Deneen, Bryley - EDAC 631 - History of Art Museum Education From 1975-1985
History of Art Museum Education From 1975-1985
Bryley M. Deneen
Department of Educational Studies, Ball State University
EDAC 631: Adult & Community Education
Dr. Bo Chang
February 5, 2022
Introduction
Working women were not treated the same as working men throughout the 1970s and 1980s. These unequal treatments were seen in the fields of art history and museum education. Women found it difficult to progress throughout the fields of art history and museum education, for they rarely obtained the position of museum director or museum education director. There were also significant inequalities between the wages of men and women. According to a study conducted in the late 1970s, women art historians occasionally earned $2,500 less than their male cohorts (Scott, 1981). Such disproportionate treatments were not based on credentials; women were as academically trained or sometimes even more academically trained than their male contemporaries. These unequal treatments stemmed from the misogynistic mindsets plaguing the humanities.
Misogynistic mindsets are further exposed upon studying exhibition demographics. During the 1970s and 1980s, women artists rarely participated in globally esteemed art exhibitions. There are numerous examples of such through this timeframe; although, one of the most notable examples happened in 1984 at the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). In 1984, MOMA’s exhibition titled An International Survey of Painting and Sculpture encapsulated the work of more than 200 artists—less than 17 of these artists were women (Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago, 2012). The show’s curator, Kynaston McShine, exasperated this sense of exclusion by using non-inclusive language in the show’s press briefing; here, he stated, “Anyone who is not in my show should rethink his career” (Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago, 2012, 0:25). By saying “his career” versus “their career,” McShine highlighted how women were not welcome in the world of fine art.
Women began to retaliate against these injustices publicly. Many of their retaliations were carried out by the Guerrilla Girls. This was a woman-only group comprised of anonymous artists, art historians, and art educators. In the mid-1980s, these women donned on guerilla masks and took onto the streets of New York City. Here, they oversaturated the streets with their flyers and billboards. Their visuals highlighted the injustices women artists, art historians, and art educators faced due to misogyny.
Highlights
The philosophical foundation of art museums began to evolve between 1975 to 1985 (Ebitz, 2005). Before this timeframe, art museums were object-centered; they prioritized their collections' inward care, growth, and study. Here, older generations visited art museums to view what scholars and elitists considered high art. These highly esteemed works were typically created by men and intended for men. Such attitudes contrasted greatly from the expectations adopted by newer generations. Newer audiences were not seeking an elitist’s definition of quality art. Instead, newer audiences desired museums to provide educational programming on the works that they themselves found interesting. Change was instigated by the rise and popularity of feminist movements, such as those prompted by the Guerrilla Girls. These movements enticed audiences to become more interested in the artworks of minorities. The male-dominated object-center approach failed to satisfy these new demands. Hence, art museums were pressured to prioritize a visitor-centered philosophy. This approach emphasized marketing, anticipating, and seeking the public's educational needs.
Object-centered attitudes were further pushed out of favor as new museum accreditation standards were established. New standards withheld accreditation from institutes that failed to meet the public’s demands and produce adequate educational programming. Many museum stakeholders held back their financial donations till new standards were met. Despite this seemingly severe need for change, change was not instantaneous.
In 1984, a group of art museum directors gathered at the American Association of Museums (AAM); these men were commissioned to publicly establish their support for art museum education (Ebitz, 2005). Such was an effort to appease their financial stakeholders. While at the AAM, they proclaimed that art museum education was the pride and joy for their institutions. In stark contrast to these claims, they also voiced their disdain for the presence of art education departments. Museum directors believed that art education departments hindered their staff’s ability to work as a team. Art museum educators were offended by this assertion. They believed the directors’ fears undermined their ability to independently and successfully create educational programming.
Directors were hesitant to give educators the autonomy to create educational programming. During the 1980s, many museum educators were women (Ebitz, 2005). Women educators were perceived as having less academic rigor than their male cohorts. These mindsets were unfounded; as previously noted, many of these women were as academically trained or sometimes even more academically trained than their male contemporaries. Despite their competency as educators, directors were still more inclined to transfer the educational duties to research and curatorial staff.
Research and curation of art museums were male-dominated careers (Harris, 1973). Many of these men readily accepted the newly revered pedagogical responsibilities, despite not directly coinciding with their credentials. Like the museum directors, curatorial staff members, too, shared fears benched in misogynistic beliefs. Their fears pertained to emasculation. Researchers and curators deal with the care, growth, and study of museum collections. Since methodologies concerning such were going out of favor, these men were concerned with being perceived as lesser than their female cohorts.
Influential Factors
Art museums are made up of various departments. A museum’s department of education provides the public with educational activities. Its activities include studio courses, art history courses, and academic symposiums. Museum education directors schedule, write, and direct these activities (Williams, 1996). Between 1975 and 1985, museum education directors were predominantly men who acquired either an M.A. or Ph.D. in Art History (Ebitz, 2005). An assortment of educators aided these directors. During this timeframe, directors often debated what credentials best suited their education staff. Art museum educators typically had either a graduate or undergraduate degree; yet, due to said debate, the field of their degree varied. Examples of such include, but are not limited to, art history, education, program planning, and studio art (Ebitz, 2005).
No graduate programs explicitly focused on art museum education during the mid-to-late 1970s (Ebitz, 2005). There were also very few well-established organizations exclusively concentrating on the study of art museum education before 1975. A lack of community prevented educators from creating a well-defined vision for art museum education. Without having a public forum to discuss their field, there was a scarcity of written and oral discourse concerning the methodology and theory behind their educational practices. This lack of a well-defined vision further encouraged directors to debate the credentials needed to be a successful educator. These debates discouraged art museum educators; they felt as if they had little say concerning the direction of their field. It appeared as if these decisions were only made by the directors versus the actual education staff. Despite the dearth of community, discourse, as seemingly lack of control, seen throughout the mid-to-late 1970s, strides were taken in the following decade, which aided in the unification of art museum education.
By the early 1980s, museum educators had established a sub-committee among a prominent art education organization (Kai-Kee, 2012). This sub-committee was the Art Museum Education Division (AMED) of the National Art Education Association (NAEA). This division was founded by writer and museum educator Ellie Caston and established in 1981 (Kai-Kee, 2012). According to Caston, AMED was created to combat the NAEA’s inability to adequately address the field of art museum education (Kai-Kee, 2012).
In addition to creating the AMED at the NAEA, art museum educators began to publish academic writings more frequently. The Journal of Museum Education revamped its focus in 1984 to exclusively report on art museums’ theories, training, and practices (Ebitz, 2005). In 1985, The Good Guide, a handbook on art museum education, published by Alison L. Grinder and E. Sue McCoy, too began to address similar practice-driven theories (Ebitz, 2005). Additionally, The Journal of Aesthetic Education dedicated its entire 1985 issue to art museum education (Ebitz, 2005). Although these publications were small in comparison to those established by other fields of study, these publications, as well as the AMED, gave art museum educators the foundation needed to strive for a more unified field.
Implications
Women were frequently assigned educational roles when working in art museums. These roles were not as highly revered as research and curatorial positions. By channeling women into educational positions, directors could reserve the highly esteemed careers for men. As object-centered methodologies fell out of favor, the sense of superiority associated with research and curation diminished. The power and authority began to shift into the hands of the women. This was due to the popularity of visitor-centered methodologies; as aforementioned, such methodologies stressed the importance of educating museum visitors. Directors tried to combat this shift in power by establishing their distaste for art education departments and reassigning the roles of staff members. Although these efforts were initially successful during the mid-to-late 1970s, their success began to diminish by the mid-to-early 1980s. Here, art museum educators started frequently publishing academic writings. They also formulated a sub-committee at the National Art Education Association (NAEA). These strides gave educators more autonomy in their field. It also helped them create a unified vision for art museum education. In conclusion, women educators came out as the victors; they were able to serve as leaders and play a big part in the development of art museum education.
Arguably the biggest lesson one can learn from this era in history is that discrimination damages more than those directly discriminated against. Although these women persevered through misogynistic injustices, injustices hindered their institutions’ ability to efficiently create sustainable educational programming. Hence, the misogynistic attitudes not only negatively impacted female staff members; misogynistic attitudes negatively impacted the communities these museums served as well as the institutes’ financial stability. One cannot help but wonder what other academic achievements were stalled or never came to be due to social injustices. It is essential for us as a society to be cognizant of issues concerning discrimination; in doing so, one does not just aid those being discriminated against, but society as a whole.
Table 1. Summary of History of Art Museum Education From 1975-1985
%20copy.png)
Hi, Bryley! I've genuinely never thought about the gender struggle for equality in the '70s and '80s from the perspective of museums and art, and especially not through the lens of educational programming. I think it's fascinating how women eventually were paid the respect they had always earned, and how even this special focus within the realm of adult education saw progress in the 1980s. I'm glad that women fought to show the good they could provide to the general public by enhancing art and people's education surrounding it.
ReplyDeleteHello Sara,
DeleteYes, I, too, am happy women preserved through these injustices. Thank you so much for reading my paper!
Best,
Bryley Deneen