In my lecturing, I often talk about my āgrandmother problem.ā My grandmother - with the same hairdo as The - was fiercely protective of all us grandchildren. All she wanted was for us to be happy and she would have thrown all 4 foot 10 inches of her wrinkly body in front of a bus if she knew it would save us. It was always clear that she loved us. She was also a racist and bigoted about many things in the world. While it is hard for me to understand, I know she held these beliefs as she felt they would help make the world as safe as it could be for her grandchildren. She is therefore not an āevilā person, as these beliefs came from a point of concern and love. Regardless of if her beliefs were āwrongā or not (and to be clear: to me, they were abhorrent!), my āgrandmother problemā highlights a bigger, general problem with public life: we live in a pluralistic space, where there are multiplicity of values and beliefs.
Public museums and galleries face this issue every day: they are there to represent a public, but how are they to do that when āthe publicā is made up of people like me, people like my grandmother and everyone in between!? To explore this conundrum, I recently worked with to explore the āpublicnessā of a museum collection. The Museum is a ārecognised collection of National Significanceā and has as part of their museum collection over 1 million individual items, but only 1% of this collection is ever on display. The rest is kept behind temperature-controlled, secured, locked doors, and therefore not accessible by āthe publicā.Ā Similarly, the Collection Managers ā a small group of experts from the local area ā act as gatekeepers as to which items are collected, displayed, or discussed. Whilst the staff are representative ofĀ someĀ of the population of Perthshire, their position and power beg the question of how a small, select group of individuals or a single organisation can speak to anĀ entiretyĀ of a public, in all its plurality and difference.
Originally, my creative practice research idea for this project - titled - was a provocation that the public would be invited to choose a single item that should be destroyed. How this single item would be chosen was up for negotiation; and how this item might be destroyed was similarly up for discussion, but the provocation of destruction was essential to elicit discussions and debate that may reflect the nuanced complexities of how - and if - an entire public could be represented by a Museum Collection. This provocation was considered too much for the Museum and the project was reconfigured and culminated in an exhibition where the public decided what objects within the collection are the *most* valued item: the item they would save from the proverbial fire. The project has resulted in over 7000 votes, a , anecdotal evidence of extended engagement, a variety of well-received events, and significant positive feedback from audiences, and .
Many of the museum staff will agree that it certainly wasnāt a pleasant experience to invite the public in to āchooseā valuable items, and this was made even more difficult by my provocation to destroy priceless artefacts. However, this chaotic, difficult project has provided space for museum staff to creatively and critically explore their management and reflect together in ways that - along with professional knowledge - can help tackle new situations and provide new ways of working. As Ghaye suggests: āMaybe reflective practices offer us a way of trying to make sense of the uncertainty in our workplaces and the courage to work competently and ethically at the edge of order and chaos.ā Working in the public domain - with all the different values, needs and stakeholders - certainly can feel like it is skating along that edge of order and chaos, and this underpins why such projects become important: if weāre going to work in the public domain, we have to do it in ways that are difficult, risky and multiple. Just like the public domain itself!
This is not a terrible thing: The philosopher suggested that as social creatures, humans can only ever understand ourselves when we encounter āthe otherā ā something that is different from us. Indeed, he suggests that the more we are able to witness and experience something ānot usā, the more we are able learn about ourselves and the surrounding world. In other words, we understand ourselves in opposition, in the same way that ; or joy only truly comprehended because of sadness. It is difference that provides contrast, and in that contrast, we see our own edges more clearly.
