksmuseum is not closed which is an opinion that, well, some people have. We’re still open, we still attract more than 1 million visitors a year. We have a wonderful collection and we’ve got a great function at the National Museum within this country. So this Oog, which is not a traditional way of, well, bringing art to the pubic and history to the public is in my opinion quite, well, neo and a good instrument next to the more thoroughly studied catalogues and things we present. The Curator’s involvement in Oog, educates both a broad and specific audience using a non-traditional means. Summary The interview statements by the curators of Dutch history, prints and drawings, furniture, and 17th century Dutch painting all discussed aspects of van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums: (a) preservation; (b) communication; and (c) study. Although they may work in different departments specializing in subject areas, the logic behind their curatorial practices coincides. All of the curators came to the same conclusion regarding a decision concerning the restoration of an object. First they would fulfill the function of study. This would aid them in deciding what the object would communicate (i.e. if a subsequent change in an object is “interesting” enough). What the object would communicate would determine

what their response on the topic of preservation (i.e. if a subsequent change is “interesting”, then they would preserve an object in that state). Although none of the curators wanted to cause damage to objects by displaying them, they did believe that the Rijksmuseum should show the objects in some way. The curators responsible for Dutch history, prints and drawings, and furniture all described their relationship with other staff members when they said that they would involve restorers or technical people in their decision. All of the curators brought up their Museum’s function of communication when they stressed the importance presenting objects to the public. Regarding the expression of information in a specialized exhibition to a diverse audience, the curators mentioned being truthful and sensitive and said they should make an effort to consult other museum staff. The curators of Dutch history, prints and drawings, and furniture felt that being honest, explicit, or allowing the object to speak for itself was important in such an exhibition. The curators of prints and drawings and furniture also felt that visitors could be warned of the exhibition’s content prior to viewing the exhibition to help prepare them. Finding a sensitive way to show the exhibition was also a concern for the curators of Dutch history, furniture, and 17th century Dutch paintings. They described how they would work with other staff at the Rijksmuseum, particularly the education department, to find a solution. This would generally consist of the curator conceiving the topics and subjects of an exhibition while the education department would assist with the methods of communicating information to the public. The Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting spoke about how project management teams consisting of an instructor of education, project manager, and a staff member from communication and marketing could determine how and what to communicate in an exhibition. All of the curators’ answers were the same regarding the question concerning the generous and consistent patron who wanted to donate an object that did not fit in the scope of the Rijksmuseum’s collections. None of the curators wanted to accept the object due to issues associated with preservation and communication. Likewise, their relationship with other staff members would assist them in resolving the issue. The curators of prints and drawings and furniture would speak to their Director regarding the

issue. The curators of Dutch history and 17th century Dutch paintings would speak with other museum curators regarding new acquisitions. The curators of Dutch history, furniture, and 17th century Dutch painting would attempt to explain to the patron in person how the object does not fit into the Museum’s collections. The communicative function of the object was a concern to the curators of Dutch history and furniture. They believed that an object should have a connection to the other items in the collections. The Curator of Dutch History went so far as to say that the Museum does not solely collect, thus, he acknowledged its other functions. All of the curators stay current in their field through the function of study by reading books, magazines, and auction catalogues. Contact with colleagues was another way of keeping current. Colleagues included staff in their Museum and in other museums, university faculty, institutions active in their fields, curators, historians, collectors, and art dealers. Symposiums, email, mailing lists, and traveling were methods often used to communicate with colleagues. The Curator of Dutch History described how the function of study helped him fulfill the function of communication by keeping current in the field of research and museum studies. It also helped him learn new methods for communicating effectively. Study and communication were the dominate functions described by the curators regarding innovations they undertook in the past 12 months. The Curator of Dutch History spoke about exploring different possibilities for exhibitions and making them relevant to the current society. The Curator of Prints and Drawings mentioned a new acquisitions exhibition he completed, an editing project, and a method he created for quickening the time it takes to create catalogues. Making discoveries in the field of furniture and writing a new style of book were things described by the Curator of Furniture. The Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting referred to the functions of study, communication, and education when he spoke about editing Oog, a new Rijksmuseum magazine geared toward a specific audience. He also described the functions of preservation when he said that he participated in a discussion regarding conservation in the Museum. Although all of the curators’ answers were different, they all touched upon the utilization of their specialized knowledge in ways to help them communicate information through means such as exhibitions and publications.

Observations I observed the program setting at the Rijksmuseum that included the physical environment. I sorted data according to communication and preservation, two of van Mensch’s (1990) functions of museums that related to the exhibition’s physical environment. Communication The Rijksmuseum communicated information both physically and semantically (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). Physical information included the selection and placement of artworks. Semantic information consisted of labels, diagrams, and other written information. Physical communication. While this study took place, the Rijksmuseum exhibited Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces in the Philips Wing due to renovations (de Leeuw, 2003). Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces occupied two floors with 14 differently themed rooms. The first floor consisted of five rooms: (a) Dutch Republic; (b) World Power; (c) Dolls’ Houses; (d) Treasury; and (e) Delftware. The second floor had nine rooms: (a) New Genres; (b) Frans Hals; (c) Rembrandt and Pupils; (d) The Later Rembrandt; (e) Johannes Vermeer; (f) Jan Steen; (g) The Night Watch; (h) Ceremonial Plate; and (i) New Acquisitions.

Figure 2. Floor plan of Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces2

Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces displayed works that the Museum considered to be the finest of what the Dutch created in the 17th century (de Leeuw, 2003). Each room communicated its independent idea that tied into the larger theme that was the art and history of the Dutch Golden Age. The physical placement of rooms in Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces ([Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010) also communicated information to visitors. For example, on the ground floor of the exhibition, visitors began with the Dutch Republic room followed by the World Power room. Since the theme of the exhibition was the art and history of the Dutch Golden age, these rooms provided a general overview of this period. For example, they set the background by describing topics such as the Republic, world power, and expansion. The rooms that followed included: Dolls’ House, Treasury, and Delftware. These rooms displayed objects that resulted from the Dutch Republic’s status as a world power and expansion – the themes from the first two rooms. The works on the first floor of the exhibition mainly consisted of paintings by major Dutch artists working in the Golden Age (Dominicus-Van Soest, 2003; Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). The first room, titled New Genres, provided visitors with a background on new art genres (i.e. portraits, everyday scenes, still lifes, and a variety of landscapes) in the Golden Age. The following rooms that concentrated on the oeuvres of individual artists (i.e. Frans Hals, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Jan Steen) exhibited the genres from the first room. Semantic communication. In each of the Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces’ ([Exhibition], December 2003-2010) 14 rooms were keywords and descriptions largely visible on the walls. In individual rooms, one wall displayed this information in Dutch while another wall displayed it in English. For example, the first room titled Dutch Republic had the following wall text: DUTCH REPUBLIC. Never has the Netherlands been so wealthy and powerful as in the 17th century, the Golden Age. In the Eighty Year’s War (1568-1648) the Dutch expelled their Spanish rulers and established an independent state. Unlike most of Europe, the new country was not a kingdom, but a republic. Power was in the hands of the burghers. It was not long before the Republic of the Seven United Provinces became one of Europe’s leading nations, constantly growing rich on

trade and shipping. Dutch vessels sailed world’s oceans. In the Dutch Republic, products and materials from across the world were stocked, processed, and distributed. Merchants amassed fortunes and art and culture flourished (The Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). The wall text for the Dutch Republic room consisted of a keyword and description. The keyword was in capital letters on the wall to stand out to visitors. The information supplementing the keyword conveyed the idea that the Dutch Republic was powerful and flourished from trade and shipping. As a result of this wealth, the Dutch arts thrived. Individual artworks contributed to their rooms’ larger theme in the exhibition. The objects’ accompanying labels made the connection clear. The labels were in both Dutch (at top of label) and English (at bottom of label). Labels for objects stated the (a) title; (b) artist; (c) medium, date; (d) description; (e) acquisition; and (f) description. For example, an object in the Dutch Republic room had the following written on its label: The four continents pay homage to Amsterdam Artus Quellinus Terracotta, c. 1655 BK-AM-51-3 Quellinus of Antwerp, designed the sculpture for Amsterdam’s town hall. This is his study for the pediment surmounting the rear façade. Personified as a lady seated on the side of a ship, Amsterdam’s fleet rest on a globe. Four of the surmounting figures represent the four known continents of Europe, Africa, Asia, and America. They bear gifts in homage to the city of Amsterdam (The Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). The label assigned to The four continents pay homage to Amsterdam fit into the larger theme of the room – the Dutch Republic. This object is a product of Dutch wealth associated with its trade and shipping and portrays Amsterdam as a world power. The exhibition had unique display methods for particular objects. For example, the dolls’ house of Petronella Oortman (c. 1686-1705) stood behind a large panel of glass Dominicus-Van Soest, 2003; Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). Due to its height, two tall metal ladders stood in front of the glass for

visitors to climb and see the upper portion of the dolls’ house. A diagram next to the dolls’ house provided additional information concerning the rooms.

Figure 3. Diagram of Petronella Oortman’s Dolls’ House3 The diagram and unique method for viewing the dolls’ house are examples of innovative methods the Rijksmuseum uses to communicate information to visitors. The Rijksmuseum also helps fulfill its communicative function by providing wall and label text in two languages (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). It provides audio guides, floor plans, and guides in nine languages including Dutch, English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, Japanese, and Russian. Physical and semantic communication. The exhibition also communicated information to visitors physically through the type of objects in the room and semantic information on the walls and labels (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). For example, the Delftware room displayed a large selection of Delftware along with two paintings commissioned by William III of Orange and his Wife Mary II of Stuart: A pelican and other birds near a pool, known as ‘the floating feather’ (1680) by Melchior D’Hondecoeter and Selene and Endymion by Gerard de Lairesse (c. 1677-78). Although the paintings may not appear to fit within the Delftware in the room, the choice of objects and semantic information conveyed the connection. For example, among the delftware were busts of Prince William III of Orange (c. 1695-1700) and his wife Mary II of Stuart (c. 1680-1685) made in the Delftware Factory (Dominicus-Van Soest, 2003). Likewise, semantic information on the walls communicated two main themes: delftware and William and Mary. The wall text read:

3 Based on diagram of Petronella Oortman’s dolls’ house from the exhibition Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces, December 2003 – 2010, Amsterdam. 73

DELFTWARE. In the first half of the 17th century most of the products made by the Dutch pottery industry were simple utensils. These were painted with lead glaze and are known as faience. The wealthier sections of the population preferred imported Chinese porcelain. When a civil war in China disrupted the supply in 1657, the faience potters in Delft seized the opportunity to start producing luxury imitation porcelain. They managed to acquire a monopoly of the production, combining Asian and European forms and decorations to create a new Delft style (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). WILLIAM AND MARY. The Dutch stadholder William III and his wife, the British Princess Mary Stuart, were enthroned king and queen of England and Scotland in 1689. As monarchs they adopted a royal lifestyle and built, decorated and furnished palaces. The court architect Marot provided most of the designs. Mary Stuart was a great admirer of pottery and commissioned many pieces (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). Mary Stuart’s appreciation for delftware and the delftware busts of herself and husband allowed visitors to see a connection between the rest of the objects in the room and the two paintings. The room titled the Later Rembrandt had a stand containing printed guides next to couches for visitors to sit on. The guides discussed aspects of The Sampling Officials (1662), a painting by Rembrandt van Rijn (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). Many visitors sat on the couches with the guides and compared them to the actual painting that hung on the wall in front of them. The guide drew attention to societal and technical details in the painting. For example, the guide touched upon a feature of 17th century Dutch society by using an arrow to point to a figure’s collar and stating “His short collar reveals this to be the oldest member of the group. By 1662 starched collars and short hair were out of fashion and only old men still dressed like this.” The guide also made note of the artist’s technique when it stated “Rembrandt used especially dry paint here. Pigment mixed with small amounts of oil. This gives the pages the appearance of thick paper.” On the back of the guide was an X-ray photo with the caption “Was this a difficult assignment? Apparently it was. An x-ray photo shows that Rembrandt had particular trouble finding the right position for the various figures.

He kept moving them around until he was happy with the result.” This caption exhibits the collaboration that exists among staff at the Rijksmuseum because the guide included information obtained from specialists in the conservation department in an educational guide within the curatorial exhibition. Preservation The exhibit rooms in Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces had controlled lighting as a preventative conservation measure. Light has a harmful effect on nearly all organic materials and on some inorganic materials (Oddy, 1992). Light often fades organic pigments and dyes and can cause structural deterioration. The rooms the Dutch Republic, World Power, Dolls’ House, Treasury, Delftware, and Ceremonial Plate all utilized dim and controlled lighting.

Figure 4. Dutch Republic room, Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces, Amsterdam4

Rooms in the exhibition consisting solely of oil paintings, a less-sensitive medium, had skylight windows that filtered natural light (see Figure x). High-energy ultraviolet (UV) light is the most damaging type of light, although visible light can also

4 Interior of the Dutch Republic room in the Masterpieces exhibition at the Rijksmuseum. Photo taken by Jeroen Swolfs. Reprinted with permission of the Rijksmuseum’s Press and Publicity Department. 75

cause damage (Oddy, 1992). High density films absorb UV when natural light is a source of lighting.

Figure 5. The Later Rembrandt room, Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces, Amsterdam5

Glass display cases provided controlled environments for metals, textiles, ceramics, and wood (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). The causes of poor environments include light (particularly UV radiation), incorrect levels of relative humidity (RH) and temperature, and all forms of dirt (Glover, 1992; Newey, 1992) In Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces, there were metal rails (see Figure x) about 1.5 feet tall on the floor to protect paintings (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). These rails prevented visitors from getting too close to the paintings. Some free standing objects in the rooms, for example the wooden ship in the Dutch Republic room, also had metal rails surrounding them. Less fragile items such as the canon in the Dutch Republic room simply had a sign that said “Do Not Touch.”

5 The Later Rembrandt room in the Masterpieces exhibition at the Rijksmuseum. Photo taken by Jeroen Swolfs. Reprinted with permission of the Rijksmuseum’s Press and Publicity Department. 76

Summary The Rijksmuseum’s combination of physical and semantic information communicated information to visitors (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). Physical information consisted of the placement of artworks and individual rooms that tied into the larger theme of the exhibition. The Museum communicated information semantically through keywords and descriptions on the walls in each room. This wall text tied into the larger theme of the exhibition that was the Dutch Golden Age. Besides wall text, labels that accompanied individual objects tied into the larger themes discussed in the exhibition. Dutch and English text catered to both domestic and international audiences. The combination of physical and semantic information conveyed information to the public through the combination of objects and textual information. Unique display methods for objects (i.e. Petronella Oortman’s Dolls’ House) innovatively communicated information to visitors. Other methods, such as interactive printed guides (i.e. the Later Rembrandt room) provided visitors with information and challenged them. These methods also exhibited the collaboration among museum staff since they utilized information from different departments (i.e. conservation, education, collections). Preservation, particularly preventative conservation, was evident at the Rijksmuseum. All of the exhibit rooms had controlled lighting either through low light levels or high density films that absorb UV (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). Glass display cases provided controlled environments for objects and metal rails served as boundaries between objects and visitors. Less fragile objects (i.e. cannon) had signs warning people not to touch them. Website and Written Sources I examined the Rijksmuseum’s website and written sources in relation to the function of study. Research and publications were major components of the curators’ function of study. Research The Rijksmuseum maintains that research is the basic premise of all of its activity (Research, n.d.). Research at the Museum entails an object as a source of information. At

the Rijksmuseum research is historical and art-historical, which is different from university research that has a theoretical concentration. Research at the Rijksmuseum involving objects and artworks many times results in the creation of an article in the Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum, the Museum's academic periodical (Research, n.d.). Researchers are able to search catalogues of the collection thus providing access to the different departments, exhibition catalogues, and other kinds of publications. Collaboration. A team of specialists research objects at the Rijksmuseum, therefore, the institution works closely with various domestic and international institutes (About the Research, n.d.). For example, the Rijksmuseum used neutron tomography to examine a collection of bronze sculptures together with the Paul Scherrer Institute and published the results in catalogues and the Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum. The Rijksmuseum’s staff of specialists collaborate in the fields of academic research and education regarding art history (Research: Collaboration, n.d.). The Museum opens trainee positions for young people every year. It collaborates with multiple museums in Amsterdam and the art history departments of the University of Amsterdam and the Free University of Amsterdam. In the future, the Rijksmuseum will take part in a Master’s degree course for museum curators. The Museum presented the framework for the Dutch Postgraduate School of Art History’s study day on graphic art. Publications The Rijksmuseum has books published on its exhibitions, the completion of restoration work, and the cataloguing of a collection (Books and dvds, n.d.). Museum guides, general overview publications, and children's books are other types of publications. The books published by the Rijksmuseum cover a range of areas regarding the institution’s collection. For example, there are books designed specifically for children. One of these children’s books, The dolls’ house, describes the dolls’ house of Petronella Oortman that is part of the Rijksmuseum’s collection (Carbo, 2008). The book is for youg people from eight years of age and describes how wealthy people lived in the 17th century.

Comprehensive catalogues of the Rijksmuseum’s collection contained key areas of the Museum’s collection. For example, there are catalogues written about the Rijksmuseum’s collection of Amsterdam gold and silver as well as 17th-century Dutch drawings catalogues (CODART, October 4, 2007; Research: Publications, n.d). The Museum published approximately 50 exhibition catalogues in the past 11 years (CODART, October 4, 2007). They are different than collection catalogues because they are a discourse on a specific period or aspect in art history or about an individual artist. Exhibition catalogues round off parts of collections in a display with some or all of the Rijksmuseum’s collections. The Rijksmuseum also produces exhibition catalogues targeted for a broader audience. For example, the Rijksmuseum published the guide Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces on one of its exhibitions. The Department of Education and Information at the Rijksmuseum wrote the text for the guide (Dominicus-Van Soest, 2003). The guide describes 120 objects on display in the exhibition. The guide is available in nine languages: Dutch, English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, Japanese and Russian. The Rijksmuseum issues three magazines: the Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum (Dutch with English summaries), the Rijksmuseum Kunstkrant (Dutch), and Oog (Dutch) (Publications, n.d.). The Rijksmuseum’s periodical Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum includes the results of research at the institution. The Rijksmuseum Kunstkrant is a color magazine containing articles regarding the Rijksmuseum’s collection and exhibitions (Publications: Rijksmuseum Kunstkrant, n.d.). At the end of 2007, the Rijksmuseum launched Oog (‘eye’), an art and history magazine targeted to a broader audience (CODART, October 4, 2007). Publications by interviewed curators. I used WorldCat, the largest library network on the world wide web, to compile lists of scholarly publications written by the four curators I interviewed (What is WorldCat, n.d.). I documented of all of the books, book collaborations, and articles written by the curators since the year 2000. It is worth noting that there may be other publications by the curators that are not available in the WorldCat database.

Table 2. Publications Written by Interviewed Curators since the Year 2000 ______

Curator Type of Publication Books Book Articles Total Collaborations Curator of Dutch 2 2 4 8 History Curator of Prints 1 7 3 11 and Drawings Curator of 2 10 6 18 Furniture Curator of 17th 0 8 1 9 Century Dutch Painting Total 5 27 14 46

The Curator of Dutch History worked on eight publications. He wrote two books and collaborated on two books. The Curator published four articles for Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum. The Curator of Prints and Drawings produced 11 publications. He wrote one book and collaborated on seven books. He also published three articles in the Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum, Kunstschrift, a Dutch publication concerning the visual arts, and Renaissance Quarterly (Over Kunstschrift, n.d.). The Curator of Furniture completed 18 publications. He wrote two books and contributed to 10. He wrote five articles for the Burlington Magazine and one article for the Bulletin van Rijksmuseum. The publications authored by the Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting totaled nine. The Curator contributed to eight books and wrote one article for the Bulletin van Rijksmuseum.

Summary Research is an important component of the Rijksmuseum’s activity (Research, n.d.). Museum staff research objects using both historical and art-historical methods. Researching objects at the Museum often results in a publication (e.g. Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum). Collaboration is an important part of research at the Museum. Specialists at the Museum work with both domestic and international groups regarding collections (Research: Collaboration, n.d.). The Rijksmuseum staff also collaborate in the fields of academic research and education in the field of art history and serves as a training ground for young people. The Rijksmuseum offers a variety of publications (i.e. catalogues, books, journals) that are broad or specialized. They also cater publications to groups of visitors (i.e. general public, children). All of the interviewed curators wrote or collaborated on scholarly books and articles. They also contributed articles to their Museum’s publication the Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum. (Research: Collaboration, n.d.). Since the year 2000, the curators of Dutch history, prints and drawings, furniture, and 17th century Dutch painting wrote five books, collaborated on 27 books, and published 14 articles. Chapter six will synthesize the data described in this chapter by answering the questions posed in chapter three. It will also discuss implications of this study, provide areas for further research, and present the conclusion.

CHAPTER SIX: SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION This chapter answers the question: What is the nature of curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum and how do these practices reflect recent changes in the focus and structure of art museums? I utilized the reconceptualized framework developed by van Mensch (1990) to help answer this question. Also included in this chapter are the implications of this study’s findings for U.S. art museums, areas for further research, and the conclusion. Nature of Curatorial Practices at the Rijksmuseum I considered van Mensch’s (1990) three functions of museums (preservation, communication, and study) when answering the first part of the research question that addressed the nature of curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum. These included: (a) what are curators’ roles in preservation?; (b) how do curators communicate information?; and (c) how do curators study art collections? Due to the frequent mention of education and curators’ relationships with other staff members, additional questions included: (a) how do curators fulfill their institutions’ educational mission? and (b) what are curators’ relationships with other staff members? Curators’ Roles in Preservation What are curators’ roles in preservation? Importance of preservation. In their interviews, all of the curators ranked preservation as the most important function of their Museum (See Table 1). Although, it is important to note that the Curator of Dutch History considered preservation, communication, and study to be equally important. The curators explained that their justification for ranking preservation as the most important function was that they deemed the other functions temporary. Likewise, not ensuring preservation would result in the deterioration of objects. In other words, without objects there would be nothing to study or communicate. The fact that the Rijksmuseum was undergoing extensive renovations during this study displays the adherence for preservation throughout the museum. Rijksmuseum curators also acknowledged the importance of caring for objects. They all stated that they did not want to accept artworks out of the scope of their Museum’s collections. They stressed the responsibility of accepting, maintaining, and displaying objects. These ideas are in line with views on effective collections

management policies. These policies hold that museums must efficiently handle their collections as they preserve them for long-term use as well as follow their missions and ensure public trust (Genoways and Ireland, 2003). Ensuring preservation. All of the curators stated that they would not want to damage artworks through their display. This concern for preservation was visually evident at the Rijksmuseum. During this study, I observed preventative conservation measures including low light levels and the placement of high density films on windows that absorb UV (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). Glass cases sheltered sensitive materials (i.e. metals, textiles, wood, ceramics) from dangerous external factors such as light (particularly UV radiation), incorrect levels of relative humidity (RH) and temperature, and all forms of dirt (Glover, 1992; Newey, 1992). Less fragile objects (i.e. paintings, certain free standing objects) had deterrents such as metal rails (see Figure 5) and signs that said “Do Not Touch” (Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010). In addition, there were no works on paper displayed in the Rijksmuseum. The Museum stated that it only displays works on paper in temporary exhibitions due to their size and fragility, not permanent exhibitions (Collection, drawings, prints and photographs, n.d.). Decision-making process regarding preservation. An emergent theme in the interviewed curators’ answers was a decision-making process regarding the preservation of objects.

Figure 6. Curatorial decision making process regarding the preservation of objects at the Rijksmuseum

Curators based decisions regarding preservation on the functions of communication and study. The function of study was the starting point of their decision-making process. Studying the history and background of objects would help curators decide what they wanted to communicate. The curators stated that they want to communicate the most interesting aspects of objects. Determining what curators want to communicate can lead to a decision regarding the type of preservation (i.e. restoration, display method) regarding an object. Throughout the decision making process, curators said that they consult staff from different departments (i.e. conservation, other collections departments) regarding preservation decisions. How Curators Communicate Information How do curators communicate information? Importance of communication. Curatorial answers regarding the importance of communication varied. On average, curators ranked it as the second most important museum function – equal to the function of study (see Table 1). Curators believed museum objects should be on display, although they did not want to damage them. Exhibitions that connect to the public. The interviewed curators stated that their role regarding the communication of information consisted of conceiving themes, topics and issues for exhibitions. The Curator of Dutch History held that their ideas for exhibitions should connect to the broader public. Honesty and sensitivity. When communicating information to diverse audiences, curators said they do so in a truthful and sensitive manner. Depending on the type of exhibition, communicating information explicitly or allowing the object to speak for itself may be appropriate. Curators also stated that in some cases (i.e. controversial or explicit exhibitions) they should prepare visitors by implementing ways to inform them of content prior to visiting exhibitions. Connection between individual objects and collections. Curators believed that an object should have a connection with the other items in their Museum’s collections. The selection of artworks in each room of Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces ([Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010) supported this idea. The objects in each of the exhibition rooms as well as the placement of rooms communicated independent ideas that tied into the

larger theme of the exhibition – the art and history of the Dutch Golden Age (de Leeuw, 2003). How Curators Study Art Collections How do curators study art collections? Importance of study. Like communication, the average rank of study by curators was second. Curators viewed study as an essential link to other functions, particularly communication. Reading. All of the curators stated that they stayed current in their fields by reading. Books, magazines, and auction catalogues in their fields were materials that curators read to study art collections. Contacts, networking, and collaboration. Contact with colleagues and networking were other ways curators stayed up-to-date in their fields and fulfilled the function of study. Colleagues included Rijksmuseum staff, staff from other museums, university faculty, institutions active in the curators’ fields, curators, historians, collectors, and art dealers. Email and traveling were ways of keeping in touch with colleagues. Curators attended symposiums and joined mailing lists as ways to network. Curators researching objects at the Rijksmuseum work with various domestic and international institutes (i.e. Paul Scherrer Institute) (About the Research, n.d.). Using study to communicate information. Another emergent theme in the curators’ interviews was the use of their specialized knowledge to communicate information in exhibitions and publications. The function of study helped curators fulfill the function of communication by keeping them current with developments in their fields. Scholarly publications. The interviewed curators overwhelmingly contributed to scholarly publications in their fields. Although curators may contribute to broad educational materials (i.e. themes, concepts, type of objects), they mainly focused on specialized and scholarly books and articles. Commissioned specialists or the Department of Education and Information at the Rijksmuseum handled materials targeted toward the broader public and children. For example, The dolls’ house (2008) and Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces (2003). Two of the interviewed curators (The Curator of Furniture and The

Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting) mentioned that they were editors of scholarly periodicals. Fulfillment of Educational Missions How do curators fulfill their institutions’ educational mission? Absence of explicit educational component in mission. The Rijksmuseum’s mission statement did not explicitly address education. It did, however, imply communicating information to the pubic when it stated that it “aims to provide a domestic and international public with a representative survey of Dutch art and history since the Middle Ages as well as key aspects of European and Asiatic art” (Mission, n.d.). The mission statement addressed tasks associated with education including publishing, presenting, making objects accessible, and organizing exhibitions. Scholarly publications and communication of themes, topics, and issues. The Rijksmuseum’s Education Department is responsible for matters regarding the education of the broader public and specific groups (i.e. children). In order to effectively communicate information, curators described how they would consult the Education Department on matters related to particular educational methods and techniques. In contrast, the curatorial role regarding education focused on communicating themes, topics, and issues to the public through exhibitions. The interviewed curators did not contribute educational materials to the general public – they focused solely on scholarly publications. Curators’ Relationships with Other Staff Members What are curators’ relationships with other staff members? Decision making. Curators at the Rijksmuseum stated that in certain cases they would involve other staff in their decision making processes. Regarding preservation, curators said that they would consult the Conservation and Restoration Department regarding issues such as restoration and display methods that ensure the safety of objects. Curators also spoke about how they would turn to the Education Department for matters related to educational techniques and methods. Collaborative relationships. The Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting described how project management teams consisting of an instructor of education, project

manager, and a staff member from communication and marketing work on exhibitions together. Collectively, they determine how and what to communicate in an exhibition. Reflection of Recent Changes in the Focus and Structure of Art Museums at the Rijksmuseum Answering the first part of the research question helped me respond to the second part of the question that asked how these practices reflected recent changes in the focus and structure of art museums. It considered two main aspects: (a) how the institution focuses on visitors and (b) the extent to which the institution uses business management techniques. Focus on Visitors The institution’s focus on visitors included the accommodation of both a national and global public. Employing a number of communication methods in exhibitions also reflected a focus on visitors. Global public. The Rijksmuseum’s mission statement mentioned its service to the public that was both national and international (Mission, n.d.). The focus on a national and international public was evident throughout the Museum. All of the curators must speak at least Dutch and English (P. van de Wiel, personal communication, August 11, 2008). All of the exhibit text and many of the Museum’s books were in two languages: Dutch and English. The Museum published some books in up to nine different languages. For example, the book Rijksmuseum Amsterdam: The masterpieces and guide (2003) was available in Dutch, English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, Japanese, and Russian. This focus on a national and international public reflects the globalization of the curator’s activities in which they serve as brokers, translators, or cultural agents (Ramirez, 2000). Multiple communication methods. The significance of presenting objects and conveying information to the public was a concern of the interviewed curators. They stated that objects no longer function if the Museum does not display them for the public. Likewise, curators believed that the message they decided to communicate should connect to the public. Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces ([Exhibition], December 2003 – 2010) exhibited how the Museum facilitates communication to the public by providing them with physical and semantic information.

Employment of Business Management Techniques How do curatorial practices reflect the employment of business management techniques? Project management teams. The creation of project management teams, as described by the Curator of 17th Century Dutch Painting, reflected the utilization of business management techniques. These teams consist of an instructor of education, project manager, and a staff member from communication and marketing who work on exhibitions together. Project management teams determine how and what to communicate in an exhibition. Organizational structure. The Rijksmuseum’s structure facilitates collaborative relationships among curators and other staff. For example, there is no specific curatorial department – curators are part of three departments (Fine and Decorative Arts, History, Print Room) with the Collections Sector (see Figure 1). These departments are not hierarchically placed over other departments and are of equal importance to the Conservation and Restoration Department (Rijksmuseum, 2008). Likewise, the Department of Collections is in a different sector than the exhibitions, publications, and education departments, but they are equal laterally. Implications Aspects of this study’s findings have the ability to inform curatorial practices in the United States where art museums are in a state of crisis. This predicament is due to recent shifts in museums’ focus and structure (Bryk, 2001; Genoways & Ireland, 2003; Weil, 2003; Willumson, 2007). As a result, curators experienced conflicts from the loss of their traditional audience, the collapse of the traditional hierarchy, new staff roles in museums, and the museum’s focus on visitors rather than art objects (Weil, 2003; Willumson, 2007). The information obtained regarding curatorial practices at the Rijksmuseum can enhance U.S. curators’ focus on the public. It also advocated collaboration and equality among particular staff roles. Focus on the Public In the United States, curators are unsure of their role now that museums shifted their focus from objects to visitors (Weil, 2003). At the Rijksmuseum, curators continue to maintain many functions that have a scholarly nature (i.e. specialized publications).

These do not cater to the general public, however, curators do conceive of themes, topics, and issues for exhibitions that do relate to the general public. In this sense, curators maintained their scholarly tradition and at the same time embraced their focus on the public. Another concern in U.S. art museums is their role as a social establishment versus an institution that acquires and conserves superior quality objects (Willumson, 2007). Communicating information to the public at the Rijksmuseum is an important concern, however, the interviewed curators unanimously ranked preservation as the most important function. The reason for this is not that preservation is more important than communicating information to the public, but that if they do not take care of their collections, there will be nothing to communicate to visitors. Thus, curators do facilitate the Rijksmuseum’s function as a social institution, although they achieve this by ensuring the preservation of objects. Collaboration and Equality Among Particular Staff Roles The shift in U.S. art museums from collections to visitors impacted the roles of traditional museum staff. As a result, there are new and specialized museum departments (i.e. education, exhibition design) and a controversial relationship between curators and educators, designers, and visitor services staff (Bryk, 2001). Curators at the Rijksmuseum collaborate with other museum departments including the Conservation and Restoration Department and the Education Department. They work in project management groups concerning the formation of exhibitions. The organizational structure of the Rijksmuseum also facilitates collaboration and equality among particular staff roles. The curators at the Rijksmuseum work in departments that are laterally equal to other departments (Rijksmuseum, 2008). Suggestions for Further Research The data presented in chapter five revealed the following areas for further research: 1. The relationship between curatorial and educational departments in museums. 2. Collaboration among museum staff. 3. Innovative methods for displaying objects in museums.

4. A historical perspective versus an art historical perspective regarding the restoration of an object. 5. The advantages and disadvantages of exhibiting original objects versus reproductions. Conclusion The curators interviewed in this study came from three different departments at the Rijksmuseum: Fine and Decorative Arts, History, and Print Room. Likewise, they worked with different types of objects: furniture, paintings, historical objects constructed in a range of materials (i.e. textiles, metal), and works on paper. Even though these curators came from different departments and specializations, their interview answers arrived at the same conclusions. Observations and information from the Museum’s website and publications support their responses. The trends established at the Rijksmuseum can inform U.S. art museums that recently experienced changes in their focus and structure (Bryk, 2001; Genoways & Ireland, 2003; Weil, 2003; Willumson, 2007). Equality and collaboration among curators and staff can fulfill museum functions and may help resolve certain conflicts (i.e. loss of audience, hierarchy, new staff roles, focus on visitors) (Weil, 2003; Willumson, 2007). This is essential for curators to properly function within their institutions and fulfill their larger goal of serving the public. Curators in the United States can maintain some of their traditional tasks (i.e. scholarly research and publications) if other staff is available to handle fields such as conservation and education. However, curators can serve the broader public through collaboration and by creating exhibitions that facilitate education and meaningful connections.

APPENDIX A HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVED FORMS

Subject Use of Human Subjects in Research - Approval Memorandum

From Human Subjects

Date Wednesday, July 2, 2008 3:28 pm To [email protected] Cc [email protected]

Attachments 2008.1469Consentform.pdf

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 7/2/2008

To: Nicole Suarez

Address: A Company 1-6 INF, CMR 405 Box 4384, APO AE 09034 Dept.: ART EDUCATION

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research Curatorial Practices at the Rijksmuseum

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 6/29/2009 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Pat Villeneuve, Advisor HSC No. 2008.1469

APPENDIX B

CURATORIAL INTERVIEW FORMAT

Curatorial of ______

Date: ______Time:______Place: ______

Part I.

Using the perspective of your curatorial department, state how you would handle the following situations:

1. You receive a new art object. You discover another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. You have the option to restore the object to its original condition. What do you do and why?

2. You are organizing an exhibition and want to display a historically significant collection of artworks. The artworks are sensitive to light and displaying them could damage them. If shown, the artworks will be the highlight of the exhibition. What do you do and why?

3. You are organizing a highly specialized exhibition concerning a controversial topic. Your audience ranges from students (ages 5 to 17) to the elderly. How do you develop and express information concerning this exhibition that informs your audience?

4. The director of your institution informs you that a generous and consistent patron wants to donate an artwork to your department. The work does not match the scope of the collections in your department. What do you do and why?

______Part II.

Rank the following in order of importance (for example: 1, 2, 3): ___ Communication ___ Study ___ Preservation ______Part III

1. How do you stay current in your practice?

2. Describe something innovative that you've done in the past 12 months.

APPENDIX C

CODING OF INTERVIEWS

Coding of Interviews Curator of: ______

Preservation Communication Study Education Relationship with Other Staff Members PART I. Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

PART III. Question 1

Question 2

APPENDIX D

CODING OF OBSERVATIONS RELATED TO COMMUNICATION AND STUDY

Room or Collection: ______Date: ______Time: ______

Communication Physical Communication Semantic Communication

Preservation Physical Environment

APPENDIX E

CODING OF INFORMATION RELATED TO STUDY ON MUSEUM WEBSITE

Department: ______

Study Research Publications

APPENDIX F TRANSCRIPTIONS OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS CURATORIAL INTERVIEW CURATOR OF DUTCH HISTORY Date: July 2, 2008 Time: 11:00am Place: Rijksmuseum Office, 92 Frans van Mierisstraat, Amsterdam Nicole Suarez: Can you please introduce yourself? Curator of Dutch History: I am a curator of the History Department of the Rijksmuseum. That is to say that I am not an art historian, but I am a historian – a general historian. And we have big collections in the Rijksmuseum concerning the history of the Netherlands and its colonies and so on. Part I. Nicole Suarez: Using the perspective of your curatorial department, state how you would handle the following situations. You receive a new art object. You discover another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. You have the option to restore the object to its original condition. What do you do and why? Curator of Dutch History: Well, this is not an answer which is valid for everything of course. It depends on what the change on the art has been made and, of course, the changes are from a historical perspective interesting because there has been probably a reason for changing something. From an art historical view it would be a different answer probably. But we have now, next week, a discussion about a Frans Hals painting, a portrait where an 18th century weapon – the shield, how do you say – arms – the arms [referring to coat of arms] of the portrait sitter have been added, so they identify in a way the person, its her portrait a 100 years earlier. We have a discussion here within the museum within the curatorial department between art historians and historians what to do about it. I don’t know yet the answer of

course. But, of course, you have to see everything in its own context and I don’t think there is a general rule about that. The general rule is that you have to see each object for itself and decide for each object what to do. It can be that such an addition has worth in itself. Like the arms. It can be that, for instance, I think now about the leaves that you find always in the Vatican Museum for nude statues. They say something about the period where those leaves have been put on those statues. So they have historical information as well. That’s always the difficult thing about it. So is the information the changes give. Is it interesting enough or do they mainly make the original painting worse? So that’s always a discussion. You can’t say for a general reason to do that always or not do that always. For instance, in our collection a large painting of one of our queens hung in a building in Indonesia, which was then a Dutch colony. It was a representative office of the Dutch government just a few years after the independence when there was still struggle about a part of what is now Indonesia and what was then still part of the Netherlands as a colony. Students in Indonesia had damaged that painting with knives and we got that painting and we never restored it because the knives [pause] it should say something about [pause] its not a very important painting, its an official painting of the queen and there are many of those, but the information was more that it has been attacked by students and, therefore, you want to have that condition stabilized and not restore it again. So you see you don’t do that always of course, but you have to think about why something has happened, why someone has changed it and if that is worth while – then you let it as it was. But it is also a question, of course, not for only the curators, but also for the restorers. They have their own, how do you say, that way of deciding and own responsibilities so they have to discuss about it as well and with us as well. Nicole Suarez: You are organizing an exhibition and want to display a historically significant collection of artworks. The artworks are sensitive to light and displaying them could damage them. If shown, the artworks will be the highlight of the exhibition. What do you do and why?

Curator of Dutch History: Well, its practice that when you ask for an exhibit from another museum, another collection, they probably always want to know in what condition you will display them. You know in advance that if you want them, you as the receiving museum have to take care that they are safe – that everything is safe – the climate, the light and so on, and also security of course. So we have to, as a receiving museum, as an organizing museum, we have to take care that the exhibition space has the conditions which are necessary for those objects. Either we adapt or we are not able to show them. I made a big exhibition last year in a church which has an enormous amount of light. The windows are high and light comes in, so it was not an exhibition which was typical for a museum; where there is not very often daylight. So we had to put curtains on and make sure that not too much light were on the objects. So it’s always a responsibility for the receiving museum. Nicole Suarez: What if they are from your museum? Curator of Dutch History: Well, we have the same measures we take with our collection as we take with others. And that’s also when we as curators think well maybe we can be a little [pause] it’s very important because of what we want to say with the exhibition and the concern of the restorer that will say “but think about the condition” and so on. But of course you can’t always have a 100 percent security. You can hamper the exhibition too much so it’s always a play between what is possible and what is necessary. But, of course, the safety of the objects is a priority. Nicole Suarez: You are organizing a highly specialized exhibition concerning a controversial topic. Your audience ranges from students (ages 5 to 17) to the elderly. How do you develop and express information concerning this exhibition that informs your audience? Curator of Dutch History: You mean if you give that controversial thing are you open about it?

100

Nicole Suarez: How do you communicate that information to people who come in a diverse age range? Curator of Dutch History: Well, we have a department for that here internally which we call educational department which do things about text, about the different ways of communication. When something is controversial of course you have to be careful about how you put it. But I personally think that the museum, like our museum, because we have a big historical department, you have be [pause] the subject you choose for an exhibition has to be relevant for the society as it is now. Also, of course, there are a lot of controversial things – we have had colonies which are controversial in itself and it’s even important that you show that those things have happened – that you are honest about the past. You show that the past is not only a positive type of history, but that there are difficult things in history – that people have been discriminated or murdered and so on. So the different sides of history you have to show and that’s an obligation I think of a museum like our museum. That means also that the controversial things you have to do carefully because it can trigger a lot of things. But it’s also important that you are honest about those things and that means that the communication has to be open on all levels. You have to try to find things which different visitors can make connections to your subject – to relate it to their own experience, for instance, and that can happen on different grounds. I made a big exhibition last year. It was not a specialized exhibition, but a very broad one. It was about Dutch heroes and how in Holland heroes are still venerated. You can make a show of Dutch heroes and the past. But we wanted to ask people: what is for you a hero?; when is someone a hero?; what is important in a hero?; when do you venerate someone else? And that makes directly the connection with now – the present. But we also had a very difficult last years. We had two political murders in the Netherlands. It’s for about more than 300 years it didn’t happen here. So that was quite an impact. Of course, those

101

people have been venerated as well as the opposite of it which belongs to heroism. So we showed that as well. We don’t give the answer – that’s not, I think, the main task of the museum. The main task is to ask questions and to let the visitor give the answer for himself. Of course you help him – you give him possibilities to give an answer – to trigger him – to give information. But that information must be neutral. But people are enough capable of giving answers themselves and everybody can have another answer as well. Nicole Suarez: You mentioned the education department. At what stage does the education department take over when you develop an exhibition and what do they do and what do you do? Curator of Dutch History: Of course, they are not there at the beginning. But when an exhibition begins to have a form, when you know what the main perspective will be, what you want to tell. Then they step in and discuss how to develop that. Also the content and also the way you communicate about it. So they have a say because they have their own knowledge and they know about communication more than I do from their professional point of view. So they have a say about the content as well. Not about a choice of objects, but about how the scenes of the exhibition will be up, what subjects you choose. Of course, there is an interaction between me as a curator and they as educators. How you write text, what text do you choose, what information do you give, what other way do you try to give that education, what kind of other communication possibilities are there and so on. So it’s not that the exhibition is ready and that they come and do their thing. But we try to do it during the process. Nicole Suarez: The director of your institution informs you that a generous and consistent patron wants to donate an artwork to your department. The work does not match the scope of the collections in your department. What do you do and why? Curator of Dutch History: That’s a different question of course, because the relationship with the people who are willing to help us is very important. We have

102

our responsibilities. Our collection is quite broad, but there are, of course, things that don’t fit in our collection. When we acquire a very important thing either as a gift or by buying it we want to have it shown, of course, because we are a public institution – not a collecting institution only. Of course, we want to collect and take care of our heritage, but we have to show it as well and we have to do something with it. I think that if it really doesn’t fit in our collection we have to be honest about that and say well maybe we can help you – if there is another possibility for another museum in which it will fit or maybe we can discuss about: well, this doesn’t fit but maybe other types of objects do fit. I do not think it is good for us, nor for the person who wants to give us something that you as a museum get something which you don’t have any possibility to show it in the right way – when it doesn’t make a connection with the rest of the collection or with the rest of the story you tell. When something stays apart from the rest, well, no, that doesn’t help. Sometimes of course it can be the beginning of something new. But then it has to be really something you want to have to start something new. And that it is also part of what you want in the future with your museum. Of course, that can happen as well. But that is another kind of discussion you have. Also, you have to speak about that within the museum before you can say that it will be a new part of what we do and this is a starting point and, therefore, it does fit. I think honestly you have to be clear about your goals as a museum. If you get such a request – if someone makes such an offer, then maybe you were not clear enough before about what your goals are as a museum. So the connection between the pubic and you as a museum about what you do, what you don’t do has to be clear. Hopefully, you don’t get in such a bit compromising situation. Part II. Nicole Suarez: Rank the following in order of importance. For example, one, two, three, for communication, study, and preservation. Curator of Dutch History: Well, I don’t like really those kinds of lists because in a museum a lot of different things are important and one without the other doesn’t work. Of course,

103

everything is important. You are a public institution as a museum and certainly we are a public institution because our collection is owned by the state and the building is as well. So communication with the public is very important. But it is a spin-off of course of the thing you do as a museum – that is making exhibitions – making a permanent exhibition in the building and publishing books and other things as well, and having a website that are all ways of communicating with people which are essential for a museum. But if you don’t have anything to communicate, of course, then there is nothing you can communicate. So preservation is important as well. You have to take care of the thing you have to do for the community. The heritage we have here in our collection is very big, important for the Netherlands, for the art of the Netherlands, and, therefore, also for the identity – although that is a quite a difficult thing to find. But anyway, the objects – the heritage you have to take care of is of course one of the core businesses of the museum. So if you don’t care – if you don’t renew as well – if you don’t study it – it becomes dead. So it doesn’t function anymore within the society. So it’s an interaction between the three and there are more things – so you can’t do the one thing without the other. Part III Nicole Suarez: How do you stay current in your practice? Curator of Dutch History: Well obviously in a lot of ways of course. Reading books and articles, having contact with colleagues within other museums, our museum of course, but also with universities and other institutions which are active in the field of history or in the field of museum studies and museum practice. Of course, as a historian I have to know what happens in the world of history; of historical research. But we are a public historical institution you could say so we also have to know what happens in the field of museum studies – how to communicate well, what are the newest developments?, what are the thoughts about how you have to represent history which is quite different from representing art?. But there are also of course similarities between it. Art historians – I don’t think they are right always that art

104

speaks for itself. I think it is a misunderstanding because art speaks for themselves maybe, but, not for the general public. History is of course when you seen an object like this [touches digital audio recorder] it has a historical significance, but you have to explain it in a way. It doesn’t tell about it from itself. You can tell if it is a nice design but you can’t say what the historical importance of this digital and so on instrument is. So you have to do other things to tell a story about it. To give it a context which has meaning. Like every object you can tell different stories – the art historical story or the historical story or the design story or the function story or whatever. Different ways of giving an object significance. So that is very important if you know what is now the actual way of seeing what are the discussions. In Holland, we have a lot of discussions about national identity and multicultural society and so on so you have to react to that as a museum. That is always difficult because we are all concerned with those objects and we tend to look inside more than outside. But you have to do both. Therefore, it is very important that you know what is going on with the discussions as well as in the scientific world as well as in the public world. Nicole Suarez: Describe something innovative that you've done in the past 12 months. Curator of Dutch History: Well, I made that exhibition so that’s quite easy to answer. It’s about the things I just told you – its about Dutch heroism. You [referring to Nicole Suarez] know as an English native speaker Dutch courage is the negative of real courage. So Dutch heroism is kind of an impossibility for a lot of people – even Dutchmen. But nevertheless there are a lot of Dutch heroes. So it has to do with something about society today – about courage, about being a leader, about trying to be an example for others. I think all over the world people need examples, they need people to look up to. The only difference between the different people is how that happens. So when you take a subject like heroism you try to look outside, like I told you, and not inside. You try to connect to society and the discussions that are taking place there. That is not the way it always is and has been in this museum and in a lot of other museums – most other museums I think as well. But it is at the same

105

time what you see with new museums and different parts of the world – especially museums about history or about society. Like a holocaust museum or a New Zealand museum about the Maori people. So they try to make connections with the society as well and give it a historical perspective for that. So not to say it has to be like this and not like that. But to take part in a discussion which is being held within the society. So that is what I try to do. We also are in this museum, as you probably know, making a totally new permanent exhibition because the main building is being renovated and then we have the chance to do it all different. So that’s why this exhibition was necessary to see or was meant to see what are the possibilities, of course, in an exhibition. Temporary exhibition you can be more extreme than in a permanent exhibition. But, nevertheless, to ask yourself: what does an object mean?; what kind of possibilities are there to show them?; what contexts that you can choose from? That is a discussion which is necessary within a museum. It happens often that one chooses what is traditionally known. For instance, the Night Watch of Rembrandt is, of course, one the masterpieces of his career. But, it is also about the society in that period. This is an extreme example, of course, but you have the possibility to show it as a part of that society and not a part of the oeuvre of Rembrandt. You have to be alert that you can make a choice. In this case, of course, the choice is easy – you have to show it as a part of the oeuvre of Rembrandt. But there are a lot of other things. You traditionally tend to put it in an oeuvre or a style, a story where you can also make a lot of other choices. And this exhibition was also meant for us to show that there are those possibilities and to see what kind of reaction the public had, which was quite positive.

106

CURATORIAL INTERVIEW CURATOR OF PRINTS AND DRAWINGS Date: July 2, 2008 Time: 1:30pm Place: Rijksmuseum Office, 92 Frans van Mierisstraat, Amsterdam Part I. Nicole Suarez: Can you please introduce yourself? Curator of Prints and Drawings: I am the Curator of Prints and Drawings. Nicole Suarez: Using the perspective of your curatorial department, state how you would handle the following situations: You receive a new art object. You discover another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. You have the option to restore the object to its original condition. What do you do and why? Curator of Prints and Drawings: It doesn’t occur that much with prints and drawings I think. Not as much with as with paintings or sculpture. And we’re talking about an artist doing 50% of the rework, not a restorer. In that case I think I would respect the addition because it probably is a kind of historical thing in itself that has been added to this artwork. So all work must have been really very badly done and doing damage to the other 50%, but I think I would leave it at that. Nicole Suarez: You are organizing an exhibition and want to display a historically significant collection of artworks. The artworks are sensitive to light and displaying them could damage them. If shown, the artworks will be the highlight of the exhibition. What do you do and why? Curator of Prints and Drawings: Well, in my field all exhibitions are doing damage to the artwork. Works on paper will always have some kind of damage no matter how minimal it is. Exposing them to light is always doing damage, so you have to be more or less sure that the

107

damage is limited. Now my restorers are doing a project in which they try to find out more about the exact damage that light is causing to works on paper in order to be able to make more rational decisions. For example, if a particular print or drawing has a lifespan of 500 years, exposing it three months with 50 lux could shorten its life with three or four or five years. When I know this for sure I can make a rational decision about it. Now we are guessing more or less and exposing works on paper with 50 lux thinking that we are doing the right thing. Probably three months or at the most six months is not doing that much damage and maybe we can even expose works much longer. But it also very much depends on the exhibition. If it’s a loan then I very much look at the value of the artwork, not the money value, but the intrinsic value and if the exhibition is serious and important enough to lend this particular work to it. But there will always be damage when exposing works on paper to light. Nicole Suarez: You are organizing a highly specialized exhibition concerning a controversial topic. Your audience ranges from students (ages 5 to 17) to the elderly. How do you develop and express information concerning this exhibition that informs your audience? Curator of Prints and Drawings: Well, you can think of all kinds of controversial things of course. The most obvious is of course open sexuality or pornography and just now we made a new acquisitions exhibition in Maastricht in the room with Japanese art. We are exhibiting quite a lot of Shunga, erotic prints from Japan, which are absolutely very clear about sexual behaviors. I asked the museum if they didn’t want any warnings at the entrance of the room. They were ok and thought it was not necessary. I don’t know myself. I think I would inform the public that there are images in this room that could offend the feelings of some people. And warn parents with children under the age of 12. I might do that. Nicole Suarez: If you are going to educate them about these prints – how would you go about doing so?

108

Curator of Prints and Drawings: Then I would be very explicit because the images are very explicit. So it would be very strange to do it in a kind of under-toned or non-explicit way when the images are very obvious. A warning before entering the room is probably a good idea, so that people who might be offended do not to enter it. But to the people who then want to come in, you should explain explicitly what you are showing. Nicole Suarez: Can you explain these things to say someone who is five and someone who is elderly? Curator of Prints and Drawings: Five is difficult, I wouldn’t explain it to my own son who is nine. So, no, I think that these things become only very interesting after 12. Nicole Suarez: The director of your institution informs you that a generous and consistent patron wants to donate an artwork to your department. The work does not match the scope of the collections in your department. What do you do and why? Curator of Prints and Drawings: I would talk to my Director and, well, discuss it with him – if he really thinks it’s political- very necessary to accept it. Then yeah, we might accept it. But works on paper – its just one sheet in a box, but if it’s a sculpture that is three meters high then you have a completely different problem. But, normally I tend not to accept things that are out of the scope of the collection. You must aware that your decisions are the burden of future curators. But as I said, when it’s one work on paper it’s really not a big deal. Part II. Nicole Suarez: Rank the following in order of importance. For example, one, two, three, for communication, study, and preservation. Curator of Prints and Drawings: I think preservation comes first. Second is communication and third is study.

109

Part III Nicole Suarez: How do you stay current in your practice? Curator of Prints and Drawings: Well I try to read or browse through the magazines and browse through the auction catalogs and browse through the new literature, but sometimes its so busy that you feel like there is not enough time to read. Also, you try to keep informed by visiting web-sites and by mailing lists. For example, the CODART mailing. But also the contact with colleagues is very important and joining committees. In one way the email is kind of a curse. Every morning that you open the thing your box is filled. But on the other hand it keeps you also informed about things. It’s kind of double. But I wish I had more time to read. That’s for sure. Nicole Suarez: Who do you define as colleagues – what fields? Curator of Prints and Drawings: Colleagues could be curators, but also university people and they don’t even have to be in prints or drawings. It could also be paintings people. It’s very diffuse. But most of them are historians and old art people. I don’t have that much contact with modern art curators or scholars. Nicole Suarez: Describe something innovative that you've done in the past 12 months. Curator of Prints and Drawings: Well, from our own perspective what was innovative was putting together an exhibition in two months with new acquisitions where we for the first time we showed a new field that we are exploring that is Dutch art from the second half of the 20th century. Now from our perspective that was in a way innovative. I’m editing a series of print catalogues and I was the first one to come up the idea to use a specific function in Word “keep track with corrections” and that is now used in the whole editorial board. That is something that outside our world is probably completely normal, but within our group of editors was some kind of innovation.

110

It shortens the time it takes to makes these things. It shortens the time of making these catalogs.

111

CURATORIAL INTERVIEW CURATOR OF FURNITURE Date: July 3, 2008 Time: 3:00pm Place: Rijksmuseum Office, 92 Frans van Mierisstraat, Amsterdam Part I. Nicole Suarez: Can you please introduce yourself? Curator of Furniture: I’m a Senior Curator of Furniture – of European furniture. The Department, we’ve all recently changed. It used to be various departments concerned with art. Apart from the History Department, which has always existed, I used to run the Department of Sculpture and Decorative Arts which had all the curators and conservators, all the restorers as well. That has changed also to do with sculpture, ceramics, porcelain, furniture textiles, glass, and things like that, metal work. But last year the whole structure changed, all the conservators, all the restorers are now in one department – the Conservation Department. All the curators dealing with art, whether its Asiatic art or world sculpture and decorative arts or paintings are in a new department, which I think in English is now called, I mean it should be called the Art Department, but I think I’m rather confusing you. It’s called the Fine Art Department, which decorative arts don’t normally come under fine art. So I now deal with furniture mainly. Nicole Suarez: Using the perspective of your curatorial department, state how you would handle the following situations: You receive a new art object. You discover another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. You have the option to restore the object to its original condition. What do you do and why? Curator of Furniture: Now if you say new, you say new to the collection? It’s not newly made? Nicole Suarez: Right, it’s new to the collection.

112

Curator of Furniture: Normally we consider works of art. I think furniture is perhaps different from paintings. We don’t think so much only in terms of an artist who creates an object, but to us the object in itself is of intrinsic interest and the changes it undergoes and its life – its history is of interest to us. There is a Department of Furniture of Restoration so I always, you know, discuss the treatment of the furniture with them. But my inclination would be to keep the object as it is now. If what you’re saying is somebody changed – another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. If somebody did that deliberately, obviously, somebody wanted it either to fulfill another function or to look differently at a different period of time or from a different artistic perspective. We would normally find that of interest. We would try to preserve that. We would try to preserve what has happened to the work of art. It may be that, because, and if we really discover this, if we didn’t know this when it was brought into the collection, it could be a reason for us to, well, decide that it’s really not appropriate for our collection for the Rijksmuseum. So then we might want to perhaps, you know, dispose of it again. But we wouldn’t normally wish to try to bring it back to its original condition because we don’t really think in those terms. Nicole Suarez: You are organizing an exhibition and want to display a historically significant collection of artworks. The artworks are sensitive to light and displaying them could damage them. If shown, the artworks will be the highlight of the exhibition. What do you do and why? Curator of Furniture: Well, we basically would not want to damage works of art through showing them. But almost always there are ways feasible of displaying works of art so that they are not all really, hardly damaged at all. So I think on the whole one would try to evolve a display situation and involve technical people who know about all kinds of solutions. To try and come up with a solution where the works of art are not damaged but can be shown. I am very weary – I mean very, very [pause] occasionally, obviously, we have things in our collection or we deal with things

113

from an exhibition point of view that are so fragile and so precious that you feel you absolutely want to preserve them. You then decide that the only thing we can do with this is to try and preserve it as a document. You might possibly want to then photograph it or even make a replica or whatever in order for it to be able to function in an exhibition kind of situation. But I think that would be a great exception with us. Normally we think that objects are to be enjoyed, to be seen, and to enrich, you know, the life of the public to make a sweeping statement. So we’re very at a loss to declare something very dead. To say this cannot be seen because it’s too fragile, too dangerous. So normally we would try and look for a way to make the art work come to life. It’s very different of course because you have the physical condition of an object so you’re always careful to preserve that. But on the other hand it’s like a piece of music. If it’s not played it’s dead. So I think if a work of art is not seen, okay it may survive but, it doesn’t really fulfill any role. But we as museum people obviously are in a sense our prime concern is preservation so we always have to be extremely careful. Occasionally, you may indeed decide this cannot be shown and the only thing we can do with it is try to preserve it. Nicole Suarez: You are organizing a highly specialized exhibition concerning a controversial topic. Your audience ranges from students (ages 5 to 17) to the elderly. How do you develop and express information concerning this exhibition that informs your audience? Curator of Furniture: I’d go to the education department. A controversial topic? Furniture is hardly ever controversial. It could be if something was really controversial. You know, I mean on the whole, I rate information about works of art much less highly than the works of art themselves. I think the works of art should be allowed to speak for themselves as much as possible. But obviously you’re suggesting something here that might be hurtful or in some way offend people. What I think then it’s probably very important in the publicity surrounding the exhibition – almost before people come into the exhibition – somehow warn them or tell them. I read

114

in the word controversial that some kind of moral issue or whatever, religious issue is at stake. So I think then it’s very important to warn people almost beforehand. Like with a drug or something – this contains or with a film – this contains information or rude language or whatever thing. So I think that perhaps is what one should do. What you’re saying is that you get an audience aged five to very old people and some people might react to something in a different way from other people? I wouldn’t ever try to come up with a solution in the field of information. To in a way take this thing out of the things you’re showing by warning everyone, by interpreting it for everyone. So I think I would try to give a lot of information beforehand and I think what is very important is that you present things. So the actual, physical presentation I think can say a lot about the way you deal with something. So if something is offensive in some way you can expose it even more clearly as a statement, almost being out to shock the public. But I think there are very good ways of showing very sensitive things in a manner that makes it clear that you’re concerned about people’s reactions. I think I would try to find a solution in that area. Nicole Suarez: You also mentioned the Education Department. What would you ask the Education Department concerning something like this? What role would they play in such an exhibition? Curator of Furniture: Well again, they’re completely changing. I think they used to be very important and now I think they’re almost nonexistent in the museum. So it’s a bit odd. But obviously these are issues. If there are issues at stake that are controversial I think that should not just be left to the curator. Obviously, I think with something like that one would probably go to the Director. I’d say “look, I think there is something there. I think it’s quite important that we show this, but we have to realize that this may be hurtful or offensive. How do you think we should deal with this?” I don’t think that within an institution that should be a curator’s, not just responsibility, but also I don’t think that every curator should be allowed to make that private statement in a controversial field within an institution that has a

115

big name and a great responsibility because of that. Well, I suppose the Education Department, especially if you’re talking about very young children or the elderly, they obviously know or ought to know about specific methods of conveying information to the very young or to people who have difficulty in taking everything in. So I don’t think I’d leave the decision to them, but I would for almost technical help or new methods that have been evolved that they think might be helpful. Nicole Suarez: The director of your institution informs you that a generous and consistent patron wants to donate an artwork to your department. The work does not match the scope of the collections in your department. What do you do and why? Curator of Furniture: Well, we’d normally not want to. If we were to get a work of art or to be presented with a work of art that we would feel would not work in the Museum so we could not do it justice I think I would always try not to accept it. Because, again, I think then you kill it. So I would probably ask my Director – if my Director had the contact to the donor or the patron. I would say “look, I think I want to talk to this person because I think he or she is making a mistake in wanting to give this to us. Although it may be very generous, it’s not going to function within this Museum or within our department. So, should we not try to come up with another solution, is there somewhere else where this should go or could we suggest, you know, for it to go elsewhere?” But obviously, you know, we haven’t yet had a situation to where our Director said you absolutely have to accept that work of art because it is a political thing and we have to have it because we have to keep this donor happy. And if that were to happen I would still find it very problematic because we couldn’t. We’re not that kind of museum that we could suddenly put something on the wall somewhere or in a case somewhere where it doesn’t make any sense. I think we rate the public and the works of art more highly in that sense than our patrons. But I mean obviously that’s a situation. I suppose that’s what I would do. I mean it’s imaginable that one’s director would say “I’m just forcing you to do this, you’ve got to do it.” I

116

don’t think I’d resign, but I would say I don’t think it’s wise. I don’t think anybody gains by it so that I’d try to avoid it mainly by informing the patron and talking to them and trying to make them see our point of view and make them realize that it’s not a good idea to try to put this work in the Rijksmuseum because it’s not going to work there. Part II. Nicole Suarez: Rank the following in order of importance. For example, one, two, three, for communication, study, and preservation. Curator of Furniture: Yes, it’s very difficult because obviously they are all very important. But I think although it’s rather a sad answer to give, I do think preservation should be number one. I think all the other things are temporary and in a way our first duty is toward deflection so I preservation would be number one. For our Department study is number two and communication is number three. But that’s only because we function within a larger museum where others partly take care of the communication. But I do think if there were somebody in my Department who was just sort of studying works of art without communicating about them, without bringing anything of that study, of that work to the outside world I would think that would be completely ineffective and inappropriate in the museum. So in that sense communication is almost more important. But I think one would have to say preservation, study, communication. A very old fashioned point of view. Part III Nicole Suarez: How do you stay current in your practice? Curator of Furniture: I don’t quite understand. Do you mean up-to-date? Nicole Suarez: Yes.

117

Curator of Furniture: Well by [pause] perhaps I don’t try to keep up [laughing]. I find it very important to follow the art market. We have to know what’s going on, what’s being offered, and points of view. Change went quickly in the art market so I follow sales. I go to lots of viewings of sales. I go to, obviously, lots of dealers. I see many of my colleagues all over the world – in Holland also. But in Holland very often the Rijksmuseum plays more of a role almost of an advisor – certainly within the decorative arts. Peers, our real colleagues, are often in other countries because there is no other museum in Holland which has a sort of decorative arts section like we do with specialized curators. So obviously there is a lot of contact with other museums in Holland, but as I said, they often ask advice. Now from dealing advice you learn because you learn about their collections and you learn about things they have and they have questions about. But it is very important to keep up with colleagues abroad, which I do by traveling a lot and I am involved with a number of organizations outside Holland. I am on the arts panel at the National Trust in England and we visit houses a number of times a year with a lot of specialists. All of the others are from England so then you have a lot of contact with specialists from abroad and you learn about their current thinking. And then I read a lot. I constantly read the new literature. I review a lot. There is something called the Furniture History Society, also in England, and they have a newsletter for which I edit the book reviews. So I always have to keep up with whatever book is appearing on furniture from all over the world and decide which ones are suitable to be reviewed. Then find a reviewer, edit the review, often do the review myself. So in that way you keep abreast of current thinking and occasionally I go and lecture at a symposium or something like that. But I try to avoid those. I think there’s usually a waste of time involved. But sometimes it’s very useful, obviously, because you see your colleagues and everything. But there’s a highly developed network of decorative arts specialists all over the world in which I participate. Nicole Suarez: Describe something innovative that you've done in the past 12 months.

118

Curator of Furniture: I occasionally make discoveries. We try to expand our collection of 19th century decorative arts. It’s quite small yet, and in Christie’s in London there was a very richly made suite of furniture offered for sale, which they didn’t know what it was. I recognized it as being Dutch, being made by a specific maker. We could attribute it, so we bought it. We were able to buy it and it wasn’t so very expensive. It would have been more expensive if they had known what it was. But that’s not really innovative in itself. That’s what you’re meant to do all the time in a way. What is quite innovative is that although I’m the curator of furniture here, so I mainly look after the furniture collection, I’ve now started a large project to write a book on our French decorative arts between 1650 and 1900. We’ve got rather a good collection, but in every field in porcelain and in silver and in gold boxes – things like that. Now, almost everywhere when such a collection is cataloged or a book is written on it, a separate specialist is asked to do their little bit. So somebody writes the entries and introduction on furniture and somebody else writes them on porcelain and so on. I think all of the books are very alike and also I think nobody takes really care to look at all the sort of crosscurrents. So what I suggested here, which in that sense is innovative, is that every curator has a tendency to think that their little field belongs to them. But within curators of decorative arts I’m the only one who works on French things quite a bit. So I suggested that I do all the entries. I deal with the porcelain, I deal with the gold, although I’m not that curator in that field, in order to try and tell a sort continuous story through all the objects. I would also involve engravings and drawings when they show decorative objects. I think some curators have reacted rather defensively, and said “but that’s mine.” But I think the plan has been agreed and that’s a long term project. But I hope that I’ll be able to come up with a book that really adds something new to a field in which a lot of people are working. But almost everybody seems to be concentrating on the small details. So that perhaps is innovative on a slightly longer range.

119

CURATORIAL INTERVIEW CURATOR OF 17TH CENTURY DUTCH PAINTINGS Date: July 3, 2008 Time: 4:30 p.m. Place: Rijksmuseum Office, 92 Frans van Mierisstraat, Amsterdam Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: I am Curator of 17th century Dutch paintings. I am working in the Fine Arts Department. Nicole Suarez: Using the perspective of your curatorial department, state how you would handle the following situations: Nicole Suarez: You receive a new art object. You discover another artist changed more than 50% of the original work. You have the option to restore the object to its original condition. What do you do and why? Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: The Rijksmuseum only wants to collect the best works within the field of 17th century Dutch art. So for me it would probably not be an option to acquire this painting if it had been changed by another hand for more than 50%. I wouldn’t accept it as an acquisition for the Rijksmuseum. But, if the original would still be visible underneath this restoration or the other additions would have been made by a very important artist then it could be an option to obtain it. So, I mean we’re very critical about the acquisitions we’re doing in the field of 17th century Dutch painting. During the 19th century the Rijksmuseum was a museum that wanted to create a kind of encyclopedical collection. We wanted to have a signed and dated painting by every single Dutch artist that lived in the 17th century. Today we say, well, we’ve got such a rich collection of Dutch paintings, that we just want to have A plus paintings that really add to the collection. So, once again, if this would happen I would be very hesitant if we would be the right museum to acquire this painting.

120

Nicole Suarez: You are organizing an exhibition and want to display a historically significant collection of artworks. The artworks are sensitive to light and displaying them could damage them. If shown, the artworks will be the highlight of the exhibition. What do you do and why? Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: Artworks or the objects are always central in everything what we do. So, if the way of presentation would harm the objects we wouldn’t even come up with the idea of organizing a show like that. So, I mean, of course, we always have to compromise between keeping the objects for further generations and presenting them. I mean the better thing to do is to keep them in storage – constant humidity, no light. But I, of course, I fully understand that one of our main tasks is to present these artworks to the public and as many people as possible. But if there would be any chance of damage we would not do that. Nicole Suarez: You are organizing a highly specialized exhibition concerning a controversial topic. Your audience ranges from students (ages 5 to 17) to the elderly. How do you develop and express information concerning this exhibition that informs your audience? Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: Well, we always work together with our education department. Controversial in what way? Nicole Suarez: In anyway, it could be the topic of the exhibition, it could be the images, anything. Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: Well, it depends of course. You don’t want to offend people. I mean that’s an important aspect I think. Well, we try to set a story on different levels so we have different instruments to inform specific groups of visitors. So, if that is something you are talking about. So, let’s say that information or the message we want to bring to little children is another one than to adults for example. But we always

121

work together in so called project management teams. So it’s always the curator that is responsible for the content and we work together with one of the instructors of education, with the project manager, with someone of communication and marketing, for example. And then we discuss what’s the main focus within this show will be and then we try to find out what exactly we want to tell to the public. We have had something that was quite controversial about one and a half years ago. Since the Rijksmuseum is under construction as you know, we needed to find different ways to attract the public. We wanted to pay attention to our collection in a new way and then we decided that every season, so four times a year, we would focus on a different topic within the Masterpieces presentation in the Philips Wing. And then we decided to take four different topics: mother love, war, feast and another one was death. Then we made a flyer, a poster, with a skull on it. It said now ‘Nu: Dood in het Rijksmuseum’ which means ‘Now Death in the Rijksmuseum’. And some of these posters were hung throughout the city and one was in front of one of the hospitals here at the side of the hospital where people were staying who wouldn’t leave the hospital anymore. And they felt offended in one way and on the other hand they felt quite sad about this expression of the Rijksmuseum that should bring art and joy, talking about death. Well, then we decided to stop this whole campaign and everything has been taken back. And we got very negative response since we felt that death is just part of life. But this was not a very smart way, I think, of expressing it. Nicole Suarez: Has this changed the way you do things now? Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: We decided to stop with this whole series afterwards. I mean we did it four times in just one year and we said, well, it doesn’t really add to the Rijksmuseum in the way we want to present and represent ourselves. Nicole Suarez: So basically when something like that happens you may decide to stop depending on what the response is?

122

Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: Yes, it’s possible. That’s the only example I can give you right now. Nicole Suarez: The director of your institution informs you that a generous and consistent patron wants to donate an artwork to your department. The work does not match the scope of the collections in your department. What do you do and why? Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: We always discuss acquisitions with the other curators. I suppose the other ones have talked about that already. But this is quite a difficult topic I think. It depends, you say it’s a “generous and consistent patron” so I mean we work with the person already for years so to speak. Well, then most of the time this is someone we as curators also work with and know. I would discuss this with this person in person and make clear that this particular artwork doesn’t add to the collection of the Rijksmuseum and perhaps would be a better addition to another collection in another museum in this country. I don’t think that anybody would force us to add something to a collection. Again we are the responsible and I’ve never met a situation like this, and I don’t think it would happen in that way. Part II. Nicole Suarez: Rank the following in order of importance (for example: 1, 2, 3): 2 Communication 2 Study 1 Preservation Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: That’s difficult. They go together in my opinion. In Dutch, curator is conservator. Conservator means that you take care of the holdings of the museum for future generations, like conservator in English. So that is the first thing, if the collection is not in a good condition and if you don’t take care of the objects you’ve got in a museum, then you don’t have any reason to study it or present it to the public. So first of all you are responsible for keeping these objects for future generations. Then I think study and communication go together.

123

Part III Nicole Suarez: How do you stay current in your practice? Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: Ok, of course, by reading the most recent literature – the magazines like in my field Oud Holland, Simiolus, and the Burlington Magazine. Also to have a good look at what kind of artworks come on the market so I study auction catalogs and all these kinds of things. Of course I travel a lot and I’ve got a lot of contacts with the network of colleagues in the Netherlands and abroad. But also collectors, art dealers, and so on. Well, you always try to, as I said, study as much as possible. Well, both studying and networking – I think these are the post important aspects. Nicole Suarez: Describe something innovative that you've done in the past 12 months. Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: Well, we’ve refurbished parts of the Philips Wing. There are several discussions going on in the field of conservation right now and how we need to take care of artworks so we try to add new methods of research for example. With any preparation of a certain restoration and or conservation or cleaning of the painting. I’m involved in talking about communication in a new magazine that the Rijksmuseum started. I don’t know if you’ve heard anything about that already. Nicole Suarez: Which one? Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: Oog. Nicole Suarez: Yes, I was looking at it downstairs. Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: Ok, well, I’m one of the editors of that magazine. So we try to bring the Rijksmuseum especially to women aged between 30 and 50 years old who don’t have time to come to the Museum itself, but who really love to read about art and to look at art. We want, to get them acquainted with the Museum and the

124

collection and to become, well, more or less a friend or member of the Museum. But now you just want to express the message of the Rijksmuseum and of course also to give the idea to a broad audience that the Rijksmuseum is not closed which is an idea some people have. We’re still open, we still attract more than 1 million visitors a year. We have a wonderful collection and we’ve got a great function as the National Museum within this country. So this Oog, which is not a traditional way of bringing art to the pubic and history to the public is in my opinion quite, well, new and a good instrument next to the more thoroughly studied catalogs and things we present. Nicole Suarez: Let me ask you another question about the first hypothetical situation. Say you receive a new art object and say it was a Rembrandt and someone changed 50% of that painting. Would you take it? Curator of 17th Century Dutch Paintings: It depends. I mean, when and who – if it would have been Rembrandt for example. There is a Hercules Seghers landscape that has been changed by Rembrandt for example. I mean then it becomes an artwork where two very important artists were involved in. Then there’s no discussion of course. If we’re talking about a Rembrandt painting that has been completely changed in the 19th century, then I think we would have a huge discussion about what to do and if we would remove it or not. I’ve got a good example I think. Right at this moment we’ve got a painting by Frans Hals. The painting is made in 1639, but in 1735, 38, someone added a coat of arms to that portrait. It’s a portrait of a woman. And now the discussion is that the painting has been restored – what to do. Should we paint it out? Then it will be just the Hals painting like Hals meant it to be. Or we leave it. On the one hand time, I mean some of us say, well, this 18th century edition is a kind of art vandalism something that happens quite early already. But on the other hand, it also tells you something about the history of the object and the historiography and the reception of a work of art. I mean you always need to look at every single artwork as an independent artwork. And every discussion comes up with an independent artwork that comes from its unique and original

125

background with original and unique arguments. So I can’t give a general idea, I mean, in one case I would say no discussion, we will keep this painting with its additions. At another moment I would say we will keep it but we will remove the additions. At another moment I will say we don’t add this painting to the collection since it’s got later additions that can’t be removed and there’s nothing left of the original. So it’s not black and white I think.

126

REFERENCES About CODART. (n.d.). Retrieved August, 9, 2008, from http://www.codart.nl/292/faq/#About%20CODART

About the research. (n.d.). Retrieved August 9, 2008 at http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/wetenschap/onderzoek?lang=en

Allen, J. S. (1983). The romance of commerce and culture: Capitalism, modernism, and the Chicago-Aspen crusade for cultural reform. Chicago: University of Chicago.

American Association of Museums. (2002). Mastering civic engagement. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of Museums. (2000). Code of ethics for museums. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm

American Association of Museums. (1984). Museums for a new century. Washington, DC: Author.

Ashley-Smith, J. (1994). The ethics of conservation. In S. Knell (Ed.), Care of collections (pp. 11-20). New York: Routledge.

Asian art. (n.d.). Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/aziatischekunst?lang=en

Barclay, M. (1990). An art gallery conservator: Roles and responsibilities. In B. Ramsay-Jolicoeur & I. Wainwright (Eds.), Shared responsibility: Proceedings of a seminar for curators and conservators (pp. 24-29). Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada.

Bassett, D. (1992). Museum publications: A descriptive and bibliographic guide. In J. M. A. Thompson et al. (Ed.), Manual of curatorship: A guide to museum practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Besterman, T. (1992). Disposals from museum collections: Ethics and practicalities. Museum Management and Curatorship, 11(1), 29-44.

Blau, J. R. (1991). The disjunctive history of U.S. museums, 1869-1980. Social Forces, 70(1), 87-105

Blau, J. R. (1989). The shape of culture: a study of contemporary cultural patterns in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

127

Bomford, D. (1997). Conservation of paintings: National Gallery pocket guide. London: National Gallery London.

Bonami, F. (2001). In C. Kuoni (Ed.), Words of wisdom: A curator's vade mecum on contemporary art. New York: Independent Curators International.

Bonyhady, T. (1998, March 11). Catalogues of woe. The Australian, pp. 18-19.

Books and dvd. (n.d.). Retrieved August 11, 2008, from https://rijksmuseum.nl/webwinkel/index.jsp?group=Boeken&lang=en

Boylan, P. J. (Ed.) (2004). Running a museum: A practical handbook. Paris: International Council of Museums.

Bradley, S. M. (1992). Conservation aspects of storage and display, In. J. M. A. Thompson et al. (Ed.), Manual of curatorship: A guide to museum practice (2nd ed., pp. 468-473). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Braverman, B. E. (1988). Toward an instructional design for art exhibitions. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 22(3), 85-96.

Brenson, M. (1998). The curator’s moment. Art Journal, 51(4), 16-27.

Broun, E. (2004). Telling the story of America. In B. M. Carbonell (Ed.), Museum studies: An anthology of contexts (pp. 296-301). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Bryk, N. V. (2001). Reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated: Reconsidering the role of the curator. Museum News, 80(2), 38-41, 67, 69, 71.

Burt, N. (1977), Palaces for people: A social history of the American art museum. Boston: Little, Brown.

Cannon-Brookes, P. (1994). The role of the scholar-curator in conservation. In S. Knell (Ed.), Care of collections (pp. 47-50). New York: Routledge.

Carbo, C. (2008). The Doll’s House. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum and Nieuw.

Carnell, C., & Buck, R. (1998). Processes: Acquisitions and accessioning. In R. Buck & J. Gilmore (Eds.), The new museum registration methods (pp. 157-165). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Case, M. (1995). What registrars do all day. In M. Case (Ed.), Registrars on record: Essays on museum collection management (pp. 17-33). Washington, DC: Registrars Committee of the American Association of Museums.

Cochran, E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence and equity: Education and the public dimension of

128

museums. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

CODART. (October 4, 2007). Ronald de Leeuw to step down as General Director of the Rijksmuseum in 2008. In CODART. Retrieved August, 9, 2008, from http://www.codart.nl/news/231/.

Cole, B. (1993). Catalogues of abuse. Museum News, 74(4), 48-49.

Collection, drawings, prints and photographs. (n.d). Retrieved August, 12, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/rijksprentenkabinet?lang=en

Corral, M. D. (2001). My own shared credo. In C. Kuoni (Ed.), Words of wisdom: A curator’s vade mecum on contemporary art (pp. 41-42). New York: Independent Curators International.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). What makes visitors want to learn? Intrinsic motivation in museums. Museum News, 74(3), 34-37, 59-61.

Cuno, J. (2004). Whose muse? Art museums and the public trust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

De Montebello, P. (2004). How museums risk losing the public trust. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 16(11), 61-3. de Leeuw, R. (2003). Preface. In M. Dominicus-Van Soest, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam: The masterpieces and guide (J. Rudge, Trans.). Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Department of Fine and Decorative Arts. (n.d.). Retrieved August, 12, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/afdelingbeeldendekunst?lang=en

Department of History. (n.d.). Retrieved August, 12, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/geschiedenis?lang=en

DiMaggio, P. J. (1987). Classification of art. American Sociological Review, 52, 440-56.

Dominicus-Van Soest, M. (2003). Rijksmuseum Amsterdam: The masterpieces and guide (J. Rudge, Trans.). Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum.

Duncan, C. (1995). Civilizing rituals: Inside public art museums. London: Routledge.

Edson, G., & Dean, D. (1996). The handbook for museums. New York: Routledge.

Farr, D. (1984). Research: Fine art collections. In J. M. A. Thompson (Ed.), Manual of

129

curatorship: A guide to museum practice (pp. 187-191). London: Butterworths.

Ferguson, B. (1996). Exhibition rhetorics. In R. Greenberg, B. W. Ferguson, & S. Nairne (Eds.), Thinking about exhibitions (pp. 175-190). London: Routledge.

Fisher, G. (1998). Preventative care. In R. A. Buck and J. A. Gilmore (Eds.), The new museum registration methods (pp. 103-108). Washington DC: American Association of Museums.

Gans, H. J. (1985). American popular culture and high culture in a changing class structure. Prospectus, 10, 17-37.

Gardner, J. B., & Merritt, E. (2002). Collections planning: Pinning down a strategy. Museum News, 81(4), 30-33, 60-61.

Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design. Review of Educational Research, 46(1), 1-24.

Genoways, H. H. & Ireland, L. M. (2003). Museum administration: An introduction. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Glover, J. M. (1992). Conservation and storage: Textiles. In J. M. A. Thompson et al. (Ed.), Manual of curatorship: A guide to museum practice (2nd ed., pp. 302-324). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Griffin, D. J. G., & Abraham, M. (1999). Management of museums in the 1990s: Governments and organizational reform. In K. Moore (Ed.), Management in museums (pp. 45-92). London: Athlone.

Hall, P. D. (1984). The organization of American culture, 1700-1900: Private institutions, elites, and the origins of American nationality. New York: New York University.

Harrison, J. D. (1993). Ideas of museums in the 1990s. Museum Management and Curatorship, 13, 160-176.

Heartney, E. (2001). Fracturing the imperial mind. Art in America, 89(7), 51, 53, 119.

Hedrick, T. E., Bickman, L., and Rog, D. (1993). Applied research design: A practical guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

History of the Rijksmuseum. (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2008 from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/hetnieuwerijksmuseum/geschiedenis?lang=en

130

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2004). Changing values in the art museum: Rethinking communication and learning. In B. M. Carbonell (Ed.), Museum studies (pp. 556- 575). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (Ed.). (1999). The educational role of the museum (2nd ed.). New York : Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museum education, Past, present, and future. In R. Miles & L. Zavala (Eds.), Towards the museum of the future: New European perspectives (pp.133-146). New York: Routledge.

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992). Museums and the shaping of knowledge. New York: Routledge.

The International Council of Museums. (2006). ICOM code of ethics for museums. Paris: Author.

Irma Boom Office. (2007). Floorplan and information. [Brochure]. Druk: Westzaan: Kunstdrukkerij Mercurius.

Kenseth, J. (Ed.) (1992). The age of the marvelous. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Kratz, C. A., & Karp, I. (2006). Introduction: Museum frictions: Public cultures/global transformations. In I. Karp, C. A. Kratz, L. Szwaja, & T. Ybarra-Frausto (Eds.), Museum frictions: Public cultures/global transformations (pp. 1-34). Durham: Duke University Press.

Lan, C. H., Hsui, C. Y., & Wei, L. C. (2005). A complexity perspective to deploy artistic exhibits. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(10), 1151.

Lewis, G. D. (1984). Collections, collectors and museums: A brief world survey. In J.H.A. Thompson (Ed), Manual of curatorship (pp. 7-22). Boston: Butterworths.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. D. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Low, T. L. (1942). The museum as a social instrument: A study undertaken for the Committee on Education of the American Association of Museums. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

MacGregor, N. (1995). Scholarship and the public. In A. Fahy (Ed.), Collections Management (pp. 219-223). New York: Routledge.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Qualitative Research Methods Series (Vol. 3). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

131

McIntyre, D. (2006). The national museum of Australia and public discourse: The role of public policies in the nation’s cultural debates. Museum International, 58(4), 13- 20.

McPhee, J. (1994). Art museum education: Past imperfect, present definite, future conditional. Australian Art Education, 17, 26-30.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, R. S. (1982). The design of educational exhibits. London: George Allen & Uniwin.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). The professional bureaucracy: Structure in fives. New York: Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organisation. New York: Free.

Mintzberg, H. (1991) The effective organization: Forces and forms. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 54-68.

Mission. (n.d.). Retrieved July, 17, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/organisatie/doelstelling?lang=en

Morris, M. (1998). Processes: Deaccessioning. In R. Buck & J. Gilmore (Eds.), The new museum registration methods (pp. 167-176). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

Munson, L. (2000). Exhibitionism: Art in an era of intolerance. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

Newey, H. (1992). Conservation and storage: Metals. In. J. M. A. Thompson et al. (Ed.), Manual of curatorship: A guide to museum practice (2nd ed., pp. 369-373). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Nicks, J. (2002). Curatorship in the exhibition planning process. In B. Lord and G. D. Lord, The manual of museum exhibitions (pp. 345-356). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Noble, J. V. (1970). Museum manifesto. Museum News, 48(8), 16-20.

Oddy, A. (1992). The art of the conservator. London: British Museum Press.

132

Orosz, J. J. (1990). Curators and culture: The museum movement in America, 1740-1870. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama

Over Kunstschrift. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.kunstschrift.nl/over-kunstschrift/

Painting. (n.d.). Retrieved August, 12, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/schilderijen?lang=en

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearce, S. (1990). Objects as meaning; or narrating the past. In. S. Pearce (Ed.), Objects of knowledge (pp. 125-140). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone.

Piscitielli, R., & Weier, K. (2002). Learning with, through, and about art: The role of social interactions. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in Museums (pp. 121-139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Preziosi, D. (1998). The art of art history. In D. Preziosi (Ed.), The art of art history: A critical anthology (507-25). New York: Oxford University.

Publications. (n.d.). Retrieved August 8, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/publicaties/actueel?lang=en

Publications: Rijksmuseum Kunstkrant. ( n.d.). Retrieved August 11, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/publicaties?lang=en

Ramirez, M. C. (2000). Constellations: Toward a radical questioning of dominant curatorial models. Art Journal 59(1), 14-16.

Ravelli, L. J. (2006). Museum texts: Communication frameworks. New York: Routledge.

Research: Collaboration. (n.d). Retrieved August 9, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/wetenschap/onderzoek/samenwerking?lang=en

Research: Projects. (n.d.). Retrieved August 8, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/wetenschap/projecten?lang=en

Research: Publications. (n.d.). Retrieved August 8, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/wetenschap/index.jsp?lang=en

Research: The basic premise. (n.d.). Retrieved August, 9 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/wetenschap/?lang=en

Rice, D. (1997). Modern art: Making people mad. Museum News, 76(3), 53-38.

133

Rijksmuseum. (2008). Jaarveerslag 2007. Amsterdam: Author. Retrieved from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/attachments/jaarverslagen/Jaarverslag-2007.pdf

Rijksmuseum, the Masterpieces. [Exhibition]. (December 2003 – 2010). Place: The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Rosenthal, M. (2001). Leave the art alone! In C. Kuoni (Ed.), Words of wisdom: A curator’s Vade Mecum on contemporary art (pp. 142-143). New York: Independent Curators International.

Screven, C. G. (1986). Exhibitions and information centers: Some principles and approaches. Curator, 29(2), 109-137.

Sculpture and applied art. (n.d.). Retrieved August, 12, 2008, from http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/collectie/beeldhouwkunstnijverheid?lang=en

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Staniforth, S. (1992). Control and measurement of the environment. In J. M. A. Thompson et al (Ed.), Manual of curatorship: A guide to museum practice (2nd ed., pp. 234-245). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Stille, A. (1991, January 19). Wanted: Art scholar M.B.A. required. New York Times.

Swain, L. (1998). Storage. In R. Buck & J. Gilmore (Eds.), The new museum registration methods (pp. 109-116). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums

Talboys, G. K. (2005). Museum educator’s handbook. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, F. H. (1945). Babel’s tower: The dilemma of the modern museum. New York: Columbia University.

Timms, P., & Williamson, C. (1997) Day in day out, we go on curating: Contemporary Museum Practice, Insite, March, 4-9.

Trachtenberg, A. (1982). The incorporation of America: Culture and society in the gilded age. New York: Hill and Wang. van der Ham, G. (2000). 200 jaar Rijksmuseum: Geschiedenis van een nationaal symbool. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum.

134

van Manen, M. (1990). Research lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario: State University of New York. van Mensch, Peter (1990). Methodological museology; or, towards a theory of museum practice. In S. Pearce (Ed.), Objects of knowledge (pp. 141-157). London: Athlone.

Van Thiel, P. J. (1976). All the paintings of the Rijksmuseum: A completely illustrated catalogue. Maarssen: Gary Schwartz for the Rijksmuseum.

Vels Heijn, A. (1995). Rijksmuseum Amsterdam: Highlights from the collection. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum Stichting.

Vergo, P. (1994). The rhetoric of display. In R. Miles & L. Zavala (Eds.), Towards the museum of the future: New European perspectives (pp. 149-159). New York: Routledge.

Weil, S. (2003). Five meditations. Museum News, 82(1), 27-31, 44-7.

Weil, S. (1990). Rethinking the museum and other meditations. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.

What is WorldCat. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.worldcat.org/whatis/default.jsp

Whitehall, W. M. (1970). Museum of Fine Arts of Boston: A centennial history. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap.

Wilcox, U. V. (1995). Facility management. In C. L. Rose, C. A. Hawks, & H. H. Genoways (Eds.), Storage of natural history collections: A preventative conservation approach (pp. 29-41). York, PA: Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections.

Willumson, G. (2007). The emerging role of the educator in the art museum. In P. Villeneuve (Ed.), From periphery to center: Art museum education in the 21st century. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Zeller, T. (1989). The historical and philosophical foundations of art museum education in America, In N. Berry & S. Mayer (Eds.), Museum education: History, theory, and practice (pp. 10-89). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Zeller, T. (1985). Museum education and school art: Different ends and different means. Art Education, 38(3), 6-10.

Zolberg, V. L. (1984). American art museums: Sanctuary or free-for-all? Social Forces, 63(2), 377-392.

135

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nicole (Neville) Suarez (b. April 11, 1980) was raised in Florida and graduated from Dr. Phillips High School in Orlando as class valedictorian in 1998. Suarez subsequently attended the University of Florida where she graduated Summa Cum Laude with a B.A. in Classical Studies and a Minor in Anthropology in 2002. As a student, she served as Registrar of Matheson Museum in Gainesville where she researched and supervised the cataloguing of over 20,000 Florida postcards (the largest collection anywhere) from every county in the state. Suarez received her M.A. in Art Curatorship from the University of Melbourne, Australia in 2005. During her studies, Suarez held an internship with the University’s Special Collections Department (2004-2005). She researched and created an inventory of the University’s paintings and print collection that contained works ranging from the 16th to 20th centuries. The collection included works by artists such as Dürer, Piranesi, Goya, Hogarth, Rembrandt, Rubens, Salvator Rosa, Claude Lorrain, and Raphael. While completing her doctorate in Art Education/Arts Administration at Florida State University, Suarez held multiple graduate assistantships. She assisted the Exhibitions Director of the National Council on Education for the Ceramic Arts with two ceramics exhibitions: the Clay National and Invitational (2006 – 2008). She also provided support for Florida State University’s Museum Studies Program and the Department of Art Education. Suarez was awarded her degree in fall of 2008.

136