Beware the lure of the blockbuster
DURING the past few weeks, there has been much singing the blues in Trafalgar Square. This is not an addition to the bizarre collection of street performers who have taken up daily occupation here; it’s because the nearby National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery—two of Athena’s favourite institutions—have revealed an alarming drop in visitor numbers (Leader, February 14). It’s something that many commentators have attributed largely to their lack of recent blockbuster exhibitions. Should we be worried?
By definition, the blockbuster exhibition succeeds or fails not by its scholarly content or educational intentions, but by its ability to draw big numbers (irrespective of its other merits). It’s the museum- world equivalent of being top of the charts. That means that the cult of the blockbuster easily leads the public down the most familiar curatorial roads because we know that the Egyptians, the Vikings, the Tudors, the Impressionists, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Hockney and Picasso, with their instant resonance with the widest public, all sell. That’s not to say that there aren't exceptions: Charles I is hardly a 21st-century pin-up, yet the show on his collection at the Royal Academy seems to have struck a chord and delighted visitors are piling in.
It’s not mere vanity, however, that encourages museums to pursue popular—and safe—shows. In a regime of free admission to national museums at a time when Government support is declining, the need to earn income is paramount. Because ‘free’ museums can and do charge a separate admissions fee for a major exhibition, ticket sales are a crucial source of revenue. Added to that, increased visitor numbers generate valuable income through sales of postcards, catalogues and fridge magnets, plus the extra spend in the cafes. Given the costs involved, therefore, a poorly attended exhibition can spell real financial difficulty. It can also act as a powerful disincentive to experiment or take risks.
Perversely, the fetishisation of free admission distorts the purpose of our national galleries: to support it, the commercial imperatives of the blockbuster exhibition take the driver’s seat. This inevitably results in the neglect of the permanent collections that, being ‘permanent’, are regarded as having little PR or marketing value. That’s true even though these collections are the soul of our national museums and should prove the fact that, with art, familiarity breeds content, not contempt. It also seeks to fill our museums with customers rather than visitors.
In this way, the spurious glamour and the cheap thrill of the blockbuster both supersedes and subverts the intended role of our national museums and galleries. Now that is something to worry about.
‘Their spurious glamour subverts the intended role of our national museums