21 reasons to hate museums? Three are enough to love them

There was much discussion in mid-August about an article in the Telegraph by travel journalist Oliver Smith, provocatively titled 21 Reasons Why I Hate Museums. Now, I don’t know if this is how much this corresponds to Oliver Smith’s actual thinking: he is a well-seasoned enough journalist not to fall into too superficial considerations, so the article could take the form of, precisely, a provocation to try to stimulate a discussion on certain issues that are on the agenda for those who deal with museums.

It is also clear that the shrewd commentator should not limit himself to branding Smith’s remarks as stupid, because many of the reasons given by the journalist against museums conceal, unfortunately (and especially if we think of many Italian museums), a reality made up of problems that often remain unresolved. Assuming, however, that we all agree that museums should not be hated (I am an exceptional lover of museums, and I love them to such an extent that I pass over, very often, the problems they present) and should indeed be visited more often and better, let us try to understand what are the twenty-one reasons listed by Smith.

They range from “we only go to museums because we are told to” (and here Smith blames guidebooks written for tourists, responsible for giving too much weight to even, according to him, negligible museums), to the fact that “works of art are boring” (Smith acknowledges that he has limited knowledge of art history, but at the same time launches into apparently very superficial reflections on religious art dismissed as tedious), moving on to seemingly contradictory considerations, such as the fact that there is a “funereal atmosphere” in museums but at the same time there are rowdy children and parents who do not contribute to calm, and to the classic rants against crowding, especially in museums that hold the most celebrated works of art. Some of the 21 reasons then question the appropriateness of what is being musealized (the example is that of the “Pencil Museum” in Keswick, England), the costs of admission and the expenses that administrations face in supporting museums, certain ways of public enjoyment (the much-hated selfie), often dysfunctional apparatuses (such as interactive displays), bookshops being rip-offs, and the lack of public preparation.

This is, however, only a very brief and meager summary of Oliver Smith’s article. The main problem with the piece lies in the fact that the journalist has lumped together in one nonsensical cauldron so many issues that would be worth exploring, and which are really difficult to cover in a single article. Suffice it to say that only to one of the topics addressed by Smith, “selfies” (and in general harassing photographs), we have devoted two articles on our site, while another on the same topic will be released next week. Therefore, since it is not possible to rebut Oliver Smith point by point in a single article (although we reserve the right to return with other posts on many of the topics mentioned), I will just list three reasons why museums should be loved and frequented.

The first: the museum is the place where our memory is kept. A city, a community, a society without memory are realities without a future, because the future rests its foundation on history. All achievements are the result of constant evolution leading to certain milestones, and museums give us the most vivid and tangible evidence of the acquisitions and progress made by communities. And works of art, as historical records of the eras that produced them (which applies, of course, tocontemporary art as well) do nothing more than provide visual evidence of these evolutions. Some will appear boring because, over time, languages also evolve, and if there is no one who can translate for us the meaning of a work of art produced in ancient times, it will only bore us because we will not be able to understand it.

Consequently, if museums are places where memory is preserved, the second reason to love them is that museums are places where knowledge is developed, and knowledge is fundamental to any civilized and advanced society: degradation grows and feeds in places where knowledge is lacking, where culture is lacking. It is worth mentioning that these typical functions of museums are also enshrined in the ICOM (International Council of Museums) Code of Ethics for Museums: “museums hold their collections for the benefit of society and its development” and “museums hold primary evidence to create and develop knowledge.” And these two postulates of the Code of Ethics of ICOM, the organization representing museums around the world, can only be derived from the first: “museums ensure the preservation, interpretation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage of humanity.” We infer from this that, if everyone thought like Oliver Smith (whether he really thinks so, or pretends to think so for mere provocative purposes: it makes little difference), there would be much less knowledge in the world and, conversely, there would be more degradation and more ruin.

And finally, the third reason: visiting a museum arouses emotions, often priceless ones. There will surely be works of art that ignite something within us, even if we do not know or understand them: emotion is the simplest of languages, and it is universal. Then there will surely be an ancient artifact that stimulates our curiosity, since curiosity is itself an emotion, just as there will surely be natural artifacts that will not leave us indifferent. Even those museums mentioned that preserve, according to Smith, objects not worthy of musealization, such as pencils or bizarre works of contemporary art, manage to make one feel something, because a negative judgment arises from a feeling one has felt. And if after a visit to a museum we have failed to feel anything at all, there are two cases: either we are deeply insensitive, or no one has been able to stimulate our emotionality in front of a work of art, an artifact or a find.

Thus, museums are a source of memory, knowledge, emotion, pleasure, development, and culture. They tell stories, communicate feelings, contribute to our personal growth and the progress of communities. Provocation also serves to spur those who read it to think about certain issues: and Smith’s provocation should be taken in that sense. And I hope that was his intent as well. Not least because, at the end of the day, I am sure that even those who say they hate museums actually cannot help themselves.

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.