The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Museum Blockbusters

ROBERT MacNEIL: Forget about King Midas -- it`s Tut that has the touch. That`s how one museum official feels about the most popular exhibition ever to tour the United States. King Tut has left a golden trail of attendance records and profits. But will his success also lay a curse on museums in the future?

Good evening. The hardest ticket to get in New York right now is not for a Broadway show, it`s for a museum exhibit. "The Treasures of Tutankhamun" is already sold out for its entire run at the Metropolitan Museum. When sales opened in September all 900,000 general admission tickets went in four and a half days. Thousands of people are still writing and phoning every day to plead for nonexistent tickets. It was the same story in the five other cities, where Tut has played to crowds totalling nearly six million people. That is by far the largest number ever to visit a museum exhibition. The Tut show consists of fifty-five funereal art works found in the tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh who died as a teenager 3,300 years ago. The exhibition has been shown in Washington, Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles and New Orleans, the city that reaped the biggest gain. The New Orleans museum made a profit of $800,000 and gained 16,000 new members, while city merchants picked up $70 million in tourist revenues.

All this success, however, is making some museum people uneasy that blockbuster shows like Tut smack too much of show business and will destroy the old purpose of museums. Tonight, is King Tut mania a blessing or a curse? Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, the blockbuster exhibition idea did not start with Tut; it`s merely the latest and the biggest, the splashiest and the most successful of them all. The first major traveling road show oœ art was "Scythian Gold." It was an exhibit from the Soviet Union which drew a half a million people in New York and Los Angeles in 1975. Others since then have included a retrospective of Cezanne`s later work, organized by the New York Museum of Modern Art; an exhibit of recent archaeological finds in China, the first museum exchange between the People`s Republic of China and the United States. It went to Kansas City, Washington and San Francisco and held the overall blockbuster attendance record before Tut came along. One of the most popular of the current blockbusters is "The Splendor of Dresden." It`s from Germany and covers five centuries of art collecting. It was organized by the National Gallery of Art here in Washington and museums in New York and San Francisco. Also still on tour is "Pompeii A.D.79." From Italy, it consists of art and artifacts from that most famous of natural disasters. "Pompeii" has already set the attendance record for the Boston Museum of Fine Art.

All of these shows have been backed in a major way by federal money, with the National Endowment for the Humanities. Without that help none of them would probably have come off, because the museums couldn`t have afforded to mount them on their own. Which brings us back to what some say the blockbuster phenomenon is all about: money. Robin?

MacNEIL: For museums on the King Tut circuit, the exhibit has not only meant huge crowds and financial success but a lot of changes in planning space and layout. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art learned from the experiences of other cities and planned ahead. Morton Golden, administrator and deputy director of that museum, was in charge of the effort. Mr. Golden, what changes did you have to make in your museum to accommodate this?

MORTON GOLDEN: Well, we planned the exhibition for about two years and tried to plan it so that it would be an exhibition held at the museum with limited inconvenience to our existing galleries, to the community surrounding us, and to our staff and to the public. We had to bring in about 350 additional employees, train them, and put them all to work on the day that the exhibition opened.

MacNEIL: What did all that cost you, the mounting and the preparation?

GOLDEN: The total run of the exhibition during the time it was in Los Angeles cost us in excess of about a million four or five hundred thousand dollars.

MacNEIL: Now, does it work out financially good for your museum to have had the King Tut exhibition?

GOLDEN: Well, we had a unique arrangement. Because at the time we did not have an admission fee to the museum, we had to agree with the Metropolitan and the Egyptian government that any of the net proceeds from the sale of the tickets we would transmit to the Egyptian government. At this time we estimate that the Egyptian government will realize about $300,000 in net proceeds from the sale of the tickets to the exhibition.

MacNEIL: And did you experience anything like New Orleans in getting increased memberships to the museum?

GOLDEN: Oh, our membership increased from about 31,000 to in excess of 65,000. The difference between us and New Orleans was that we did not try to encourage a tourist trade; we felt we had an obligation to the seven million people in Los Angeles County to give them the crack at the tickets.

MacNEIL: Does a museum like yours accept a blockbuster like King Tut out of financial need or out of conviction that it`s a good thing?

GOLDEN: I think it would be a combination of both. We wouldn`t take a show because of the potential financial value if our staff did not believe it was one that was worthwhile showing at the museum.

MacNEIL: But any doubts about the artistic merit of blockbusters like this?

GOLDEN: Well, not of Tut nor any of the other major exhibitions we`ve held at the museum over the last fifteen years, no.

MacNEIL: Could you live without such occasional blockbusters?

GOLDEN: Well, for us in a post-Proposition 13 era I doubt it very much. We need the added attraction of major exhibitions coming in from ocher museums to help attract an audience to the museum now that we have an admission fee and the problems of a post-Proposition 13 era.

MacNEIL: Can I ask the question I did a moment ago in a different way? Have these blockbusters been good for the integrity of your museum, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, in any way you would define that integrity?

GOLDEN: Well, I think as a young museum, a museum that was established in 1965, having a program of major exhibitions, at least three a year, has helped establish us as a major art museum, and as a result we are of fered other major art exhibitions that come to us.

MacNEIL: And what is the chief benefit to the museum? In your case it wasn`t financial.

GOLDEN: In our case it`s establishing ourselves as a major art museum. As I said, we`re really young, we started in 1965, we started with a limited collection; we had to attract benefactors, donors, members and the general public and give them an incentive to donate to the museum, to contribute to the museum and to come to the museum.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Not everyone in the museum world thinks the traveling blockbuster is such a hot idea, either for museums or the people they serve. The museum in Cleveland has come to symbolize this kind of anti-Tut think ing. Many in the art world consider the Cleveland Museum of Art the finest museum in the United States -- not the biggest or the grandest, but the classiest. Built in 1916 in what was then the outskirts of the city, the neoclassical main wing reflects the museum`s character: rich, important, tasteful. That goes for the collection as well. They say everything here is first class.

One reason that Cleveland has been able to assemble such artistic riches is the museum`s great wealth. The industrialists who founded the place didn`t have much art to donate, so they gave the museum what they did have -- lots of money. Another reason for the quality of the collections is the keen eye of Director Sherman Lee. For the past twenty years he has been guiding the museum and its annual acquisitions budget of three million dollars.

Cleveland is a traditionalist among American museums. Critics say it`s old- fashioned, even stuffy. It rarely mounts big, splashy shows like Tut, although it does present a dozen special exhibitions every year. This one, "American Photography Since 1960," was put together by New York`s Museum of Modern Art.

Director Lee and his curators believe that a museum should buy the best art available, protect it and display it. High on their priorities also is the museum`s mission to educate the public about art. They don`t think that traveling blockbuster shows perform that function. But classes that involve children and adults do.

(Film segment showing children and adults creating structures with cardboard cartons.)

LEHRER: The Cleveland Museum has the largest education program of any museum in the country. It runs art programs that involve 160,000 schoolchildren every year. This fall some 850 kids have been taking courses in the museum`s Saturday program. These eight-to-ten-year-olds are learning to understand Chinese and Japanese screens by copying the art work itself, with the help of staff member Susan Braham.

(Film segment showing staff member helping child copying screen.)

TONY BIRCH, Associate Curator, Education: We think very often that art history or talking about art is being a way of teaching, to lecture at. And of course we try not to lecture at; if we are doing a basically talking group, we try to create a dialogue. But there`s other ways of getting children`s interest, because what we want them to do is to relax with works of art, to realize they`re not intimidating, that they are part of their life, can be part of their life, and that the museum is a free place to come and enjoy themselves.

LEHRER: And as I said, the man who has set the theme and the tone for the Cleveland Museum is its director, Sherman Lee. Dr. Lee is with us tonight in the studios of Public Station WVIZ in Cleveland. Dr. Lee, what`s wrong with the blockbuster exhibitions like Tut?

SHERMAN LEE: Well, there`s nothing wrong with a major large, important exhibition. They go back a lot longer than you think, incidentally. In 1857 they had one in Manchester, England that drew 1,300,000 people in three months; and the big Chinese exhibition in London in `35 revolutionized our knowledge of Chinese art. So they`re not new; but what is new is the advertising, PR and hype that goes along with them. And it seems to me that this is part of the problem, because it interferes with what is fundamentally a contemplative activity.

LEHRER: How does it interfere, Dr. Lee?

LEE: Well, it`s like a scientific experiment. The environment around the experiment affects the experiment; and if you have a frenzied, show-biz kind of atmosphere I think it does interfere with the contemplative requirements of works of art.

LEHRER: Would you feel that way if the Cleveland Museum was not as well off financially, do you think?

LEE: Well, could I turn the question around and say that because we are well off financially we feel it`s our responsibility to think about the thing objectively.

LEHRER: All right, sir. In other words, the fact that the Cleveland Museum is well off does not -- you`d feel this way no matter what, is that right?

LEE: Well, I think the word is wrong. I think "blockbuster" is precisely what is wrong. What we want is large exhibitions or small exhibitions that have a contribution to make and that will do something for the public in terms of the experience of art and the knowledge of art. And further, I think the rash of large exhibitions with important material poses a distinct danger to the objects themselves, and we have a responsibility to posterity, we have to hand these objects down, and especially the masterpieces. And I think to expose them unduly to travel and the risks of packing, unpacking and so on is oftentimes irresponsible.

LEHRER: Are you impressed at all by the figures, say, from New Orleans that Robin listed, also the success that the Los Angeles Museum had that Mr. Golden just went into, in terms of building these museums and helping the museums financially?

LEE: I`m impressed with the figures, but I would like to reserve judgment until I see what the carry-over is in terms of membership and income in terms of the next two or three years. The problem is, can you keep on doing this every year or every six months? When is there a decline of return? And in the meantime, what happens to the permanent collection, which people are supposed to go back to and enjoy and understand, if you are constantly confronted with a blockbuster exhibition which, fundamentally, detracts from that permanent collection?

LEHRER: As I understand it, Dr. Lee, Cleveland, your museum, was not offered the Tut exhibition, but if it had been offered to you, would you have accepted it and mounted it in Cleveland?

LEE: Well, I can answer that by saying that we had a King Tut exhibition ten years ago with some of the material that is in the current exhibition and other material that was not, and it was very successful but it certainly was not a blockbuster.

LEHRER: I take it that`s a no answer, that you would not have accepted the Tut exhibition?

LEE: Oh, no, I think we would have accepted the Tut exhibition. One of the problems with these exhibitions is what goes along with it in terms of understanding, what kind of political motivations there may be behind them. In the case of the Tut exhibition I have no caveat. But in the case of some exhibitions I think they do serve purposes other than artistic ones.

LEHRER: Like relations with China, the Soviet Union, that sort of thing?

LEE: Well, that is an example, but there are others that are much more, I would say, pertinent.

LEHRER: All right; thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: The American Association of Museums has the job of representing art, history and science museums in Washington. In part through their efforts there`s been a major increase in federal funding and interest in museums. Lawrence Reger is director of the association. Mr. Reger, do you have a view on how worthwhile the blockbusters are to the museum business?

LAWRENCE REGER: Robin, I think that the blockbusters have been helpful to museums. They have provided national attention; as Jim and I were talking about earlier tonight, I believe this is the first show The MacNeil/Lehrer Report has done on museums. I certainly agree with Dr. Lee that we have to be careful as to the extent of them. Frankly, I don`t really foresee that we`re going to have a lot more, certainly of the size of Tut or the Chinese show.

MacNEIL: Are museums in general suffering financially these days?

REGER: Yes, they are. I would characterize it by saying that museums are having a difficult time balancing their budgets, and principally for three reasons: one, increasing demand for services by the public; museum activity is a highly labor-intensive activity; and inflation. On the other hand, I would not characterize the situation as critical. That is, I do not foresee museums closing or substantially curtailing services in large numbers.

MacNEIL: As I mentioned, federal support for museums has grown extraordinarily in recent years. Is the price of that federal support for instance, grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities -accepting exhibitions that have broad popular appeal, like King Tut?

REGER: No. I think that is a popular misconception. In fact, I think you will find that the number of grants made by both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities for special exhibitions are a relatively modest portion of their budgets. And in fact the museums that have had the Tut show and some of the other large exhibitions have received grants of up to a million and a half dollars under the challenge grant program of those two agencies. And I might point out one more thing, that there is a new federal agency in Washington, the Institute of Museum Services, which is charged solely with the responsibility of supporting general operating costs for museums.

MacNEIL: Museums are also depending, as I understand, increasingly on corporate support, sometimes for special exhibitions. Does that corporate support tend to influence the kind of exhibition in favor of ones that will be more broadly popular?

REGER: My sense of that situation is that museums decide what they want to do. They then approach corporations, foundations, individuals, governments, governmental units to get that funding. I do not have a sense that there is any substantial programming by museums which would be responsive to corporate desires.

MacNEIL: Let me put the question another way. Is the funding crisis and the new interest of corporations and the federal government forcing museums to rethink their purpose in life?

REGER:I think that clearly within the last twenty years museums have taken on a more public image. I believe that we`re finding that museums must look to a broader base of support, and for that reason yes, they have taken on a broader public image. But I hasten to say that I don`t think that`s a negative aspect.

MacNEIL: I see. Mr. Golden, is your experience of federal money forcing you in a direction such as I`ve just been suggesting to Mr. Reger, to be more popular, to put on, to mount shows that will bring in a wide cross-section of the public and not just scholars or people interested in a particular field of art?

GOLDEN: No, our experience -- and I would agree with Mr. Reger -our experience has just been the opposite. The professional staff at the museum develops the presentations of the types of exhibitions they would like to propose; we then go with a planning grant or an exhibition grant to either the NEA or the NEH and see if they will support either all or part of the exhibition, and then we take that on to the private foundations and corporations who we feel may have an interest in supporting the exhibition. At no time do we ever make a presentation that this is going to be a blockbuster or a major exhibition. It`s a major exhibition in terms of its impact on the scholarly work that we`re going to present.

MacNEIL: Dr. Lee in Cleveland, have you had any experience with federal underwriting or funding?

LEE: Yes, we`ve had quite a bit.

MacNEIL: And what influence does it have on the shape or content of programs?

LEE: Well, I think in our own program it has had relatively little influence; where we haven`t been able to get funding we`ve tried to do it with our own funds. But I`m not quite as sanguine as the other two gentlemen are. It seems to me that one has to analyze what exhibitions have not been funded in order to understand what the impact of business and the federal government is.

MacNEIL: Do you know of some that have failed to be funded which would illustrate that?

LEE: Well, I was on the National Council for the Humanities for some years and I`ve been in a few other areas, and I know that there are exhibitions that have been worthwhile that have not been funded. I could not at this point specify, but I know it`s happened.

MacNEIL: Mr. Reger, what`s your comment on that?

REGER: Well, I think the whole subject of exhibitions is a modest part of a museum`s budget and that in fact the collection, the conservation study is a major part of that budget and I think that, as Mr. Golden pointed out, a museum will go to a variety of sources to get funding. I think that if they want to do an exhibition they will generally find the way to do it.

MacNEIL: Let me ask you all this, quickly. Is there a danger, as some critics I`ve read have pointed out or suggested, of museums getting hooked on a cycle of blockbusters which require a bigger budget for them to mount them, which then increases the appetite for another blockbuster -- becoming blockbuster junkies, if you like? Is that a danger?

GOLDEN: Well, I personally don`t think that the term "blockbuster" -- and I think Mr. Lee said this -- is the appropriate term. It`s, do we want a major exhibition, and if we do, how do we go about funding it?

MacNEIL: Can you become hooked on major exhibitions, in other words?

GOLDEN: Well, in a sense yes, because in our case it`s the lifeblood of bringing people to the museum and to try and maintain two or three major exhibitions each year. I wouldn`t fix those as blockbusters, and I certainly wouldn`t fix those as being heirs to Tut.

MacNEIL: I see. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Golden, let me ask you: how do you respond to Dr. Lee`s concern about these blockbuster exhibits that he expressed, that the hype and the PR, to paraphrase what he said, is not necessarily the proper role of a museum. How do you respond to that?

GOLDEN: Well, I would certainly agree with him in terms of the Tut phenomenon. We have found that that is much different than anything we`ve ever had in museum roles. However, there is a responsibility that we have to get the message across to the seven million people in Los Angeles County about the activity of the museum that they`re supporting. So we will try our best to get public relations out to the community, but we don`t take ads and we don`t solicit people to go out and make reproductions and sell them in department stores.

LEHRER: Dr. Lee, do you feel that the mounting of these big blockbusters actually runs counter to the traditional role of a museum and could eventually change the traditional role of a museum to the negative side?

LEE: Well, one aspect of the traditional role of a museum is certainly to have special exhibitions, and major ones. We`ve all tried to do them, and some of them have succeeded. But I think the current wave of these large, hyped-up exhibitions, some of them good but some of them bad, do breed a kind of built-in financial disaster which is going to catch up sooner or later. And particularly it breeds trouble in those areas of ongoing museum activities which are not done simply because of the time, the energy and everything that goes into the so-called blockbuster. And so, many things of conservation, cataloguing, the ongoing, unseen operations that make the museum possible when you go to see the things on exhibition, tend to get lost or underfunded.

LEHRER: What`s been the experience in Los Angeles thus far, Mr. Golden?

GOLDEN: Well, again, we try to budget the entire exhibition either through our own budget or through grants and donations, and I don`t know that we`ve had any problem up to this point in doing some of things that Dr. Lee is concerned about.

LEHRER: Are you aware that there is a problem? Would you concede that that could be a problem?

GOLDEN: Oh, yes, definitely. We have a limited staff in our conservation lab, and every major exhibition that comes in requires conservation work, cataloguing work, our registrar; every part of the museum is affected by a major exhibition. However, that`s been our history since we began, and we`re sort of used to it.

LEHRER: I see. Mr. Reger, let me ask you, from a national standpoint are the people in the museum business aware of the danger that Dr. Lee has expressed?

REGER: I think very much so, Jim. It is a subject of great discussion at meetings, and I think there is a very real concern. But I think because it is being discussed I don`t think we`ll have a major problem.

LEHRER: What about the other thing that Dr. Lee mentioned, that he still is waiting judgment on whether or not all of these new members that Mr. Golden has gotten in Los Angeles and they`ve gotten in New Orleans really means anything in terms of testing it out on staying power? Is that a legitimate concern?

REGER: Absolutely legitimate. We`ve got a lot of work to do now to fire up the interest that has been generated by these shows.

LEHRER: Does that interest have to be hyped up again with another big blockbuster?

REGER:I don`t think so. I think that there are examples of museums who are putting their permanent collection out. The entire museum is being devoted to the permanent collection and attendance records are being set for these exhibitions. So I don`t think that the continual hype is necessary.

LEHRER: All right; thank you. Robin?

MaCNEIL: Yes; thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Lee in Cleveland; Mr. Reger in Washington. Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Mr. Golden, thank you very much. That`s all for tonight. We`ll be back tomorrow night. I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.