Category Archives: culture

IMG_4311Art museums had long been considered unwelcoming treasure houses filled with invaluable pieces of art tucked away for the enjoyment of a select few. Over the past couple of decades, however, museums broadened their focus to include welcoming and educating the public. With the advent of the internet and social media, it became even easier for museums to share their treasures with the world. Now, social media allows museums to interact with the public, near and far, in ways that were once unimaginable. Here are some best practices to make sure that your institution is connecting with as broad an audience as possible on social media:

  • Share your museum’s mission with your audience frequently
  • Highlight your collection – followers and fans respond to visual posts, and you likely have an arsenal of images at your fingertips
  • Advertise all events and programs at your museum on social channels to create perceived value and invite your local audience to join in on-site
  • Create online-only content for your long-distance audience
  • Vary content by platforms to encourage fans and followers to engage with you on multiple social channels
  • Don’t be afraid to have a sense of humor and be lighthearted at times
  • Engage on-site visitors and fans from afar alike though interactive social media campaigns and contests

With all of this technology at our fingertips, there is so much opportunity for museums to develop a large and engaged audience on social media. Follow these best practices, and you’ll be well on your way to a developed social media strategy.

Image via SproutSocial

Image via SproutSocial

At museums, cultural institutions, and other non-profits, the social media team is responsible for supporting and marketing the programs, events, and mission of the organization. Due to the collaborative nature of museums, it is essential that all stakeholders meet regularly with the social media and marketing team. Although almost every single department could potentially contribute content and ideas to the social media team, it is the most important to meet with the curatorial, education, public programs, membership, and development departments. Each of these departments has a large stake in the museums’ success as well as different, specific audiences.

The curatorial department is the bread and butter of the museum. Without art and exhibitions, the museum would not exist. Sharing information about the museums’ collection, current and forthcoming exhibitions, and curatorial programs is the best way to get people interested in the museum.

The education and public programs department is responsible for creating programs to engage the public with the museum and its collection. These programs are usually less academically focused than the curatorial programs and try to knock down barriers to entry to engage new audiences.

The membership and development departments are responsible for fundraising efforts at the museum. Individual and corporate fundraising is essential for non-profits as public and private grants become increasingly scarcer. The membership and development departments seek to inform the donors, potential donors, and non-donors about the importance of fundraising support.

Although it may seem like there is the potential for there to be too many cooks in the kitchen, it is essential to make sure that all of these different voices are represented and the respective audiences are being served.

Ultimately, the marketing and social media team should have the final say and sign off on social media messages and campaigns, as they are responsible for staying true to the institutions overall brand.

Museums are beloved by many, and as such, there is an incredibly large community of social media users with an affinity towards museums and cultural institutions. Over the past five years of my own social media usage, I’ve recognized the following three museum industry influencers: Colleen Dilen, Tyler Green, and Museum Nerd.

Although Colleen Dilen has the fewest followers of the three, I listed her first because her focus is particularly interesting to me. Colleen (@cdilly on Twitter) uses data to help non-profits ensure success by improving visitation, engagement, and more through data-driven adjustments and approaches. She is one of the few people in this niche field that shares her data openly and often, and her blog, Know Your Own Bone is a tremendous and thought-provoking resource.

Tyler Green (@TylerGreenDC on Twitter) is an art critic, blogger, and podcast host/producer of Modern Art Notes. With over 26,000 followers on Twitter, Tyler is a well-respected art critic and is constantly engaging both his followers and museums in critical discuss about exhibitions, publications, and other arts and museum related content on his dynamic Twitter feed.

Museum Nerd (@MuseumNerd on Twitter) is an anonymous Brooklyn resident who really, really likes museums. A self-proclaimed museum nerd, Museum Nerd posts to their website when they have more to say than a 140 letter tweet can handle. Museum Nerd has an impressive following of over 240,000 followers, and they post content that is in any way related to museums. Not to mention, they are also quite humorous! (I hope to find out who this mysterious funny person is some day.)

Museums and Cultural Institutions don’t engage with influencers in the way a typical for-profit company or business might. Instead, museums should look to people like the three aforementioned influencers as valuable resources and potential partners. If an organization interacts with an influencer and the influencer begins to see and appreciate the institution’s content, there is a chance the influencer will eventually share some of your content. This will push your content out to an entirely new audience. Influencers share good content, though, so it is crucial that the content your museum or cultural institution creates and posts on social media is something that people will be excited to share with others

Image via Jeffrey on Flickr

Image via Jeffrey on Flickr

Social media and Web 2.0 tools have changed the landscape of marketing dramatically in recent years. Popular social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, have an impressive amount of daily users from around the world. Consumers are able to give immediate feedback about their experiences, interact with people who share similar interests, and reach out to companies and organizations with the click of a button. The conversation is now almost entirely driven by the customer instead of the content creator, which can be a scary thing for a conservative institution.

Museums and cultural institutions and the lovers of these organizations, engage in social media as well. Instead of referring to “customers,” however, museums and cultural institutions engage with visitors, members, donors, and people who are passionate about the institution’s mission. Museums use social channels to promote events, share their collections, keep current constituents engaged, and reach new audiences.

One of the most important foundations of social media marketing is telling your story and telling it well. This is particularly relevant for museums and cultural organizations. An article published in the Washington post from June of 2014 boasted that there were more museums in the United States than there were Starbucks and McDonald’s locations…combined.

At over 35,000 museums and counting, there is an incredible variety of cultural organizations for people to choose from. This is why telling your story is essential and incredibly valuable. It is important for museums to share their message, story, and mission to inform people about what makes your organization special and why they should choose to visit and support your institution.

Museums and cultural institutions should focus on spreading their mission and telling their story on social media to make them standout of the crowd. Every organization has something that makes it special, and if you are able to communicate this effectively over social media your institution will benefit.

Accessibility is a buzzword in the museum world as of late. Innovative museum leaders are asking themselves if their institution is serving a broad audience ranging in age, race, and socio-economic status. There are physical barriers like old buildings that are not wheel-chair accessible and economic barriers like the high cost of admission for an entire family. These concerns are real, and they must remain at the forefront of the discussion.

Today, I happened upon this article by NPR titled How To Make Museums More Inviting For Kids With Autism. This was a barrier that I had not thought of before. The closest I’d come was when I teared up reading an article about the Red Sox providing peanut-free sections so people with serious peanut allergies could attend.

I did a little digging, and I was really pleased to find that the Boston Children’s Museum offers Morningstar Access hours for children with special needs. The hours are limited and require registration, but I was also pleasantly surprised to discover that the admission cost is half of regular admission. What a wonderful program!

I am curious to do a bit more research to see if any other Boston-area museums participate in this type of program. I could see it being a big draw for donors who are interested in providing access to the community, as there are many people who could be well served by these opportunities.

Have you heard or experienced any similar programs? What do you think about this effort? Leave a comment below.

Yesterday I was able to attend a development conference at work. There were absolutely fascinating keynote speakers who shared their expertise in crisis management and negotiation. Their talks were both practical and philosophical and, of course, inspiring.

There was a live tweet board on the stage next to the presenters, and attendees were encouraged to tweet out reactions and memorable quotes during the presentations. I was excited to see this participatory element introduced to the conference, and though many did not participate, those who did effectively synthesized crucial points  in 140 characters or less.

As insinuated by the live tweet board, a key element of the conference was digital media strategy. Although digital and social media is just a hobby for me, it was encouraging to see the ways in which social and digital media can be leveraged to reach new audiences and round out a larger marketing campaign. Even though I am not an expert, I’d like to think that I understand many of the abilities and limitations of these forms of communication, and I get really excited when I see them being used to their full potentials.

Speaking of full potential, I had the pleasure of attending the American Museum Membership Conference in Atlanta back in April. There was a really great presentation by Fiveseed about their social media campaign for History Colorado Center. This interactive aspect of their re-opening campaign expanded their audience and engaged brand new constituents. Social and digital media’s ability to reach a broader audience is fascinating to me as a non-profit fundraiser.

I hope to read more, explore more, see more, and learn more about digital and social media strategies for non-profits. I am starting master’s program in management this fall, and I am eager for the opportunity to get back in the classroom and learn about something completely new. I’m sure this won’t be the last time this topic is discussed in my blog.

Please feel free to share any resources you’ve found helpful regarding digital media strategy!

 

I am a loyal J. Crew customer. I get super excited when the new catalog comes, flipping through the pages lusting after the fashionable clothes. I found the Spring issue particularly adorable, because of the cute little boy getting his toenails painted by his mom, with pink Essie nail polish – my favorite!

This ad, which I was melting into a puddle of goo over, apparently made many people upset. Upset enough to air ridiculously ignorant stories on major news networks.

John Stewart put together some great clips of ridiculous pink toenail polish news stories, which can be seen in this amazing video: Toemageddon 2011 – This Little Piggy Went to Hell, which I highly suggest watching. You’ll laugh and possibly even cry.

I’m a life planner and I am fascinated with gender studies. Obviously I’ve already decided that I am going to actively try to raise my future children as gender neutral as possible. If my son’s favorite color is pink and he asks for an Easy Bake Oven for Christmas, you better fucking believe I’ll buy it for him. If my daughter wants a bug farm and a Creepy Crawler maker, she’ll get that too. There is an inexplicable and incessant need in U.S. society for clear gender boundaries and gender roles. They are learned behaviors, perpetuated by a patriarchal society that needs to separate out of fear of the possibility of equality.

Now I’ll discuss a couple of the most discouraging comments made about this ad. As reported on CCN, Erin Brown from the Media Research Center called the ad “blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children.” I see two major problems with this statement. 1) painting a 5-year-old boy’s toenails hot pink does not make him transgendered. 2) why the fuck shouldn’t transgendered children be celebrated?

Another excellent quote comes from Glenn Beck’s sidekick Keith Ablow, who is somehow an M.D. He states, “gender distinctions have a place in society. I think it is a message she meant to send – it’s an attack on masculinity.” Once again, two major issues. 1) gender distinctions in society function only to oppress and alienate. It creates a false binary. Yet Mr. Ablow would like to perpetuate gender stereotypes and roles. 2) This boy is FIVE. He is basically asexual at this point in his life. Yes, he identifies himself as a boy and pees standing up. He does not even understand what this mystique of masculinity that people like Ablow try so desperately to maintain. This myth that men need to be macho and powerful and can’t like the color pink or paint their toenails. I hope for this little boy’s sake that he doesn’t grow up to be one of those types of men. The world doesn’t need any more of those.

The controversy surrounding this ad makes me realize just how difficult it will be to raise children gender neutral. There is constant pressure from everywhere, especially from the media and pop culture, to adopt “gender appropriate” behavior. I am upset about the controversy surrounding this ad, too, but for incredibly different reasons.

My favorite aspect of writing, as discussed in my most recent blog post, is process. Sorting out my thoughts and ideas, writing them down in my notebook, crossing out the awkward parts, replacing words, and adding and subtracting punctuation until I am pleased with the finish product, is what makes writing so rewarding for me.

My favorite part about being an art historian is the ability to make and negotiate connections while looking at objects of visual culture. Studying art helps me make sense of the world, by realizing connections and bridges between things that may, at first, seem very different. If I can borrow the words of artist Alfredo Jaar for a moment, “that’s the magic of art—and i think it’s extraordinary—the power to create connections, make bridges. it fascinates me.” This is a case where someone else’s words describe my thoughts better than I possibly could myself.

My love for the process of writing is very similar to artist Charles LeDray’s love of process in the creation of art, specifically in relation to his recent exhibition at the ICA/Boston, entitled workworkworkworkwork. The exhibition just closed this past Sunday, and is currently being de-installed and packed  up for safe travels to the Whitney Museum in New York.

To be honest, I love pretty much everything about LeDray’s work. Born in Seattle in 1960, LeDray’s mother, a seamstress, taught him how to sew when he was just four years old. With no academic artistic training other than working as a security guard at the Seattle Art Museum, LeDray’s work and career are even more impressive.

Fixated on commodity, repetition, and identity, and obsessed with process, LeDray’s works are systematic and powerful. Hand throwing thousands of tiny ceramic and porcelain pots (over 8,000 in this exhibition alone), hand sewn miniature clothing, delicately carved human bone – at the most superficial level LeDray’s pieces are impressive based on sheer skill alone.

LeDray’s work, however, is anything but superficial. His pieces raise questions about gender identity, work and process, and loss. Traditionally considered “women’s work,” sewing is usually considered more of a craft than an art. LeDray challenges this traditional notion, as he is a male artist who uses sewn textiles as his most prominent medium. Overcoat, a piece that consists of a and sewn, navy blue miniature men’s overcoat stuffed with even tinier male and female clothes makes a commentary on gender identity and the sometimes blurred line between male and female, a false binary.

LeDray’s obsession with process and work leads to the dismantling, re-appropriating, and re-creating of objects. A piece entitled Small Suit made from Larger Suit, LeDray created a hand-sewn miniature plaid suit, complete with jacket, dress shirt, tie, and slacks. He then cut out from this suit the pattern for a miniature suit, which he sewed hanging off the right arm of the larger suit. He went as far as to punch out tiny, pin head sized, pieces of the larger suit’s buttons for the smaller suit.

Several macabre pieces carved from human bone illuminate the permanence of some aspects of the physical human body versus the average human lifespan. One piece, a miniature orrery, a mechanism used by the ancient Greeks to track the alignment of the planets in the solar system, reiterates the discrepancy and relativity of time and space.

One of the most moving and beautiful pieces, in my opinion, is the muted gay pride flag, entitled Pride Flag. This piece makes a harsh but realistic commentary on the politics surrounding gay rights. Many times, just as changes are being made, something happens to set back the progress. This is illustrated by the muted colors of the traditionally bright and vibrant gay pride flag. With miniature gray, white, and black men and women’s clothing sewn to the sides of the flag, the lives lost during the AIDS crisis are remembered.

The human body is not present in the exhibit, not even in miniature form. On display are only the objects that people use and/or wear. The absence of people, of the physical body, creates an eerie lack, an absence that makes the viewer long for the things, the people that are no longer physically here. The piece that conveyed this feeling the most for me, and that I could relate to the easiest was the work called Hall Tree. This piece includes a miniature coat tree, fabricated by the artist, with miniature hand-sewn coats hanging on the hooks. This piece reminds me of the death of my mother, and how things just sort of sat in places, as she had left them, until we were finally forced to move them; something that we put off for as long as possible, as them staying where they were was a reminder of her and the way things were when she was alive.

The miniature objects remind the viewer of doll clothes, of childhood, of the past. Though they appear at first glance to be innocuous and perhaps even a bit cute, these pieces are the symbols of the untold, silenced stories of the past, of the people who are no longer able to tell them.

This is an abridged version of a paper that I wrote for a History of Photography course I took in Fall of 2008.

The mysterious Countess di Castiglione, who commissioned hundreds of photographic portraits of herself from prominent Parisian studios, left a very prolific record of her life. In this paper I will discuss the way in which the Countess’s peculiar life gave her the agency to commission these photographs and control her self image. Due to her eccentric and fetishistic behavior, her photographs are generally bizarre and provocative. Using the ideas of feminist theory and gaze theory, I will discuss the way in which the Countess was able to use her social status and agency to obsessively construct her self identity before any one else could construct it for her.

Pierre-Louise Pierson, The Game of Madness, c.1863-1866

I argue that the motivation behind having so many photographic portraits taken was her narcissistic and seemingly neurotic desire to preserve and document her beauty. Her apparent narcissism certainly stemmed from the fact that she was constantly receiving positive attention about her looks from both men and women. She was undoubtedly one of the most beautiful women of her time as Frederic Loliee says in his history Women of the Second Empire, “She was perfection. She enjoyed getting dressed up and making her presence known at exclusive functions such as royal balls.” She also took advantage of her sexual appeal by using her beauty to seduce some of the richest and most powerful men. Her frequent affairs with prominent men of the mid to late nineteenth century were clear indications of the power of her beauty and the way in which she affected men. Perhaps her obsession with documenting herself was a way of taking claim of her image and objectifying herself before any one else could. Being a prominent member of the court since the age of sixteen must have made her slightly jaded. Especially due to the fact that she was known more for being an object of desire than for playing the important political and social roles that she wished to play.

Though it was not uncommon for elite members of French society to have their portraits taken conveying different identities, the Countess’s photographs stand apart. They were not used for advertising or monetary gain and as Elisabeth Brofen says, “the photographs show with extraordinary clarity how self staging, apparently a safeguard and immortalization of the I, is accompanied by the destruction of the self” (156). La Castiglione’s obsession with her own self image led to a unique artist and model relationship that produced prolific amounts of fascinating photographs of a woman trying to define her self image using the medium of photography.

The advent of photography created an environment of quick and easy commodification. Instead of sitting for a painted portrait, patrons could go in and have their photograph snapped in a few minutes time. With the creation of the carte-de-visite, or calling card, people could disseminate images of themselves to whomever they chose. Though it appears as if the Countess never actually intended to circulate the unconventional portraits she deliberately pose for, she was undeniably concerned with making her own identity.

Photography also aided in the wide dissemination of pornography. Instead of taking photographs of the entire body, sometimes these illicit photographs would commodifying single body parts, like legs. In later photographs of the Countess’s legs as an old woman, the Countess overturns the notion of sexualized body parts by emphasizing her de-sexualized, aging body.

There is a tradition of women with some sort of agency, particularly political agency, commissioning their own portraits. As strong willed women with political agendas, these women used their agency to commission portraits of themselves in order to have control of the way they were depicted instead of letting other people have to opportunity of defining them. This, it seems, is very similar to what the Countess di Castiglione did with her series of self portraits. Instead of letting other people, particularly male artists or her male family members, decide how she would be presented to the public, she wanted to be in charge of her image. She, as a Countess, was also in a similar position of the possibility of accessing political power.

Though there is not a strong tradition of women with agency (the ability to act as she chooses) to commission unconventional or risqué portraits of themselves to create and solidify her own identity, there are some unique cases. This shows that, though the Countess is a particularly intriguing case, she was not the first woman to commission portraits to self-consciously create her identity.

Arguably the most intriguing photographs of the Countess are the photos in which she consciously makes the viewer aware of engaging in the act of looking. By countering the viewer’s gaze, the Countess questions exactly who is the subject and who is the object. Although she is the object of the photograph, in the photos where she is holding a half mask in front of her eye, titled Game of Madness, the Countess in turn makes the viewer both the looker and the looked at. The subject is almost always the person who has the power in the subject/object relationship. It is no surprise that the Countess would want to actively engage in the subject position, even in a situation where she is inherently objectified.

The radical and particularly intriguing aspect of the gaze photos of the Countess are dependent entirely on the time period in which they were created. During the Second Empire women in France did not have many freedoms and their agency in the arts depended entirely on their access to money. As a woman for whom money was not an issue, the Countess was able to commission portraits of herself that were not necessarily conventional or socially acceptable. Another reason why she could have these portraits taken of herself was due to her very intimate relationship with Pierre Louis Pierson. Perhaps if she had not developed such a strong friendship with Pierson she would not have been able to convince another photographer to take these risqué or scandalous photographs of her, regardless of how much money she offered.

In many ways it seems as if the Countess was ahead of her time. She was unknowingly, or perhaps very deliberately, engaging in a critical discourse that involved questioning the gaze and the position of women in 19th century French society. As a member of female aristocratic minority with agency in the arts, the Countess and her hundreds of photographs give scholars insight into the life of a woman who did not always play by the rules and was a product of almost every aspect and intersection of life in 19th century Paris, not just that of the upper class elite.

I’ve decided to write a series of blog posts which, though different in scope and concept, work off the ideas presented in the previous post(s). By doing so, I hope to emulate my thought process – to manifest the series of connections that are created in my brain while thinking about a certain topic. Specifically, this series of posts will discuss different facets of the concepts of agency and the power of the gaze.

I have already discussed the concept of agency, the ability to act/do, in previous posts. The gaze, however, is something that I have only mentioned briefly in my discussion of the spectacle. “The gaze” is an important concept in the art historical discipline. While teaching the introductory surveys, I would often ask the students where the figures (if there were figures in the painting) were looking. Though it may seem like a rather superficial, perhaps meaningless, question, the gaze of the figures is important in both formal and conceptual analysis. If the figures are looking directly at the viewer, they may be inviting of challenging the viewer’s gaze. If the figure(s) are not looking at the viewer(s), the viewer(s) can be spectators, voyeurs, or active participant(s) in the scene.

The gaze is inherently powerful. The act of looking is, in some ways, a privilege, and it can be a display of dominance or an attempt at intimidation. Though not particularly relevant to contemporary American society, there have been, and still are, places and time periods where only certain people could look at certain people/things. The privilege of looking was dependent on race, class, and/or gender. Generally, “the gaze” refers to the male gaze, particularly the heterosexual, privileged, white male’s gaze. This dates back to ancient art. Think ancient Greece – Aphrodite of Cnidos, in particular. Though the Roman copy is not as beautiful, the nude statue of the “goddess of love” (dubbing her a goddess made her nudity more acceptable), was adored by many men. There are ancient accounts that some men got so excited that they “left a stain on her.” As she coyly tries to cover her genitals in the Venus Pudica pose, she is actually drawing attention to her nudity and vulnerability. The fact that she does not look at the viewer head on puts the viewer in a position of acting as a voyeur, which adds an element of excitement and scandal to the viewing experience.


There were dozens, hundreds of male nude statues. The nude male body, however, was not an object of desire. Male nudity, instead, was a symbol of both athleticism and herocism. Even statues of nude men were created for the gaze of other men. To the heterosexual man they were a symbol of what the man should hope to be. To the homosexual male they were the same symbol, and, perhaps secondarily, objects of desire. The statues had commanding gazes which met the viewer’s eyes. They were confident, self aware, and proud. They were not created as objects for women to lust after, but as reminders of the Greek emphasis on and appreciation for athleticism, youth, and beauty.

The male gaze has always been the most powerful gaze, and it still remains the most powerful gaze… which will be the concepts expanded upon in the next blog post.