FOREWORD: It needs to be said that as a musingplace the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery (QVMAG) in 2024 in so many ways it can be likened to the Neanderthals – albeit that the Neanderthals are poorly understood. The Neanderthals survived by hunting and gathering as dose the QVMAG in a sense even if its foundation stones where laid down by The Royal Society of Tasmania, a champion of 'The European Enlightenment' – their motto and purpose being THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.
In the here and now, the institution's purposefulness is in need of more enlightened interrogation rather than the essentially 'colonial mindset' that lingers in the collections, the displays, exhibitions etc. Arguably The institution has in so many ways cataloged the colonisation of Van Diemen's Land, Tasmania, lutruwitaTasmania – and that is not entirely a negative. In subliminal ways this mindset is ongoing and in the 21st C that is unfortunate given all that musingplaces have to offer in regard to PLACEmaking.
CULTURALlandscaping is also a component of any musingplace's purpose for being given that they have access to the resources and the collected data.
In the way the Neanderthalian mindset lingers it is debilitating. This is not to suggest a lack of sophistication or intellect however. The records that the Neanderthals have left demonstrate these traits fulsomely!
Rather it is to do with the lack of research scholars and scholarship. It is believed that the Neanderthal's demise was due to them being out competed for resources and by extension to the inbreeding that resulted as an outcome of their displacement. Hybridisation also came into play and the 'survivors' hybridised – Darwinian survivalism in play.
Whatever the circumstance of the Neanderthals' demise was, it is what it is and 'symbolically' it resonates in the here and now and in more institutions than the QVMAG.
All that said the QVMAG as a tourism asset and it's program is notable even if places like museums are where 'visitors' go to experience what the locals are saying to themselves about themselves. Musingplace's relevance is by-and-large to do with local's engagement. Telling locals what visitors think of their cultural landscaping is all well and good but it is more important for locals to be deeply engaged in the construction of the landscape - 2 references [1] - [2]. It is well worth remembering the adage that self praise is no praise at all. Then there is the one that goes ... the trouble with most of us is that we would rather be ruined by praise than saved by criticism and critique – and in Tasmania that is more so than elsewhere given the place's somewhat Gothic histories.
Entertaining and informative as the QVMAG's program is, in the end it is one-dimensional and arguably does not engage with local people in a participatory way. it is offered to local people rather than arrived at with them in a participatory way. And there are negative financial implications.
 |
| LINK ... click on image to enlarge |
For context, the late David Hansen's award winning essay SEEING TRUGANINI illuminates a way forward albeit littered with discord and dispute. Nonetheless, the QVMAG seems quite unable to deal with such cultural realities. In a nutshell this 'story' speaks volumes about where the QVMAG sits in the cultural landscape in which it aims to belong.
Nina Simon's book "The Participatory Museum" in a practical way talks about working with community members and visitors towards participatory outcomes. She talks about her experiences in her museum and its financial salvation via its participatory programming. Her institution became more dynamic, and more relevant essentially. Nina Simon is a 'movement builder', and what was/is specifically relevant in her institution, in its placedness, it will not always directly translate or be transplantable but she has much to offer. Indeed, internationally her book is a standard text in museology courses.
Nothing is all good or all bad because life is a much more messy business than that. Surely more money to do more things might make this or that better. However, the question hanging is who wants to do what and why? Then comes the one that says if someone knows why isn't it being talked up in this report?
The issue here is to recognise that in life as a whole we have lots of ideas that don’t work out. Initially you cannot tell if the idea will work or not, so you need to explore it and do some work on it in order to find out. It is not wasting our time in exploring ideas that turn out not to work – we are generating and testing ideas. It turns out that reports are good places to test ideas. As likely as not it will lead somewhere beyond the status quo. In any even if mistakes are not being made then nobody is trying toachieve something.
 |
| Far too busy to consider improvement! |
The QVMAG in its 125th year fundamentally exhibited all the symptoms of having lost its way. Increasingly over the previous decade plus the institution had become captive of what is basically a ‘bureaucratic fiefdom’. Somewhat poignantly the celebratory exhibition did not include a single example of Indigenous cultural production – this was the elephant in the room. The key personnel have serially and surreally, year upon year, orchestrated and over-sighted the transition of the institution from its foundational ‘purpose’ as ‘research institute’ into “local governance non-core cost centre” in a purely bureaucratic context.
Reportedly the QVMAG is transitioning and this time into a COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE. However, progress is exceedingly slow with every BUREAUCRATICstumblestone being put in the way. The lack of purposefulness is palpable, and there is reason to think that management might be having second thoughts as the realities of the shift are given some thought.
With European musingplaces since Ole Worm assembled his Wundkammer in Denmark in the late 1500s/early1600, generally the instigators of museums cum wunderkammers were seeking power via the holding of data cum knowledge.
Consequently 'musingplace managers', unlike Ole Worm, are the servants of their sources of 'fiscal sustenance'. Their role is to reflect and give substance to the fcolloecftive imaginings and the sensibilities of their Communities of Ownership and Interest (COI). In a colonial context that would be Emperors and in a democracy a COI it is layered and diverse.
The separation of powers – church and state, government and administration – is a long held principle in representational government. There is something like 30PLUS forms of governance but it is just the case that in Tasmania currently representational governance, for all its 21st C inadequacies, is what exists. So, there is no scope, and there ought not be any, or latitude to bend the rules and blend the roles of governance and management.
Papa often disparaged Huey (who remained oblivious to his disapproval). Huey's main sidekicks were small identical triplet ducks (who bore a striking resemblance to Donald Duck's nephews, Huey, Dewey and Louie) who resented or mocked Huey for his stupidity and clumsiness but depended on his superhero strength to get them out of trouble.
This is something from the 1950s and post WW2 American internationalism – America being the land of the free and super heroes – that BABYboomers might remember.
An overgrown HUEYlike self-demanding cum self-serving entity cannot go on without reference to the expectations, aspirations and ambitions of its constituency even if it is on the spectrum.
If it is "old fashioned" to insist upon the separation of powers (AKA the separation of management and governance) so be it and let us be old fashioned unless or until 'direct/participatory democracy' is achieved or achievable again, but now in a 21st C context.
Currently the institution’s ‘purpose’ arguably has been lost sight of and it has become shrouded, in humbug, bureaucratic flummery and serf-serving deeming. Te QVMAG is culturally rudderless. The institution has become somewhat moribund and this is mostly so when it falls under the control of a 'management regime' feigning a governance role. Consequently, and concerningly, the institution fails to recognise its own inadequacies.
Conveniently and bureaucratically the QVMAG's governance, such as it is, continues to, and inappropriately, bland down and blend the functions of ‘governance and management’.
This might be overcome when TRUEgovernance for the institution arrives when (IF??) it actually transitions to a Company Ltd!? That will be a matter for the new Board of Directors irrespective of what management has in mind for their future now. Then the boot will be on the other foot when the QVMAG is in competition with other cultural entities and having Council funding determined on purposefulness and outcomes. Indeed, in the funding stakes, the QVMAG will need to compete with other standalone purposeful entities!
Currently, the institution has been allowed by its ‘default trustees’ cum governors – Launceston’s Councillors’ – to be reconfigured as a ‘kind of theme park like entity’ well away from its original ‘purposefulness’ laid down years ago when the Royal Society of Tasmania – essentially and fundamentally as a research institute – was the the 'foundation stone' upon which the institution was founded. It is not 'old fashioned' to champion purposefulness!
Nonetheless, Councillors generally did not seek election as QVMAG Governors and consequently they have been willing to let 'management' make the running. Over time this has served the QVMAG's Community of Ownership and Interest rather poorly.
The idea recognised by the Roman poet's Juvenal invocation "bread and circuses" (or "bread and games") referring to superficial appeasement is all too evident at the QVMAG. This can be seen in the QVMAG's programming and the evident lack of meaningful purposefulness - sadly . This "bread and circuses" strategy is used commonly in cultural, particularly political, contexts and especially so when 'machiavellian agendas' are seen to be in play – witness the syndrome in totalitarian regimes.
Arguably, the funding provided annually for the QVMAG's recurrent operational budget has increasingly been 'fudged' and basically at the whim of council's managements’ with its empire building. With top down pyramidal chains of command in evidence the possibility of a dianamic rhizomatic structure for the institution does not seem likely – see reference. Interestingly, effective and productive research is carried out rhizomaticaly – by networks of networks – and it is saddening to witness the antithesis to rhizomatics in institutions with research agendas.
Funded by the public purse and primarily from the city’s ratepayers via their rates and subsidised to a lesser extent by the State Govt. salaries can grow without relevance to productivity.
As an institution the QVMAG has also from time to time benefited from private donations and sponsorships plus in-kind research funding from various research organisations but the instances are relatively few. Philanthropists seek value for their investment – bang for their buck!
Notably this report fails to meet the 'grant acquittal obligation' in that a "review the [QVMAG'S] financial statement is just not there – as it has been consistently in previous years' reporting. Council's endorsement of the report quite simply fails the 'pub test'.
However, it has not always been the case that a financial statement was not included. Given that is the case, now management has some serious questions to answer. Given that the officers involved in the past understood 'the acquittal cum compliance requirement' the current management needs to be held to account – and by extension the Councillors too.
Why? For he avoidance of up front accountability! In the past, demonstrably a financial statement was embodied in the report – AKA Compliance Statement – and one is required in order that the report meets compliance standards.
Moreover, the institutions metrics are embodied in the financial statement and for funding agencies these are important considerations! SEE REFERENCE
Again, arguably, the QVMAG reporting here fails the compliance requirement when (if?) it – the artefact – is laid before parliament as required. This can be seen in the vernacular as sloppy administration or alternatively as machiavellian accounting designed and devised to keep enquiring minds at bay.
Given that State Govt. funding with CPI increases was provided by Jim Bacon's Govt. to better the QVMAG's 'research capacity' to be enhanced. Thinking on accountability, it begs the question. Looking at current 'research outcomes' one wonders about the funding's utility and then comes compliance and key performance indicators.
Machiavellian diversions and keeping real world assessment at bay might well be understood, relative to the status quo, as being 'legitimate' in one way or another, but where is the research? indeed where are the QVMAG's research networks in evidence. Moreover, how is the QVMAG engaging with CITIZENresearch and CITIZENcuratorship?
STRATEGIC PLANNING
The 'VISION' here would be comedic if it wasn't a credible representation of the cultural ineptitude that spawned it.
As for the 'MISSION', whilst it is an attempt at credibility it is naive and misplaced. As presented, it is an objective. But a mission? Sadly it is an exemplar of the dilettantism that can be found under every rock when interrogating many institutions purposefulness in a 21st C context.
That 'THE REPORT' is essentially silent in regard to the TRANSFORMATION process that, if implemented, will see the QVMAG become a COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE – and a good thing that would be. If it does transition, any credible 'governing body' will want to, indeed need to, put an entrepreneurial Strategic Plan in place and quick smart.
The very notion that the Councillors authorise 'MANAGEMENT' to establish an entrepreneurial Strategic Plan is the class of fiscal foley that has seen loss making and dystopian outcomes become all too many.
Bureaucrats make poor entrepreneurs generally. Looking around us in Tasmania, the State Govt is trying to manage such ineptitudes with infrastructure failures resulting in ministerial resignations etc. Similarly Council's executive has become embroiled in 'unfortunate' fiscal matters - loss making adventures at their constituents' expense.
To haplessly hand some future BOARD OF DIRECTORS a ready made plan that it had no part in framing, and that was conjured up in camera, well it is pompous by any measure. Expecting board members to deliver sustainable outcomes on such hand-me-down visions, that would demonstrate an arrogance without precedent.
Governance determines policy and strategies and management implements them and advises upon them when called upon to do so. That said, this report seems to imply that this is not what is in play and it seems so with a level of unworldliness that beggars belief.
Don't wait for the perfect opportunity.
Just take an opportunity and make it as perfect as you can.
PROVERB
MUSINGPLACE PURPOSEFULNESS
With European musingplaces since Ole Worm assembled his Wundkammer in Denmark in the late 1500s/early1600, generally the instigators of museums cum wunderkammers were seeking power via the holding of data cum knowledge. The Louve in Paris, The British Museum, the V&A, and The Natural Science Museum in London, The The American Museum of Natural History, The Museum of Modern Art in New York are exemplars of all this. The QVMAG throughout its history has aspired to emulate this cultural paradigm put from its own placedness albeit in ways not always well understood and especially so by the city's Aldermen/Councillors – its governors!
The Nobel Laureate, Prof. Brian Schmidt has observed that since the mid 1980s universities were no longer the 'keepers of knowledge' and it is a salutary thought.
Likewise, the Whitney Museum's director emeritus Adam Weinberg has observed that museums do not have a teaching function but are nonetheless places where learning takes place – muse led and muse oriented learning.
There is some of this to be pondered upon and witnessed at the QVMAG yet the 'research' implied is suppressed. Possibly, this 'musing' gets in the way of the CIRCUSfactor and thus – it is imagined – the place's salary sustaining capacity and marketability. However it shouldn't and wouldn't. The dearth of peer reviewed publications coming out of the QVMAG tells its own story.
You do not not need to be bitter nor cynical but to wish that there was less immaturity in political thinking might well be folly.
There is nothing new, audacious, or even novel in this as it is a time honoured principle that 'Governance' determines policy and strategy while 'Management' implements them – Public Administration 101. However, who is included in, and excluded from, in an imagining of a Communities of Ownership and Interest, that can be a vexed question.
The plot thicken when administrators seek to rank COI members when they are persuaded that the concept is viable – and all that tells a story. Rankism [1] is when somebodies get to deem who are somebodies and nobodies – superior and inferior.
However, "a somebody was once a nobody who wanted to and did" – John Burroughs. In musingplaces there is no room for 'somebodies and nobodies' albeit that people are ranked on ability – pilots, judges, teachers etc. Always lurking in 'rankism' there is raceism, sexism, ableism, ageism, religiosity, and class and it needs to be recognised and acknowledged in an 'inclusive musingplace' that's place relevant.
The separation of powers – church and state, government and administration – is a long held principle in representational government. There is something like 30PLUS forms of governance but it is just the case that in Tasmania currently representational governance, for all its 21st C inadequacies, is what exists. So, there is no scope, and there ought not be any, or latitude to bend the rules and blend the roles of governance and management.
That over time in Launceston, this is what the elected representatives have sanctioned and it is something of an indictment on the city's Aldermen, now Councillors, ineptitude and misplaced authority given the consequences now on display in the museingplace they have spawned over time.
In a sense the QVMAG can be likened to Baby Huey. Huey's parents, Papa and Mama Duck (Gilbert & Silly), always struggled to manage their overgrown son despite his overbearing weight and strength, which often resulted in damage to his family's house or car, injury to Papa, or a threat from Papa's boss to fire him if Huey harmed the boss or caused damage to his home or office.
Papa often disparaged Huey (who remained oblivious to his disapproval). Huey's main sidekicks were small identical triplet ducks (who bore a striking resemblance to Donald Duck's nephews, Huey, Dewey and Louie) who resented or mocked Huey for his stupidity and clumsiness but depended on his superhero strength to get them out of trouble.
This is something from the 1950s and post WW2 American internationalism – America being the land of the free and super heroes – that BABYboomers might remember.
Whatever, it is a circumstance that resonates loudly at the QVMAG as 'management' grew exponentially in a 21st C context.
Nonetheless promises to deliver entertainment misrepresents the purposefulness of musingplaces when a musingplace's purposefulness should/could be focused elsewhere... the advancement of knowledge perhaps.
An overgrown HUEYlike self-demanding cum self-serving entity cannot go on without reference to the expectations, aspirations and ambitions of its constituency even if it is on the spectrum.
That is as unsustainable for a cost centre as it is for a purposeful standalone cultural institution. And that is the untenable circumstance that has been called out as being unsustainable – and rightly so.
If it is "old fashioned" to insist upon the separation of powers (AKA the separation of management and governance) so be it and let us be old fashioned unless or until 'direct/participatory democracy' is achieved or achievable again, but now in a 21st C context.
The separation of the roles of governance and management should be enforced and scrupulously even if it is 'old fashioned' to say so. Moreover, today is probably too late to nsay it but time is of the essence.
When thinking about the QVMAG in particular what is observable is 'rankism' in play. It seems to work like this, Aldermen/Councillors are elected to Council and by default they become the QVMAG's 'governors'. Quickly enough they are told that they actually lack the expertise to 'govern' something like the QVMAG but do not worry because we have the experts on staff. When some pesky dilettante starts to exercise their 'interest' they are then 'bureaucratically snowed' with issues elsewhere, and overburdened they walk away leaving the ranked experts to their expertise.
Consequently, the functions of governance and management becomes blanded and blurred with all manner of consequences within Council and within the institution's COI which is multi-layered, multi-dimensional and multi-facted. Interestingly, without rankism all kinds of outcomes are generally more positive and achieveable.
Two quotes ... "Followers who tell the truth, and leaders who listen to it, are an unbeatable combination." ... Warren Bennis ... "Always do right. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest." -- Mark Twain
A BETTER REPORTING METHOD (WIP)
The report as it stands is what in America could be called a SNOWjob but that is not what it is, or should be. It is an honest attempt to impress upon a funding agency the value of its support for a cultural institution that plays an import part in PLACEmaking for:
- The city of Launceston; and
- The kanamalukaTamar/Esk region; and
- lutruwitaTasmania; and
- Musingplaces with their contributions to cultural landscaping and the advancement of knowledge.
Musingplaces have significant Community of Ownership and Interest (COI) and some would say enormous COIs. Therefore when investing the time, skills and resources that are obviously committed to this and like reporting it is feasible that 'more bang for the buck' can be achieved.
For instance in the QVMAG's case it would/could be effective, sensible, and good marketing even, to:
- Confine the 'written communication' to the/a particular agency within say 10 pages; and
- Five page financial report that contextualised the overall operation in financial terms; and
- Produce a supporting Limited Edition YEAR BOOK that could also serve as reporting to other funding agencies, sponsors, donors, and as a general marketing tool; and
- A set of online publications targeted at specific readerships.
Speculatively, funding agencies would welcome such an initiative and as for sponsors, donors, el al it would be a welcomed acknowledgement of their contribution.
IN CONCLUSION
There has to be a time when it is inevitable that impending change takes place even if it is disruptive. If the Community of Ownership and Interest are to be well served as they have every right to see meaningful change, and that needs to start now and not at some appropriate time yet to arrive – the coming of age, timely for someone, when everyone is happy etc.
Metaphorically, as an institution, a place, the QVMAG could well be about to explode due the built up of internal pressure to do this or that. OR it could conceivably implode because of external pressures. Whichever, It'll sound much the same and the aftermath will be similar. Either, is avoidable!
Turning to the acquittal of the funding provided by ratepayers, sponsors, donors. et al the QVMAG seems to have regarded the 'process' as of it is of no consequence. Nonetheless, it is to them who provide the lion's share of the institution's recurrent funding. Interestingly, if for instance ratepayers withheld their funding they would find themselves before some 'authority' bent on extracting 'the money' and penalties for non compliance.
However, if the Minister for the Arts were to note and act upon this report's noncompliance, the Minister arguably could/should/might(?) withhold recurrent funding until such time as the QVMAG actually makes a meaningful step towards putting in place the QVMAG COMPANY Ltd. OR the Govt. could make a strategic decision to direct the funding elsewhere.
Past practice where 'political sensitivities' are given precedence and various administrations over time have thumbed their noses at any threat given the politics. This 'looking away' should not be tolerated but it has been. As Henry A. Kissinger once said ... "A bluff taken seriously is more useful than a serious threat interpreted as a bluff."
ENDNOTES
Musingplaces need to be safe places for unsafe ideas?
Three quotes:
“You may not control all the events that happen to you, but you can decide not to be reduced by them.” – Maya Angelou
“Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.”
– Napoleon Bonaparte
“When making a decision of minor importance, I have always found it advantageous to consider all the pros and cons.” – Sigmund Freud
