Curatorial Crossover: Building Library, Archives, and Museum Collections

Abstract

I tend to associate the word “crossover” with popular music. I think of crossovers as being those artists whose music has successfully crossed over from a smaller market to a bigger one, like Mexican musicians making it big in the United States, or black musicians making it big with white audiences. And I frankly love the idea that I, as a librarian, might be able to make a curatorial crossover into a bigger market, much as Ricky Martin or Otis Redding made a musical crossover. Of course, I would have to address the two most common criticisms that are made . . .

Public libraries, museums and physical convergence: Context, issues, opportunities: A literature review Part 2

“…A multi-faceted range of benefits are discussed throughout the literature, summarised effectively by Diamant-Cohen and Sherman (2003) who argue, ‘the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts’ (p. 102). Many call for more work to be done to enable closer relationships between libraries and museums, most notably by adapting professional training (Given and McTavish 2010; Latham, 2015; Trant 2009), yet concerns are raised that convergence is problematised and merely a marketing trend that will struggle to overcome institutional differences (Beasley, 2007; VanderBerg, 2012) and a wide range of potential barriers and risks are identified throughout the literature.…”

“…Beasley (2007) and VanderBerg (2012) both argue that by converging, institutions risk losing their unique qualities and individual appeal, particularly in the case of physical convergence:By combining libraries, archives and museums under one roof, some facility related and administrative efficiencies may be achieved, but, for the most part, each organisation struggles to maintain the aspects that makes it unique and continues to operate in isolation from the others. (VanderBerg, 2012: 144)…”

“…Brown and Pollack (2000: 211) suggest that user preconceptions can be a barrier: ‘the public’s perception of libraries and museums as traditional, staid institutions can be difficult to change’. However, Beasley (2007: 20) suggests that convergence is nothing more than a marketing exercise that ‘may not always be convergence as much as rebranding’. VanderBerg (2012) agrees and argues that although convergence has been a popular approach amongst cultural institutions, efforts are still hindered by organisational differences: ‘they are initiatives that attempt to work around the inherent distinctions between libraries, archives and museums, and they are actually unable to realise convergence in a true, deep sense that affects the entirety of the organisations’ (p. 144).…”

“…As UK museums have seen a steady rise in visitor numbers over recent years (Culturehive, 2010) and the USA has witnessed a surge in museum building (Bell, 2003), libraries have seen visitor numbers fall by 40 million over the last four years (Morris, 2015). Some argue that libraries could learn and benefit from museums, ‘perhaps some public or independent libraries or archives do need to piggyback onto the civic pride that has inspired such a strong burst of museum-building across America in the last decade’ (Beasley, 2007: 20). Likewise, when working collaboratively museums have been found to benefit from library’s community expertise, particularly in terms of working with children and families (Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2000).…”

“…Several authors throughout the literature are critical of library, archive and museum convergence, raising concerns about institutional differences (Beasley, 2007; VanderBerg, 2012) and the ethical challenges posed by merging cultural heritage organisations (Cannon, 2013; Robinson, 2014). However, in recent years a critical dialogue around the convergence narrative and agenda has started to develop, arguably diverging from previous criticisms based on the practicality and suitability of convergence.…”