Are Museums Places for Conversation?
Conversations in Museums: Creating Inclusive Dialogue Around Problematic Artists
Phalaena by Carlos Verger Fioretti, from the Prado’s Uninvited Guests exhibition that I used as a case study in this essay
Introduction
Art is one of the oldest practices in the world, bridging cultures and conveying a myriad of universal themes. Once rooted in craftsmanship, where the artwork was valued for being a
carefully crafted object, art has evolved to be valued for the artist’s creativity, concept and idea(Johnson 2005, 120). Today, the value of art is deeply entwined with the identity of the artist, placing individual significance at the core of an artwork’s impact.
In this context, museums emerged as pivotal institutions that not only preserve these artistic expressions but also play a critical role in shaping cultural narratives. They balance a complex set of responsibilities—fostering public dialogue, advancing scholarly research, and contributing to the creative economy (Aalst and Boogaarts 2002, 196-197; Macdonald 2006, 1). However, as they strive to attract diverse audiences to reinforce their societal standing, museums often face ethical challenges, especially when it comes to showcasing works by renowned yet problematic artists.
This essay aims to develop a comprehensive solution for exhibiting problematic artists in a way that fosters impactful dialogue and social change. Through analysing the historical deficiencies of museums and a case study of the exhibition Invitadas by Museo del Prado that highlights the consequences of failing to update outdated institutional functions, the proposed solution seeks to align contemporary needs with the evolving role of museums.
Evolution of Museums
Museums transform in parallel with society and have undergone intrinsic and extrinsic reformation that represents, reflects, and contextualises its era (Gordon 2009, 259). Art sparks dialogue, and museums serve as key spaces for these exchanges, helping visitors develop insight into the evolution of humanity with these conversations defining museums as places of reflection and engagement (Hillemann 2016; Gopnik 2020). By examining the historical and contemporary development of museums, we can identify outdated functions within today’s institutions that no longer align with society's needs. These misaligned roles impact the dialogue between museums and the communities they serve.
Origins: Curated Narratives
The urge to collect things of beauty and significance has its roots deep into history beginning with the Great Museum of Alexandria (Gordon 2009, 259-260). Though, it was the Renaissance that brought about significant changes in intellectual and economic conditions, which led to an interest in organising and classifying knowledge through collections amongst the European elite (Yaya 2008, 174). With the privilege to travel, the wealthy collected artefacts from diverse cultures and displayed them in Cabinets of Curiosities (Günay 2012, 1252). These collections demonstrated the elite traveller’s attempt to frame the “other world" through the collection of ethnographic items that seemed foreign to them (Yaya 2008, 174; Günay 2012, 1253). The rarity of these artefacts enhanced the collector’s stature, marking them as owners of the “exotic” (174). In the intimacy of private viewings, discussions amongst the collector’s circle centred on the “fantasized depiction of exotic man,” portraying foreign cultures as paradigms of “non-civilized societies.” (Yaya 2008, 175-177).
The Cabinets of Curiosities reflect a homogenous perspective as the collection reinforces the mindset of the collector and their insulated community through creating an exoticised microcosm of the foreign world (Yaya 2008, 173-174). The absence of diverse viewpoints and audiences restricts opportunities for varied perspectives, creating an echo chamber that bolsters the collector’s status without challenging prevailing views. This highlights the need for inclusivity at every stage of an exhibition to foster broader understanding and dialogue.
Emergence of the Public Museum and its Educational Role
Over time, museums shifted from “elite collections of imperial dominance to educational institutions for the public” (Janes and Sandell 2019, 1). One key event that prompted the transition was the Louvre displaying the royal collection to the public after the French revolution (Günay 2012, 1254). Following this, private collectors began donating their collections to public museums (Legêne 1998, 21). With this development, traces of the nation-state were publicly exhibited, cultivating a sense of heritage and national identity (Günay 2012, 1253). Influenced by this trend, there was a surge in museums across Europe and the United States for a variety of reasons such as nation-states emphasising their power and prestige by housing important collections in grand buildings (Gordon 2009, 261). With the inrush of public museums, themiddle class had access to the arts, where educational reformers saw this as an opportunity to use art as a civilising influence for the working class (261).
This marked museums’ transition into informal educational institutions (Günay 2012, 1255), as contemplating collections enhances the comprehension of the “worlds we live in" (Goodman 1985, 57). To sustain this educational role, museums must engage with current social issues and reshape collections to offer comprehensive context, fostering dialogue and learning among diverse audiences (Chynoweth et al. 2021, xix).
The Commercialisation of Museums
The museums’ contributions to society as educational and cultural institutions was essential to justify their funding (Hooper-Greenhill 1997, 2). The dominant ethos of economic rationalism instigated functional changes for the museum to adapt (Sandell 1998, 402). Museums began blending educational and cultural activities with commercial and entertainment elements to enhance their economic impact, and this was termed as ‘edutainment’ (Aalst and Boogaarts 1997, 197). To attract a larger audience, the museum built upon its educational role and enhanced the experience with spectacular and expensive displays (quoted in Aalst and Boogaarts 1997, 197). These additional costs were offset by intertwining diverse functions – such as cafés and restaurants, museum stores (Aalst and Boogaarts 1997, 196). Another way to attract a larger audience is through blockbuster events and retrospective exhibitions (Aalst and Boogaarts 1997, 198). These events are planned around garnering attention, and typically centre around controversial themes and famous artists to make the museum-going experience a “spectacle” (198). With this, museums transitioned into a
temporary exhibition space, whereby its other characteristic museum functions such as conserving and restoring collections and scholarly research were prioritised less (Aalst and Boogaarts 1997, 197).
With these adaptations, museums have become tools in city placemaking initiatives, aimed at expanding the cultural economy through tourism with art, culture, and entertainment (Aalst and Boogaarts 1997, 196). As such, museums function as instruments of spatial planning within urban areas (196). To leverage this, museums took on a new language of performance measurement that focused not only public interest and scholarly rigour, but also “saleability, profitability and efficiency” (quoted in Booth and Powell 2016, 12). Changes at theorganisational level in museums reflects a shift in how these institutions engage with their audiences. This transformation is evident in the touchpoints that connect the audience with the institution, which now emphasise a more profit-driven approach.
Impact of Commercialisation: Social Exclusion
Museums tell stories, yet the narrative of the early 21st century is increasingly shaped by corporations and governments driven by economic growth (Janes and Sandell 2019, 2). Whether intentionally or not, museums often contribute to the accumulation of wealth while engaging in excessive consumption as an organisation, leading to museums increasingly resembling a "mall," which reflects consumerism and its impact on society (Janes and Sandell 2019, 2-5). This focus on financial gain can lead to unintentional perpetuations of exclusivity, an example being the White Cube presentation style. Intended to foster a contemplative environment for appreciating art, this style instead creates an atmosphere of social elitism, where art is treated as a rare commodity, resulting in what O’Doherty (1976) describes as “negative vibrations” that make the space feel “expensive” consequently creating a sense of discomfort amongst some (76).
Exclusivity permeates through all facets of museum operations, from admission fees to exhibition design, catering to a segment of society which reinforces social divides by limiting diverse perspectives (quoted in Grimmer 2020, 23). This creates an echo chamber where privileged opinions go unchallenged, ultimately shaping a societal landscape that fails to engage the broader community. As a result, the richness of cultural dialogue diminishes. The lack of accountability among many museum directors further entrenches this issue, as their unchecked power reinforces the notion that museums cast an echo chamber amongst a certain facet of society (Janes and Sandell 2019, 9-10). The museum’s organisational priorities are reflected in its public image, which reinforces rather than challenges existing social structures, ultimately contributing to social exclusion (Chipangura and Marufu 2019, 166).
The outdated function of museums predominantly lies in its organisational structure, which maintains exclusivity in public institutions hindering its potential to foster meaningful conversation for change. Though museums strive to attract a wide audience, their operations often create a one-way conversation dominated by unilateral perspectives, limiting the inclusion of diverse viewpoints. This system not only perpetuates a cycle of exclusivity withinorganisations, prohibiting a diverse team but also reflects the outdated model of Cabinets of Curiosities, which fails to address the contemporary need for inclusive, two-way public dialogue that fosters social change (Coffee 2008, 271).
Fostering Social Inclusion in Museums
If museums contribute towards the exclusion of individuals, it can also possess the ability to re-integrate those excluded (Sandell 1998, 408). Recognising the current landscape as one driven by consumerism, museums must engage with the marketplace to uphold their influential status in society. Thus, cultural consumption can be harnessed to promote social inclusion along with generating revenues (Biferale et al. 2024, 1). Museums have the potential to be leaders of structural changes in society towards greater gender equity (Janes and Sandell 2019, 6-8; Callihan and Feldman 2018, 188). However, failing to address the historical shortcomings inherent in contemporary museum practices could hinder this goal.
The Case of Invitadas
Museo del Prado's retrospective exhibition, Invitadas, exemplifies a museum's effort to rewrite its narrative to align with contemporary contexts while still harbouring outdated functions, which resulted in poor public reception. Curated by Carlos Navarro, an expert on 19th-century Spanish painting, Invitadas— literally translating to “female guests” though rebranded by the museum as “Uninvited Guests”— was Museo del Prado’s effort to examine the era’s structures that
marginalised women artists and critique the limited, stereotypical portrayals of women in art (Power 2020). It is essential to recognise that Invitadas emerged at a time where several major
Western galleries began reassessing their narratives (Anguix 2021, 85). These institutions sought to promote more inclusive, less sexist perspectives by showcasing previously underrepresented artworks from their collections (85). Following this, Museo del Prado hoped to make amends to the role it played in this misogynistic system and aimed to provoke reflection on the museum’s past and future by spotlighting women’s role in Spanish art (Straits Times 2020; David-Marks 2020). However, due to the neglect of certain critical factors, Invitadas was mired in controversy since its opening, with some female artists and academics expressing it “echoes the very misogyny it has sought to expose” (David-Marks 2020).
Shortcomings of Invitadas
Insufficient and Inadequate Research
Museums are one of the most trusted institutions due to their rigorous research processes conducted by experts across various fields, to provide comprehensive analysis (Remer, 2020). Invitadas was clearly under researched, and this affected its reception (Anguix 2021, 90). The first area evident of insufficient research was regarding market research into contemporary sensibilities. Despite the aim to critically review its collection and historical role undertaken to contribute to misogyny, there were no gender studies specialists involved (Anguix 2021, 87). Several details proved this. Firstly, most women portrayed in the exhibition lack a name and are labelled by the curator. Terms such as “naked”, “mannequins” “, intruders” were used instead of their names (López Fdez-Cao 2020). Secondly, the choice of an outdated “femme fatale” image on promotional posters and the decision to sell kitchen aprons featuring a female artist’s work, which has been interpreted as symbolically signalling sending women artists back “to the kitchen, where they belong” (Tejeda 2020). Invitadas’ lack of plurality narrows its perspective and “speaks with a single voice” (quoted in Anguix 2021, 88).
The second area evident of insufficient research was regarding the exhibition’s collection. The inclusion of a misattributed painting that was considered to be a scene painted by female artist Concepción Mejía de Salvador and was La March del Soldado created by the male artist Adolfo Sánchez Megías (Selvin 2020) . This oversight highlights a lack of thorough research into female artists and suggests a deeper institutional disregard for accurately representing women’s contributions to art history.
Ineffective Communication
The museum lacked effective dialogue tools to facilitate a two-way conversation between the public and the museum. As this exhibition was inaugurated, it was received with criticism. In response to this, Museo del Prado hastily organised a lecture series to address the complaints (Anguix 2021, 90). The curator put out a number of statements claiming that the public misunderstood the aim of the exhibition (Chaliakopoulos 2020). These defensive reactions from the museum led to accusations of “opacity and political corruption” (quoted in Anguix 2021, 90).This case study highlights the flaws in the exhibition's attempt to spotlight how misogyny impacted women artists' place in art history, due to the neglect of essential considerations, highlighted by the evolution of museums, resulting in a misalignment in curatorial vision and public perception.
Solution
“Art is a prism” through which we see life from someone else’s perspective — even when that perspective belongs to problematic artists (Candenedo 2020). Engaging with works by such artists prompts self-reflection and challenges pre-existing assumptions, prompting insightful and impactful conversation for individual and societal change (Candenedo 2020). For museums to foster this through exhibiting these problematic artists, they must address longstanding organisational limitations and realign their objectives to better meet contemporary needs. To achieve this, two key criterias must be balanced, generating enough profit for the creative
economy and maintaining public trust within museums. While exhibiting a problematic yet famous artist with a history of abuse and misogyny such as Picasso and Paul Gaugin, may draw in wider crowds, it is crucial to encourage artistic appreciation of their art which accounts for “recognizing the context, intentions, and societal implications” of the artwork rather than just aesthetic appreciation, which relies solely on perceptual interpretation (Korsmeyer 1977, 48). The interaction between aesthetic and artistic appreciation fosters both self-reflection and dialogue, as both rely on individual experiences and interpretations of the artwork’s context (Korsmeyer 1977, 45-48). This can be achieved through taking steps throughout each stage of exhibition planning.
Foundational Stages
To ensure a well-rounded exhibition, proactive steps are essential before opening. Diverse perspectives in curatorial decisions help frame each artwork with nuanced historical, cultural, and contemporary contexts (Sandell 2002, 19-20). When exhibiting artists with histories of abuse or misogyny, these themes may be triggering, requiring careful curation to strike a balance between engaging audiences and fostering respectful conversations (Grimmer 2020, 65). By involving experts like female historiographers, sociologists, gender studies specialists, trauma-informed psychologists, and ethicists, the exhibition can provide a meaningful, layered narrative. This approach enriches the audience experience and creates spaces for critical reflection and impactful dialogue on sensitive subjects.
During the Exhibition
To create a meaningful experience during the exhibition, it’s essential for museums to encourage an open dialogue with the community. Hosting panel discussions, community forums, and ‘Question and Answer’ sessions with museum staff encourages visitors to engage directly with the complexities surrounding both the artist’s work and their problematic history. These events transform potential controversy into a constructive and collective meaning-making opportunity, allowing participants to grapple with broader ethical questions and societal values beyond the individual artist.
Open discussions also allow audiences to take on a participatory role, empowering them to ask questions and share concerns directly with museum staff and curators (Grimmer 2020, 152-153). This approach demystifies the museum experience, making it a more inclusive and interactive space. By inviting the community into these discussions rather than guiding them unilaterally, it breaks down the barriers of museum exclusivity, fostering transparency, trust, and a sense of shared ownership in the conversation (Hillemann 2016).
Beyond the Exhibition
To meaningfully reflect its values, a museum’s internal structure should embody the principles it aims to promote through its exhibitions (GLLAM Report 2000, 17). Despite progress, women still remain underrepresented in decision-making roles in museums (Anguix 2021, 85). If a museum exhibits works by problematic artists to inspire crucial societal conversations—especially in a post #MeToo era that addresses historical and ongoing issues of sexual harassment and abuse—it must also reflect those values within the organisational structure to lead as an institution for transformation (Grimmer 2020, 42). This begins with diverse hiring practices and dismantling the vertical authoritarian hierarchy that inhibits personal agency throughout the museum (Bergevin 2019, 352; Janes and Sandell 2019, 9). Incorporating a horizontal structure empowers all team members and enhances decision-making across levels to harness personal agency to effect change (Hollows 2019, 89). This commitment to change should prioritise continuous re-evaluation of authority and responsibility, ensuring the institution remains attuned to contemporary societal needs (Grimmer 2020, 27).
Conclusion
While acts of prejudice, such as misogyny and abuse, pervades society, museums can serve as fundamental institutions with the potential to counteract entrenched discrimination, including gender inequality, by fostering social inclusion. Exhibitions featuring problematic artists can provide a unique opportunity to “grapple with grander questions that go beyond the artist himself” and uncover and challenge personal biases, however, to successfully facilitate conversation for societal reform, museums must welcome diverse perspectives throughout the curatorial process (Delistraty 2018; Grimmer 2020, 79). Historically complicit in reinforcing social exclusion, museums can rewrite their narrative through transforming visitors from passive
recipients to active participants, enabling them to shape both personal and collective meanings from exhibits (Callihan and Feldman 2018, 188). Moreover, by updating organisational structures that limit autonomy and diversity, individuals from varied backgrounds can have the opportunity to take on roles they were previously not considered for (Callihan and Feldman 2018, 182-183). This influx of diverse perspectives enriches the conversations prompted by the museum, which in turn resonates with a wider audience, engaging them and thus creating a
cycle of inclusivity. As a result, museums can evolve into forward-thinking institutions that instigate societal progression towards equality.
Bibliography
All citations are in the Chicago 17th Author-date style
Aalst, Irina van, and Inez Boogaarts. 2002.
“From Museum to Mass Entertainment.” European Urban and Regional Studies 9 (3): 195–209.
https://doi.org/10.1177/096977640200900301
Anguix, Laia . 2021.
“Can the Blockbuster Exhibition Crisis Become an Opportunity for Women Artists? Six Lessons from the Prado Museum.” Transnational Twentieth Century: Literatures, Arts and Cultures 5 (1): 83–96.
https://doi.org/10.13133/2532-1994/17311
Bergevin, Jennifer. 2019.
“Narratives of Transformation: Stories of Impact from Activist Museums .” In Museum Activism, edited by Robert R. Janes and Richard Sandell, 348–58. Oxfordshire ; New York: Routledge.
Biferale, Lorenzo, Maria Giovanna Brandano, Alessandro Crociata, and M Melo. 2024.
“The Spatial Dimensions of Cultural Consumption: How Distance Influences Consumption Levels in a Spatial Setting.” Journal of Cultural Economics (May).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-024-09506-0
Booth, Elizabeth, and Raymond Powell. 2016.
“Museums: From Cabinets of Curiosity to Cultural Shopping Experiences.” Tourism and Culture in the Age of Innovation 1: 131–43.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27528-4_9
Callihan, Elisabeth, and Kaywin Feldman. 2018.
“Presence and Power: Beyond Feminism in Museums.” Journal of Museum Education 43 (3): 179–92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2018.1486138
Candanedo, JC. 2020.
“Art Helps Us Challenge Our Own Assumptions” JC Candanedo. November 18, 2020.
https://www.jccandanedo.com/blog/art-helps-us-challenge-our-own-assumptions
Chaliakopoulos, Antonis. 2020.
“Exhibition in the Prado Museum Sparks Misogyny Controversy.” The Collector. October 19, 2020.
https://www.thecollector.com/prado-museum-uninvited-guests-misogyny-controversy/
Chipangura, Njabulo, and Happinos Marufu. 2019.
“Museums as Public Forums for 21st Century Societies a Perspective from the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe.” In Museum Activism, edited by Robert R. Janes and Richard Sandell,
164–73. Oxfordshire ; New York: Routledge.
Chynoweth, Adele, Bernadette Lynch, Klaus Petersen, and Sarah Smed. 2021.
Museums and Social Change : Challenging the Unhelpful Museum. London: Routledge.Coffee, Kevin. 2008. “Cultural Inclusion, Exclusion and the Formative Roles of Museums.”
Museum Management and Curatorship 23 (3): 261–79.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770802234078
Davis-Marks, Isis. 2020.
“Why the Prado’s Show on Women in Art Is Facing Accusations of Misogyny.” Smithsonian Magazine, October 21, 2020.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/exhibit-prado-causes-controversy-180976093/
Delistraty, Cody. 2018.
“Opinion | The Problem with Chuck Close.” The New York Times, January 30, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/opinion/problem-chuck-close.html
Eilean Hooper-Greenhill. 1992.
Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Goodman, Nelson. 1985.
“The End of the Museum?” Journal of Aesthetic Education 19(2): 53–62.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3332464
Gopnik, Adam. 2007.
“The Mindful Museum” The Walrus, June 12, 2007.
https://thewalrus.ca/the-mindful-museum/
Gordon, David. 2009.
“Art Museum.” In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences.,
259–68. Florida: Taylor and Francis.
Grimmer, Helena Katherine. 2021.
“Curating ‘Difficult’ Knowledge: Examining How Museums
and Galleries Should Operate Concerning the Display and Recognition of Work Post
#MeToo.” Masters thesis, Durham University
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/14006/
Group for Large Local Authority Museum. 2000.
Museums and Social Inclusion The GLLAM Report, 2000.
https://le.ac.uk/-/media/uol/docs/research-centres/rcmg/publications/gllam-interior.pdf
Günay, Burcu. 2012.
“Museum Concept from Past to Present and Importance of Museums as Centers of Art Education.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 55 (October):1250–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.622
Hillemann, Phoebe. 2016.
“Conversation Pieces: The Value of Dialogue in Art Museums | Smithsonian American Art Museum.” Smithsonian American Art Museum. October 26, 2016.
https://americanart.si.edu/blog/eye-level/2016/26/295/conversation-pieces-value-dialogue-art-museums
Hollows, Victoria . 2019.
“The Activist Role of Museum Staff.” In Museum Activism, edited by
Robert R. Janes and Richard Sandell, 80–90. Oxfordshire ; New York: Routledge.
Janes, Robert R, and Richard Sandell. 2019.
Museum Activism. Oxfordshire ; New York:Routledge.
Johnson, Geraldine. 2013.
“Michelangelo: The Birth of the Artist and of Art History.” In
Renaissance Art: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford Academic.
https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780192803542.003.0009
Korsmeyer, Carolyn. 1977.
“On Distinguishing ‘Aesthetic’ from ‘Artistic.’” Journal of Aesthetic Education 11 (4): 45-57.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3332179
Legêne, Susan. 2024.
“Nobody’s Objects: Early-19th Century Ethnographical Collections and the Formation of Imperialist Attitudes and Feelings.” Etnofoor 11, no. 1: 21–39.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25757925
López Fdez. Cao, Marián . 2020.
“‘NO ES EL MUSEO, ES EL SIGLO XIX, AMIGO’ Cultura Visual.” M-Arte Y Cultura Visual, October 7, 2020.
https://www.m-arteyculturavisual.com/2020/10/07/no-es-el-museo-es-el-siglo-xx-amigo/
Macdonald, Sharon. 2006.
A Companion to Museum Studies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
The Straits Times. 2020.
“Misogyny in Art? Spain’s Prado Pleads Guilty.” October 28, 2020.
https://www.straitstimes.com/life/arts/misogyny-in-art-spains-prado-pleads-guilty
O’Doherty, Brian. 1986.
Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Power, Nina. 2020.
“Art-World Elites Should Stop Thinking They’re Superior to the Public.” The
Telegraph, October 20, 2020.
Remer, Ashley E. 2020.
“Museums and Gender.” International Council of Museums, August 20,
https://icom.museum/en/news/museums-and-gender-new-issue-of-museum
Sandell, Richard. 1998.
“Museums as Agents of Social Inclusion.” Museum Management and Curatorship 17 (4): 401–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09647779800401704
Sandell, Richard. 2002.
Museums, Society, Inequality. London; New York: Routledge.
Selvin, Claire. 2020.
“Prado Museum Withdraws Work by Man from Feminist Art Show.”
ARTnews, October 19, 2020.
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/prado-museum-uninvited-guests-artwork-removal-1234574287/
T ejeda, Isabel. 2020.
“UNA CAJA de PANDORA - M-Arte Y Cultura Visual.” M-Arte Y Cultura Visual, October 12, 2020.
https://www.m-arteyculturavisual.com/2020/10/12/una-caja-de-pandora/
Yaya, Isabel. 2008.
“Wonders of America: The Curiosity Cabinet as a Site of Representation and Knowledge.” Journal of the History of Collections 20 (2): 173–188.