From Storefront to Monument: Tracing the Public History of the Black Museum Movement

Conclusion- The Ties that Bind: Museums as Community Agents

179  conclusion The Ties That Bind Museums as Community Agents I n the 1972 issue of Museum News, anacostia neighborhood Museum founder John kinard spoke plainly about what he believed to be the responsibility of the museum profession toward underserved audiences: “The day when established institutions can deny their responsibilities and cheat the masses is swiftly coming to an end. if museum people do not realize this, they only demonstrate their blindness and lack of concern for humanity.”1 Three decades later, John fleming, vice president of the cincinnati Museum center, expressed a similar sentiment, arguing that the crucial question museum administrators need to ask is “whether the museum is relevant to the issues facing the community it serves.”2 The ties that bind these two very different museums—one rooted in the culture, history, and politics of an african american neighborhood, and one that serves as an umbrella organization for multiple cultural institutions in cincinnati, ohio—testify to the profound impact black neighborhood museums have had upon the museum profession and its methodology. While not all leaders of african american museums believed that their institutions had to function as instigators of social change within their communities , the core identity of the black museum movement centered upon this conviction. yet the imperative to address and embrace this challenge (or, as oakland Museum founder J. s. holliday termed it, “tyranny”) of community relevance has not always been accepted by museums—even those institutions designated as “african american.” During the charged debates that took place CONCLUSION 180  throughout the 1970s about whether the studio Museum in harlem should relocate, Richard clarke, chair of the museum’s board, offered a startling rebuttal to executive Director courtney callendar’s sense of obligation to the people of harlem. clarke contended that the studio Museum must now concentrate solely on art rather than function as a “social service organization for the neighborhood .”3 he thus questioned the museum’s supposed obligation to address the needs of the local black community at the expense of fully developing its status and identity as a cultural institution that, ideally, was separate from, and even above, such mundane issues. Richard clarke’s rejection of the studio Museum as beholden to the african american community in harlem clearly broke with the mission that had once fundamentally distinguished african american neighborhood museums from their mainstream counterparts. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, this reassessment of a museum’s community obligations also took place at other african american and ethnic museums. for instance, in 1994 board members of new york city’s el Museo del barrio, originally conceived as a neighborhood museum devoted to Puerto Rican culture, introduced the term “latin american” into the organization’s mission statement.4 The revised statement subsequently read: “el Museo del barrio’s mission is to establish a forum that will preserve and project the dynamic cultural heritage of Puerto Ricans and all latin americans in the united states.”5 as did the studio Museum in harlem and, for a time, the anacostia neighborhood Museum, el Museo’s board hoped to expand the museum’s focus from local to global. by inserting the broad designation “latin american” into its mission statement, el Museo del barrio could significantly increase its collections and feature artists from throughout latin america rather than limiting itself to those from Puerto Rico or those of Puerto Rican descent living in new york. exhibitions featuring well-known latin american artists such as frida kahlo or Diego Rivera were likely to draw more crowds—and thereby more funding.6 The board went one step further in 1996 by completely removing “Puerto Ricans” from the museum’s mission statement: “el Museo del barrio will collect , preserve, exhibit, interpret and promote the artistic heritage of latin americans, primarily in the united states.” for some critics, this deletion constituted a betrayal of the museum’s original constituency. as one community member charged, “how can you change the mission of an institution without communicating to the community that created that institution?”7 ceding to pressure in 2000, the board reinserted the denomination: “The mission of el The Ties That Bind  181 Museo del barrio is to present and preserve the art and culture of Puerto Ricans and all latin americans in the united states.”8 Despite el Museo del barrio’s nominal reclamation of its original obligation to the Puerto Rican community, the breach between the museum...