Creating an Elite in a Public Art Institution

The Smithsonian Institution is meant for public consumption—the museums stay open for roughly 8 or 9 hours a day, many programs and lectures are constantly held in the spaces, and the collections and exhibitions are on view almost 365 days a year. The motivation behind the Institution is to impart artistic, scientific, and human excellence to every person that walks through the doors of each museum, whether they’re a DC local, tour group from Japan, student class trip, a couple from Eastern Europe, or a random straggler from the Midwest. The art and science is meant for everyone—a completely inclusive experience for all types of people. However, many times there is a divide drawn between the common man and the member, donor, or associate. This divide breeds exclusivity in a sphere supposedly dominated by an inclusive ethos.

To become a member of the Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden, one joins the “Annual Circle.” The fact that the membership has a separate name is an interesting question in and of itself—by linguistically delineating a difference between membership and this new title does one gain increased agency? By changing the name, is the creation of a membership not seen as a membership, but rather is elevated to a symbolic donor level? While it is hard for me to answer these questions definitively, from my point of view, memberships to museums are inevitable. Perhaps I feel this way because of my capitalist background, but because the government funds the arts so pathetically I believe it’s only logical that museums seek the financial support of individual donors. To quote the Hirshhorn’s website on the role of membership funding, “Although federal monies provide partial funding for daily operations, contributions from individuals, foundations, and corporations extend the museum's ability to present the art of our time to the greatest number of people. The importance of giving to the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden has never been greater.” Therefore, museums create memberships that give special access to people who are willing to sustain the museum. However, in a way to create a heightened exclusivity under the guise of nonchalance, many institutions adopt new names for their membership program. So, the Hirshhorn Museum calls their members “Annual Circle members.” If one really wants to be fastidious, one could analyze the usage of the word circle as metaphorically created an “in” group and an “out/beyond” group.

Memberships to the Hirshhorn Museum start at the $100 level. From then up, there are amount divisions, each with a separate name. So, if one gives $150, one is labeled part of the Associate’s Circle, $1000 allows entry into the Friend’s Circle, and $25,000 and above is part of the Director’s Circle. Each continues to use word “circle” to create a sense of friendship, community, and intimacy. However, at the $2500 level, one becomes privately invited to our wildly popular “Meet the Artist” series, which is open free to the public. I got to witness the result of this on my third day of work during the Matthew Barney lecture. People traveled five hours or more to come see experimental guru Matthew Barney speak at the Hirshhorn about the theatricality and vision for his most recent works in his Drawing Restraint series, as well as the influence of Joseph Beuys on his work. Because the event was open to the public, people began showing up five hours early to secure a place in line, and hence a ticket to the event. The lecture was held in the Hirshhorn’s Ring Auditorium, which seats 272 people, in order to maintain a level of intimacy requested by Barney and co-lecturer Nancy Spector. About 60 tickets were reserved for staff, press, and friends of the artists. Then, about 60 tickets were held for trustees, donors, and any members above the $2500 level. This left 150 tickets for the public. The tickets were being distributed to the first 150 people in line at 5:45 PM. By 5 PM, about 200 people were lined up in the lobby. By 5:45 PM, about 500 people were waiting for tickets to the event. I had to act as crowd control and bouncer for the event (slightly ironic, I realize!), but all I could offer was for the people who were turned away to watch the simultaneous live webcast of the event. While it was a poor consolation, the capacity limits did not allow us any other choice. In the end, about 900 people had showed up for 150 seats. Some people were understanding, but many were angry, pissed off, and downright rude. I had to deal with many heated situations, including one where two girls had skipped college classes to travel to DC to see the event. They were art students, idolized Matthew Barney, and said they couldn’t really afford to come, but they sacrificed to see him speak. When they found out that a number of seats had been reserved for high-level donors, they flipped out. They were absolutely fuming, saying that those donors were just rich assholes who didn’t really realize the power of art. The girls continued by saying that the Hirshhorn was corrupt for catering to donors because of its status as a public arts museum. While I certainly can sympathize with their anger, I started to question if they were onto something. Are we breeding elitism by separating donor and public? Are we saying to the public that they’re not good enough because their pockets aren’t as deep as others?

It’s a hard break—museums cannot afford to run themselves on federal budgets alone, so they have to in turn cater to their financial supporters by granting special access and privileges. Is this antithetical to their mission as a public institution? Not necessarily. But it’s a very careful line that museum administrative officers and staff must walk—show your donors how much their donation means by providing benefits while also remaining focused on the public. It’s hard to play two games at once, and this conflict can often lead to incredibly contempt and enmity.