In recent weeks, the media have reported on the debates surrounding the National Gallery of Canada’s strategic plan. While we are still wondering about the reasons for the dismissal of experienced executives/specialists for lack of explanations, we can also be surprised and worried about the comments made by various stakeholders in the file, and more particularly by the museum authorities.
First of all, it should perhaps be remembered that, for decades, museums have been committed to the recognition and enhancement of cultural diversity. They questioned themselves about the bearers of speech and set up different means to hear and understand the speeches and visions of societies here and elsewhere. All this in an open-minded approach and in respect of points of view.
They did not wait for the cultural policies of States to listen to social movements, to highlight differences or to reflect on cultures. Thus, in the context of exhibitions, in the setting up of cultural activities, in publications or in collection policies, these museums have given a voice not only to scientists and curators, but also to citizens directly concerned or to representatives of the companies affected.
These different voices were carried by creators, witnesses of history, bearers of memories, activists and citizens of different socio-economic groups. Witness the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau or the Musée de la civilization in Quebec City.
Secondly, it should be noted that this approach of inclusive openness proposed by the National Gallery of Canada brings its share of difficulties and pitfalls; it is based not only on a spirit of openness and respect, but also on methodological requirements. Militant discourse cannot respond to this issue alone, and a simple thematic addition to the program only fills a statistical void. It is therefore not enough to decree an intention, it is necessary in particular to put in place the means and the mechanisms which make it possible to share the vision of the institution.
However, it seems, from reading the interventions of various actors, that the museum did not succeed in sharing its vision with its collaborators and partners, when they could have enriched the cultural and scientific project. Many questions therefore come to mind.
Aware of the importance of listening to communities, does the museum maintain this same commitment to its team and partners? When does a cultural policy become an ideology? To what extent should a board of directors support a strategy of change which, for some, resembles a purge? Can we ignore a strongly expressed malaise by reducing it to a refusal of change? How to explain that the discourse of the authorities speaks of the “enrichment” of the approach, while patrons and collectors mention a reductive approach? Does a scientific committee guarantee the mandate and the approach?
A museum vision cannot be reduced to a single dimension of cultural policy. Thus, museums are concerned with sustainable development, but their action cannot be reduced to this aspect alone. So, what should we talk about to ensure the influence of an institution with its local community or its national and international impact?
The speeches heard from curators, patrons or the administration confirm that the museum’s mission is complex and certainly not one-dimensional; we cannot build a strategic plan on a single social intention, however laudable it may be.