Friday 10 April 2015

CONTEXT


DISCUSSION PAPER 
The Tasmanian Cultural Estate: A case for change

Author
Ray Norman
Ray Norman JTC (Syd Tech.), CA (National Art School Syd.), MA (Research) Monash Melb.
Independent Researcher, Designermaker & Cultural Geographer
Director & Project Coordinator (Tas) nudgebah institute
Foundation Member (Resigned) QVMAG Museum Governance Advisory Board

Status
Speculative and Unsolicited


Date: April  2015

Note: Highlighted text is hyperlinked to reference material
This paper explores ways to reimagine museum and art galleries' and our built heritage estate's governance and management in a 21st C context. Furthermore, it is clear that there are compelling reasons for fundamental change in regard to the governance and management of Tasmania's musingplaces and heritage properties.

With the appointment of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's (TMAG) new Director and Chairman it appears that a new and welcomed trajectory has been embarked upon in the way 'museums' can be understood. Recently in the press Tasmania's Auditor General’s articulated concerns in regard to the TMAG’s governance and management. 

In a contemporary context, public museums and art galleries are having to reimagine themselves in much the same way as newspapers, universities, publishers, etc. are having to. Looking ahead, the status quo is no longer a viable option and especially so in regard to Tasmanian Aboriginal people. 

 Moreover, Tasmanians have invested billions of dollars in their musingplaces and heritage properties. Somewhat curiously it can be argued that Tasmanians investment is vulnerable and faces various risks due to inadequacies and inconsistencies in their governance and management.

RECENT & RELATED PRESS 

CONTENT: 
Posted by at No comments:

FOREWORD

Tasmania’s Auditor General’s concerns, in regard to the TMAG’s governance alerts us to serious concerns relevant to the governance and management of Tasmania’s ‘cultural estate’ held in public musingplaces and heritage properties throughout Tasmania. In respect to the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG) it is highly relevant that the Auditor General noted that:
  • The TMAG’s legal and management framework was unclear.
  •  There is a need for the roles and responsibilities between TMAG and the Department of State Growth to be reviewed and made clearer.
  •  The TMAG had encountered some major budgetary problems during the past four years with the museum overspending its annual budget, with funds having to be reallocated from other areas of government to meet the shortfall. 
While the Auditor General found that the “TMAG complied with the national standards, but some improvements are needed,” by extension he was commenting on all the State’s musingplaces and heritage properties in general. 

It would not be drawing too long a bow to speculate that Tasmania’s ‘cultural estate’ is exposed to a range of risks implied by the Auditor General’s findings relative to the TMAG. 

Indeed, it is clear that the standards that people assume are in place to protect:
  • Their cultural investment in Tasmania’s musing places and heritage properties;
  • The cultural and intellectual property donors and sponsors place in the trust of, and under the stewardship of, public collections; and
  • The opportunities researchers and scholars rely upon to advance their work; are not necessarily there or adhered to. Indeed the sector is in many cases the last stand for largely unaccountable amateurism – albeit that these collection managers are very often salaried. 
are not by necessity in place and in good order.

In many ways all this is ever likely to be the case as ‘the musingplace sector’ evolves. Actually it might be claimed that this aspect of Tasmania's economy and society is the least considered, least regulated, sector despite the many many hundreds of millions, indeed billions, of dollars worth of public investment entrusted to these public collections, public musingplaces and heritage properties in the form of cultural and intellectual property. 

The notion of “trust us we’re professional and credible” all to often would not stand close scrutiny. Indeed, the Auditor General has seemingly made observations in regard to the TMAG that would run contrary to such an automatic response and his observations are being tested it appears. 

In a contemporary context, public museums and art galleries the world over are having to reimagine themselves in much the same way as newspapers, universities, publishers, etc. are having to. Looking ahead, the status quo is not a viable option yet nevertheless there is a reliance upon it being an ongoing option. Seemingly there are those who will go to considerable lengths to ensure that that status quo is not seriously disrupted.

Consequently it is timely that along with the TMAG, Tasmania’s musingplaces now reimagine themselves in a contemporary context and in ways relevant to local, national and international developments in musingplace practice governance and management. That is, in ways relevant to audience engagement given all that is at risk and the new opportunities that are persistently presenting themselves. 

All this brings us to a point worth making in regard to Tasmania’s cultural estate – its public collections, its heritage infrastructure, their contemporary relevance and the value they add to communities. 

 At the TMAG clearly there are developments under way but in regard to other institutions and public collections this could not be claimed. 

 Against this background it can be argued that it is time to reconsider Tasmania's Museums Act and the various regulations under which public cultural collections and heritage assets (natural, built, and industrial) are held, governed and managed.
CONTENT: 
Posted by at No comments:

A WAY FORWARD

In regard to the State Government’s reinvigoration of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's Board of Trustees and management there appears to be a segue to effecting some restructuring relevant to the governance and management of public cultural assets throughout Tasmania – the State’s and Australia’s cultural estate. 

By way of extension, such an initiative could play a very important part in reimagining and invigorating cultural development, and cultural tourism, in Tasmania, in new and innovative ways. Tasmania’s ‘cultural estate’ – its publicly owned museums, art galleries, the collections they hold, publicly owned heritage collections and historic – are seemingly taking on a new importance. Nonetheless, it seems that this is not recognised at the coalfaces where these operations function from. 

In a contemporary context if these cultural assets are reimagined they may well figure amongst Tasmania’s most important in both a cultural and economic context. 

Alongside all this, Tasmania is such a place geographically, socially and culturally where meaningful research can be initiated and realised expeditiously. Cultural asset management it seems to me would be an opportunity for Tasmania to take a lead for the benefit of not only the island’s citizenry but also its economy. 

There is a case for asserting that there is now the chance to propose that the TMAG, operating as a truly contemporaneous institution and by doing so, set the pace for a major rethink in regard to Tasmania’s ’cultural estate’. 

Importantly, there is a need in Tasmania to take initiatives relevant to tourism and other aspects of Tasmania’s ‘cultural landscape’ in general. 

Against this background there is a strong case to be put that now is the time to renew The Tasmanian Museum’s Act plus related heritage legislation and regulations. 

The underestimation of the size of the task is ever likely. Likewise, the need to realise that such a ‘renewal’ project could only be realised on step at a time basis is an imperative. Nonetheless, the case for the journey being worth embarking upon is strong given the benefits available directly and indirectly.
CONTENT: 
Posted by at No comments:

WHAT CHANGES ARE NEEDED?

Against the background of musingplaces having renewed and/or changing relevancies to societies there is a case to be put that the following proposals need serious and careful consideration: 
  • That the governance structure and management paradigm that is apparently currently evolving at the TMAG be such that it provides the governance and operational model for like institutions throughout Tasmania. Furthermore, that the status of musingplaces be supported by appropriate legislation and regulation. And when and where appropriate initiate the appointment of expert Advisory Councils/Colleges similar to the way the current TMAG’s Aboriginal Advisory Council currently functions and operate statewide relevant to all musingplaces and heritage properties. 
  • The Trusteeship of the TMAG be extended in both membership and scope. Furthermore, there is a strong case to be put that the role of the board should/could be focused statewide. In particular the roles of the Chairperson and members be given a high profile relative to the governance and management of Tasmania’s ‘cultural estate’ in the broadest context. 
  • That the TMAG and kindred musingplaces in Tasmania be reimagined as an income generating ‘cultural enterprises’ – as opposed to it being a cost centre – in a renewed strategic planning process. This should mean that these institutions engage with their audience and communities in proactive ways and ways that add value to not only their particular institutions but the wider community. It is important to note that so-called new technologies now offer accessible opportunities to achieve at least some of the paradigm shift that is implied here and that would be required. 
  • The TMAG and kindred musingplaces embrace the concept of entrepreneurship and the proactive marketing that comes with it. Furthermore, by way of example, use the TMAG as an exemplar for kindred institutions in regard to what can be achieved through programs and audience reach. Furthermore, be the model for governance and management structure that Tasmania's musingplaces operate under. Indeed the TMAG has a role to play in respect to communities’ engagement with musingplaces via the entrepreneurial modelling embraced by the institution – i.e. via such initiatives as crowdfunding, digital exhibitions, etc. 
  • The details of all this would seem to suggest that all public historic buildings monuments etc. should be under the aegis of the TMAG directorship – perhaps re-imagined as the Director Museums Tasmania. Under such a paradigm all of the State’s museums and art galleries would/should/could fall under the ’Directorship’ of the TMAG’s director and the governance of a ‘Tasmanian Trusteeship’ supported by local advisory panels and tasked committees. Possibly relevant aspects of the ‘natural environment’ might also fall under the aegis of such a directorship and operational paradigm. 
  • In context with the above, initiate a cultural forum as a kind of ‘cultural think-tank’ that draws upon the broad spectrum of cultural thinkers, academics, educators researchers, et al charged with the task of interrogating and investigating new 21st C opportunities that may be open to the State’s cultural and heritage institutions and networks. 
Clearly, musingplaces have a role to play in Tasmanian society as engine houses of discovery and in multifarious ways. Alongside universities they have been a major area within which ‘free enquiry’ can be engaged with and carried out at multiple levels.  Looking forward, and via 'citizen curation' – citizen activism, citizen science and other citizen initiated programming – 21st C musingplaces seem destined to play a new role in community cultural life.
CONTENT: 
Posted by at No comments:

THE PARADIGM OF RENEWAL AND CHANGE

Healthy societies need the push of free enquiry and speculative research. Likewise, societies also need the pull of free enterprise to drive the successes needed to survive and thrive. 

 Musingplaces are the places where new knowledge can be won along with the new understandings of the world that carry us forward. The extent to which this is the case for the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG), it is also true for kindred musingplaces and heritage sites throughout Tasmania... LINKS [1] [2] 

 These places are important cultural resources. Arguably, a growing number people seem to have come to an understanding that if change can be embraced at the TMAG that could enhance ‘the cultural experience’ in Tasmania. This would be the case for all Tasmanians and by extension for visitors to the state – virtual and digital – that come to it with a broad range of knowledge sets as well as a wide range of expectations and aspirations. 

 Of course our visitors, through their engagement and participation with local people, and their engagement with the ‘Tasmanian cultural estate’ will be creating new income streams for many aspects of the states cultural operations beyond the TMAG and kindred musingplaces throughout the state – plus private initiatives and kindred institutions statewide and interstate. 

 Moreover, there is a strong case to be put that it would be appropriate now for Tasmanian the government to: 
  • Extend the board’s membership in the near term to reflect new and emerging dimensions of musingplaces statewide; and
  • Extended the leadership role of the Board of Trustees enabling it to proactively work towards establishing a physical network and virtual network of museums, art galleries, heritage sites, cultural events to better serve Tasmanians and visitors to the state. 
Tasmanian cultural tourism, cultural institutions plus the histories and heritage of the ‘island’ are closely interrelated. However, currently there are somewhat haphazard interfaces and interrelationships relative to the operational components of these organisations, destinations, etc. This is unfortunate as proactive cooperative and collaborative marketing and program development could well deliver more dynamic, indeed more productive outcomes. 

 Taking cultural tourism by itself, it can be understood as having five primary components. 
  • First of all an important component of cultural tourism in Tasmania is relative to the island’s physical 'placedness', its natural histories and by extension its pre-contact physical realities – its geography, its geologies and natural environment. Almost all of this is bound up with the ‘wilderness idea’ in one way or another. 
  • Closely aligned with all that there is the cultural realities of Tasmania’s Aboriginal people in both pre-colonial an postcolonial contexts that are similarly bound up in Tasmania’s cultural landscapes, Tasmanian 'placescapes' and cultural production. Albeit that it is a factor that is yet to be fully acknowledged and engaged with in a contemporary cultural cum social context there are cultural development and tourism subtexts to be considered and developed towards achieving more inclusive outcomes relative to Tasmanian Aboriginality. 
  • Tasmania’s built environment – public, commercial and private – is very much a part of the State’s cultural estate. Its often not acknowledged that collectively the State’s built environment is not only a key component of the island’s attractiveness as a tourism cum cultural destination and that it is a key component of Australia’s and Tasmania’s cultural estate. 
  • In the widest and most inclusive interpretation, the arts collections that have been created since the European settlement of Tasmania are amongst Australia’s most significant. Importantly, there is an increasing need to be able to access these collections both physically and virtually. 
  • Tasmanian social histories and industrial heritage are both unique to the island and a microcosm of a kind relative to those found elsewhere in Australia and other ‘colonised places’. In many ways Tasmania’s cultural estate is an exemplar in regard to demonstrating the interfaces evident in ‘settler societies’ in the Western world. 
Bearing all this in mind there is a case to be put that the TMAG’s new Director in concert with a revitalised (extended?) Board of Trustees would be well placed to put a new statewide strategic plan in place. That is:
  • A plan relevant to 21st C imperatives;
  • A plan that takes a proactive and productive role in the overall governance and management of Tasmania’s the cultural ‘estate’;
  • A plan that invests musingplaces and heritage sites with enhanced relevance and values.
Posted by at No comments:

PUBLIC MUSINGPLACES AND EMERGING ‘NEW DEMOCRACY’ INITIATIVES

Drawing on initiatives like the work of the NEW DEMOCRACY FOUNDATION the accountability of governance is taking on a new dimension. 

It is concerning that accountability gets such a poor level of commitment in many governance structures relevant to musingplaces. Oftentimes the distinction between governance and management is fundamentally blurred with the outcomes being dubious accountability to the constituency that invest in them. Questions, to do with appropriate dividends – fiscal, social and cultural – are too often headed off. Possibly, that’s the legacy we are destined to bear until someone sees the prospect of change and embraces it towards winning better outcomes for the governance of musingplaces in a general way and within changing paradigms. 

 Arguably, it is time to seriously consider the prospect of change and specifically change that challenges the comfortable albeit diminishing values invested in the status quo. Oftentimes, it seems that incumbent ‘governors’ just do not want to consider lifting their game when the comfortable defence of the status quo is close at hand. Nonetheless, the status quo is just no longer a viable option in the unavoidable ‘change paradigm’ musingplaces currently live and operate within. 

 Interestingly, by way of example, if we look at the City of Melbourne’s willingness to include rather than exclude its constituency via ‘thenew democracy paradigm’ there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel. That is if you think the outcomes in Melbourne and elsewhere as having any veracity at all in contrast to the status quo and that anyone at all will take the time to look at the options and opportunities that are there to be, and are currently being explored. 

 It’s just the case that there is no real reason to think that musingplace governance is beyond the reach of criticism and critique. Incumbent governing bodies are predisposed to advance that idea rather than embrace change and never more so than within cultural institutions.

 If change is not embraced, it’ll be Tasmania’s citizenry, its taxpayers and ratepayers, who’ll pay ever so dearly – and it all be so needlessly. It’s not as if resistance to change was not ever in prospect. Governing bodies are typically inclined to insulate and isolate themselves from critical enquiry given that they are often populated with a voluntary membership. Safety is seen in conservatism. 

 When will accountability be given any substance and importance in musingplaces governance? 

 When one offends it is usual to be punished. However, in the case of public musingplaces it’s not the executive who’ll bear the punishment. Typically, they’ll continue to savour the spoils and largess of their office and they have a vested interest in continuing to do so – and likewise in sustaining the status quo. 

Getting serious matters of concern in regard to a musingplace’s accountability on the agenda is near to impossible. By-and-large criticism and critique goes unacknowledged and/or uncontested. So one can see well enough the level of resistance encountered when ‘mere constituents’ try to open a productive dialogue that is an exchange of views rather than being the recipients of management's self-serving wisdom. 

 People wish to be participants in their musingplaces governance and they do not wish to be caught up in polarised in unproductive adversarial (lose-lose) contests. 

 The evidence in support of all this is compelling if we look at the 'Melbourne Experience' SEE http://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/projects/10yearplan/ 

 As is discernible in Melbourne, trusted outcomes are achieved when leadership allows constituents to participate in their governance. This was achieved via randomly selected citizens deliberating and handing down a determination based on the evidence before them. It works in our courts with juries and only those who do not respect the notion of justice would deny that it does – albeit not always flawlessly. 

 It may or may not be well known that Melbourne City Council exposed itself to this kind of scrutiny with apparently positive outcomes within the Melbourne community and internationally – on the evidence. There is reference a link here to provide some enlightenment of those who have not had the opportunity to become acquainted with Melbourne’s initiative. SEE http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/our-work/item/219-city-of-melbourne-people-s-panel 

 Albert Einstein reminded us that “In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same.”
CONTENT: 
Posted by at No comments:

THE SPEED OF CHANGE


The changes flagged here would not be easy to implement given that they challenge entrenched perceptions, practices and understandings in Tasmania. Typically, when the need for change is articulated it is not uncommon for the rebuttal "if it isn't broken don't fix it" to be trotted out in defence of the status quo.

Nonetheless, arguably, there is a need for change in order to better sell Tasmania as cultural destination. More importantly, change is needed for Tasmanians' investment in their musingplaces to deliver the dividends they deserve in a 21st C context.

 With that in mind, change needs to be embraced in order that current governance models and contemporaneous management imperatives, and the opportunities they present together, can be explored towards achieving higher levels of productivity and accountability

Indeed, there are very good arguments that say change is an imperative! The questions often left hanging are those to do with the speed within which change can  be implemented. The argument for 'timeliness' is typically elastic and set to the convenience of the status quo. 

 Machiavelli tells us that "there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things ... and ... Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times". On his advice the question of speed is subjective.

It should go without saying that any extra funding, enhanced interpretation and improved access created by the kind of change being promoted here will enhance musingplaces' ability to deliver richer cultural and social dividends to local Tasmanians. By extension it will enable them to learn and appreciate more about the collections they have invested in via government, Local and State, on their behalf.


"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek" – Barack Obama. However Shakespeare puts timeliness in perspective well enough ... "Make use of time, let not advantage slip." 
CONTENT: 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)