Art Business Marketing Assessment

‘THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH’

AN EXAMINATION AND CRITIQUE OF BLOCKBUSTER

EXHIBITIONS AND THEIR ROLE IN TODAY’S MUSEUMS

SUBMITTED TO FULFIL REQUIREMENTS FOR

SOTHEBY’S INSTITUTE OF ART – LONDON

MAAB PROGRAMME 2005/06

ART MARKETING

STUDENT 0068

LISA KIRK, GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH EXHIBITION POSTER, 2004, © LISA KIRK PROJECTS

SIAL MAAB Programme 2005/06

Art Marketing Final Assessment

Student 0068

‘THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH’

AN EXAMINATION AND CRITIQUE OF BLOCKBUSTER

EXHIBITIONS AND THEIR ROLE IN TODAY’S MUSEUMS

“The [blockbuster’s] impact is powerful and the museum-

goer is far more likely to come away with lasting aesthetic

impressions…bring(ing) to the public works not readily

accessible.” (Heilbrun & Gray 2001: 207)

“I further interrogated the phenomenon of exhibition-

making, redirecting my focus to the Barnum-esque role of the

curator as author of spectacle.” (Kirk 2005)

These statements by individuals – each of which are deeply immersed in the study of

the arts and its role in modern society – highlight the division in perception found in

analyzing the museum exhibitions more commonly known as the blockbuster. The

first was written in a seminal text analyzing the economic impacts of fine arts and the

public policy surrounding its financial underpinnings. Its analysis of the role

institutional policies regarding exhibition selection and economic impact are

generally positive, with particular attention paid to aspects of revenue generation

and the implications of sponsorship on the arts industries. Little to no attention is

given to pubic perceptions of the blockbuster exhibit or critical examination of the

phenomenon itself. The second quote is from a New York based performance artist

who uses her work as a platform for exploring the “nuanced behavior (sic) that

proscribed social gatherings dictate.” (Kirk 2005) The museum blockbuster

exhibition is a distinct target for her artistic explorations of this theme. By way of

comparison, her work does nothing to assess the tangible good that these exhibitions

provide to the communities and/or culture they serve.



Student 0068

2

This essay will attempt to uncover the truths behind both of these perceptions

of the museum blockbuster. A brief history and analysis of the phenomenon begins

the discussion and is followed by an examination of its utilization of marketing

techniques and theories. Both supporters and detractors of these ‘superstar’

exhibitions are given a voice to provide juxtaposing points of view regarding the

pros and cons of this practice. While there is sufficient data and opinion circulating

regarding the topic, the need for brevity prevents a full-scale analysis of the topic;

therefore, only selected key arguments from both sides of the debate are presented.

As the rise of the blockbuster exhibition is only currently in its adolescence, only time

will tell which, if any, of its myriad cultural critics or commentators prove to be

prophets.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

The beginning of the current era of museum blockbuster exhibitions is undoubtedly

the touring and subsequent display of the artefacts from the tomb of the Egyptian

pharaoh Tutankhamun who reigned over Egypt from 1336-1327 BCE. Last seen in

the late 1970s, this exhibition attracted more than 8 million visitors worldwide and

led to what some observers have called ‘Tut-mania’, the overwhelming cultural

attraction/identification and co-opting of the exhibit into popular culture1. (Dunn

2005 and Chang 2005) Once viewed as an extraordinary occurrence, this sort of

touring spectacle of culture is now commonplace, with museums constantly in

1 Capitalizing on the success of this exhibit–now some 25+ years in the past–the treasures from

Tutankhamun’s tomb and other 18th Dynasty objects are now once again touring the world, with a

significant marketing presence which dwarfs that of its predecessor. Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of

the Pharaohs is being developed, marketed, and implemented by Los Angeles based AEG (a sports and

entertainment marketing firm) to the tune of $40 million USD (Dunn 2005).



Student 0068

3

competition to acquire the latest touring show. The past decade has seen record

museum attendance to programs highlighting top-tier artists such as Gauguin,

Matisse, and Van Gogh and selected collections of antiquities. Figures collected from

the top 20 attended exhibitions in 2002 help to demonstrate this. (Appendix I) Given

the average run of 3-6 months for shows of this nature, these figures are nothing

short of astounding. It seems that the treasures of ancient Egypt still hold a

fascination with museum goers; touring exhibitions featuring these antiquities placed

sixth and seventh in the rankings previously mentioned for 2002.

While these blockbusters may seem to be a recent phenomenon in the history

of museum and their respective publics, they do in fact have a long and storied past

that dates back to the very birth of the museum as a repository for cultural heritage.

In his final, seminal work, art historian Francis Haskell has demonstrated the

ascendancy of Old Masters exhibitions in the context of the development of the

museum. In this work, Haskell shows how the first of the so-called blockbusters

actually occurred in seventeenth-century Rome as an expression of the legacy and

wealth of certain key, privileged Roman families (Haskell 2000: 8-9). More often than

not, these retrospectives excluded the contemporary art of the time and focused on

the perceived masters from the past.

As time progressed, these exhibitions of Old Masters grew in scope and size,

with museums from all over the world loaning their works to each other for what

were ostensibly, purely educational purposes. Overcoming the contentious problems

that moving these treasures presented, the early blockbusters sought to expose as

wide a public as possible to the glories of these works and to teach them of the



Student 0068

4

progression of art through the ages. In speaking of a collection of Old Masters

sought after from a prominent collector in London for display in Manchester in the

mid-19th century, Prince Albert weighed heavily in favour of this reasoning, stating

with conviction that

“…the mere gratification of public curiosity, and the

giving of intellectual entertainment to the dense

population of a particular locality would be

praiseworthy in itself, but hardly sufficient…If the

[exhibition] were made to illustrate the history of Art in

a chronological and systematic arrangement, it would

speak powerfully to the public mind.” (Ibid: 84)

It was only with the socioeconomic realities of the late 20th century that a new

paradigm for mounting such lavish and complex shows emerged.

As auction houses began to play an increasingly major role in the art market,

they became one of the many places an aspiring or even well established artist could

go for inspiration from the past. Rembrandt’s well-known watercolour sketch of

Raphael’s Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione (see Appendix II) was most certainly

completed after his viewing of the piece at auction. Rembrandt’s quickly executed

work formed the basis for many of his widely regarded self-portraits and

commissioned pieces. (Benesch 1954: 103 and Haskell 2000: 14) The inclusion of such

masterworks from the past at a publicly held ‘blockbuster’ auction can therefore be

said to directly contribute to the potential development of the artist/observer’s

œuvre. The world of the museum has changed significantly since these days.

Current artists still seek inspiration from exhibitions and collections, but the

museum as an institution has had to adapt to an ever-changing world where its place

is far from assured.



Student 0068

5

THE PRESENT DAY

For the most part, the blockbuster exhibition in today’s world takes place for

decidedly different reasons. As the audience served by museums worldwide has

greatly increased in diversity and expectation, museums have had to change their

exhibition strategy. In having to compete with other activities such as sporting

events, movies, and other discretionary entertainment spending by individuals and

families, museums have had to develop increasingly aggressive marketing strategies

to get the consumer’s attention. (Heilbrun & Gray 2001: 191) Apart from their

exhibitions, museums are seeking myriad avenues in their attempts to woo new

visitors. High-end cocktail parties with celebrity attendance are at one end of the

spectrum. Exercises in public engagement focusing on inclusion rather than

exclusion fall at the other end. All have the same goal – keeping the museum a

financially sound institution while preserving and expanding its place in the hearts

and minds of its consumer base. (MacDonald 2001 and Vachon 2006) Coinciding

almost directly with these changes has been a dramatic decrease in the financial

support provided to museums by their respective governmental authorities, both on

the national and local level (Johnson 2003: 318).

Museums’ increased need for capital and subsequent acceleration in

promotional activity usually focuses on the marketing concept of branding. In the

ever-increasing choice of options for the public’s dollar, museums of all stripes are

uniquely positioning themselves in the mind of the consumer. A handful of so-called

‘superstar museums’ have already embedded their names and status in the consumer

consciousness this way. The Met, MOMA, Le Louvre, El Prado, Guggenheim,



Student 0068

6

Smithsonian, The V&A – the list is filled with these names and more the celebrity

cognoscenti of culture. As expounded upon by cultural economist Bruno Frey, these

museums display criteria such as large numbers of visitors, world famous

painters/paintings, commercialisation, architecture of note, and tourist destination

status (Frey 2003: 49-53). These superstars of the museum world are often the host to

monumental blockbuster exhibitions; more often than not, they are the creators and

marketers of the touring show (Appendix I).

PROS AND CONS OF THE BLOCKBUSTER EXHIBITION

The creation and execution of the blockbuster is a coup on many fronts for these

museums, both on the economic and social stages of which they are key players.

Firstly, it reasserts their role as the superstar by displaying the highlights of their

own collections and their ability to draw on the collections from other of their ken

from around the world. Often years in the making, these shows2 are a booming

industry that is truly global in both their undertaking and scope. (Frey and

Vautravers-Busenhart 1996: 69) As the vast majority of any given museum’s

collection is not on display at any given time, the blockbuster gives the museum a

virtual second space in which to display their hoard. To many, these shows help to

“constantly reshape the cultural landscape by using [museum’s] immense authority

to elevate [and] redefine artists and movements.” (Spayde 1999) This unique

opportunity for the viewing public to experience a broader range of a given

2 In the use of the term ‘show’, Phillipe de Montebello, Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, has

derisively said that he is “the director of the Metropolitan art museum, not the Metropolitan Opera.”

(Frey and Vautravers-Busenhart 1996: 71) As is demonstrated later in this essay, perhaps Mr. de

Montebello is a bit quick in his condescension regarding this comparison.



Student 0068

7

collection is one of the most prevalent underlying arguments in favour of the

blockbuster.

Secondly, these exhibitions reinforce the prominence of the superstar

institutions as they tour. The ‘brand’ of the museum is placed wherever appropriate

to denote its source and past or future destination. In the event that a ‘lesser’

local/regional museum acquires one of these blockbusters, the cachet of both host

and organizing institution is heightened with this association. (Chang 2005 and

Heilbrun & Gray 2001: 191) This prestige via association is not lost on the

professionals in the museum world. Monique Horth, manager for the Centre for

Exhibition Exchange, a Canadian firm that coordinates travelling museum shows,

has said:

“Blockbusters...raise [the museum’s] profile to visitors

and sets the stage for future successes. It sends a

message to all other museums around the world that

you have the expertise, infrastructure, and resources

to do these kinds of shows. If you succeed...you will be

on the list to receive future travelling blockbusters.”

(quoted in Mullens 2004: 56)

The context in which this quote was given helps to shed light on the

importance museums that do not rate as ‘superstar’ attractions place on the

blockbuster to enhance their profile. In 2004, the Royal British Columbia Museum

(RBCM) in Vancouver, Canada played host to the ‘Eternal Egypt’ exhibition of works

from the British Museum’s vast collection. Having visited such venerable hosts as

the Field Museum in Chicago, the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, and the

Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, the hosting of this exhibition by the RBCM focused

attention on what is mostly regarded as a regional museum of national importance,



Student 0068

8

with very little international cachet. Its close proximity to Seattle, Washington was

no doubt an incentive for increased American tourist traffic during the life of the

exhibition and placed the RBCM in the minds of a new set of potential customers.

In attracting a crowd not normally prone to visit museums, blockbuster

exhibitions serve the role of increasing a museum’s current and potential foot-traffic.

This benefit to the bottom line is perhaps the most cited raison d’être given for the

blockbuster’s continued presence in museums’ programming. The more visitors a

museum attracts, the more revenue is generated. It is deceptively simple formula.

Average daily attendance figures for the 20 largest museum shows in 2002 attest to

this fact (Appendix I). The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam boasted the top-

visited show of that year, with an impressive average of 6,759 visitors per day for its

exhibition entitled Van Gogh and Gaugin. Having recently visited the Rembrandt/

Caravaggio exhibition at the same museum, the author can attest to a gate price of €20

for exhibition admission to the Van Gogh Museum. Assuming that the gate price for

the 2002 show was equivalently priced, that represents an average daily intake of

€135,180 – no paltry sum, to be sure.

Gate receipts are not the only driver of economic incentive related to the

blockbuster. Peripheral sales of merchandise themed around the show almost

assuredly play a large part in calculating the economic impact of the blockbuster.

Museum gift shops are often conveniently located at both entrance and exit to major

museums, with some built directly into the visitor pathway employed by the

exhibition’s design team. Personal experience of the author working in a large

regional museum has borne this out. The management team of the gift shop and



Student 0068

9

museum merchandisers were always on hand at exhibition planning meetings. Their

projections and outcomes in re the exhibit were fundamental in the planning for new

exhibitions and the review process once a show had concluded.

The wider impact on respective local/regional economies cannot be

overlooked in assessing the benefits of museums’ hosting of blockbuster exhibitions.

Promises of the money spent by visitors to these shows outside of the museum visit

are used as a means of convincing the public and the museum’s directors of its vital

role in propping up local economies.3 As these exhibitions promise to bring patrons

in from ‘other’ places, these figures are widely touted to show its benefits to the

service industries catering to these individuals – specifically the lodging and

foodservice sectors.

Once again, the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam figures prominently in

these assertions. In the summer of 2001, Light! The Industrial Age 1750-1900: Art &

Science, Technology & Society, an exhibition co-produced with the Carnegie Museum

of Art in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is reported to have enticed 30,000+ visitors (out of

a total 151,600) to Pittsburgh over its 16-week run, representing “an influx of $3

million to the local economy in direct spending on tickets, meals, hotels, and more.”

Tinsy Lipchak, executive director of the Greater Pittsburgh Convention and Visitors’

Bureau Office of Cultural Tourism attributes some $42 million in direct spending at

local businesses in the years 2000-2003 due to “targeted cultural promotions”, of

which the Carnegie Museum is a key component. (Jantz 2003: 21-22)

3 This essay is not of sufficient scope to discuss the actual impact blockbusters have on their

surrounding communities’ economies. While it should be readily assumed that such figures are

accurate when given, serious questions have been raised as to the methodology surrounding the

collection of these figures. (q.v. Stanley, Rogers, et al., 2000)



Student 0068

10

It appears that even the potential for hosting a blockbuster is used to appeal

to authorities in future planning for museum expansion. The Corcoran Gallery of

Art in Washington, D.C. is currently in the final stages of planning and approval of a

massive extension to their relatively small exhibition space. Designed by renowned

architect Frank Gehry, this proposed addition will add another jewel in the crown of

the cultural landscape of the United States capital. At the forefront of their proposal

are the benefits that this proposed new space will bring to the local economy. The

Corcoran’s increased ability to attract blockbuster exhibitions are greatly referenced

and the total economic impact on Washington D.C. is conservatively projected at

$46.2, $102.5, and $171.1 million over the next ten, twenty, and thirty years,

respectively. (Fuller 2004: 3)

Blockbuster exhibitions are not without their detractors. The overwhelming

amount of positive media attention surrounding these events contrasts sharply with

the criticism levelled at them. This criticism takes on several distinct forms and

angles of attack. In the recent literature surrounding the topic, the most prevalent are

the lack of intimacy afforded by the blockbuster, criticism of corporate involvement

in museum exhibitions, and the perception of the blockbuster as consumerist activity

run amok.

Foremost amongst the criticisms levelled at museums and the blockbuster

exhibition specifically, is the crowds associated with the shows. Anyone who has

been to one of these exhibitions can attest to the overcrowding of the space(s) in

which they are held. In the sense that museums are seen as places of quiet

contemplation in which to view artistic and cultural expression, a “private, inward,



Student 0068

11

solitary activity” (Gibson 2003), blockbusters do not allow this pursuit. Rather than

allowing reflection and self-directed times for viewing, the museumgoer is often

allowed only glimpses and is herded through the space. The large amount of visitors

used to justify the exhibition in the first place ends up alienating a portion of the

museum’s core patrons and visitors.

Another effect of these crowds has been the issuance of tickets that allot

certain times to ticket holders, effectively an attempt at controlling crowds through

what is derisively referred to as ‘herding’. A leading art critic in the UK has likened

the new paradigm for museum exhibitions to be “as conducive to aesthetic pleasure

as rush-hour strap-hanging on London’s Victoria Line.” (Jeffries 2005) It begs the

question of the museum’s ultimate intent. Do museums want to be places of the

aforementioned contemplation/study or do they want to be a place driven solely by

profit motive and numbers?

The argument for the latter of these questions is increasingly more evident.

As funds for museums from the public sector have shrunk dramatically in recent

years, it seems logical that they would attempt to become more cost-effective and

revenue-generating than ever before. Falling victim to “the cant of the age[...]market-

driven utilitarianism (which) has forced them to justify their existence in crude

economic terms” (Delingpole 2006), museums become more and more akin to firms

in the for-profit sector. In seeking to cut costs and maximize revenue, the

blockbuster invariably requires the recruitment of corporate sponsorship to help

underwrite the costs associated with its creation and distribution. One cannot help



Student 0068

12

but to wonder about whether these connections influence curatorial decisions, thus

stripping museums of their supposed place for critical analysis of their collections.

Along with the transformation of the museum into something more

resembling a corporation than a public entity has come the commodification and

commercialisation of the collections. Additional revenues from these exhibitions are

realised through merchandising and selling of images from the shows. Everything

from t-shirts and coffee mugs to mouse pads and pencils has imagery directly

relating to the works on display. Host institutions further supplement lending

institutions’ incomes from such sales as the exhibitions travel to new locales and

attract a new set of souvenir hunters. Robert Hughes, the American art critic and

author has likened this to “treating [a museum’s] visitors as a bunch of morons going

to a theme park” to buy merchandise that is no more than “a condescending cloning

of the artist’s work.” (Kanter 1999) Not all museums fall into this trap of over-

merchandising their exhibitions. Deborah Ziska, spokesperson for the National

Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. takes a pass on the aforementioned merchandise,

stating that the goods sold at their gift shops retain an educational purpose. (Ibid)

This merchandising of art has reached its zenith in the establishment of the

museum store operating outside of the confines of the museum itself. The Museum

of Modern Art in New York, the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the

Smithsonian in Washington D.C., and the Tate Museums in the United Kingdom all

operate extremely successful catalogue and web-based selling platforms for

merchandise derived from their collections and special exhibitions. A phenomenon

only seen by the author in the United States is a chain retailer called The Museum



Student 0068

13

Store. Only found in high-end shopping malls and retail developments, this retailer

brings together reproductions and other merchandise from many of the larger and

well-known museums in the country under one roof. Van Gogh posters sell

alongside reproductions of the skulls of early hominids and jewellery incorporating

motifs and artwork from various collections. Recently, they have shifted to a more

internet-focused sales process and are expected to forego their retail sites altogether

in the coming years.

CONCLUSION

For better or worse, the blockbuster exhibition is likely here to stay. Increased access

to collections in the new era of global trade is proving them to become more and

more the norm, rather than the exception. Since their beginnings, blockbusters have

allowed unequalled access to works from far-flung institutions under one roof. They

have brought increased public participation in the museum experience, taking away

a good deal of the elitist trappings that for too long surrounded these places

designed to protect our artistic and cultural heritage – for everyone. Currently, they

are helping to provide and sustain museums in a time when subsidy is decreasing

steadily from the public sector.

However, these strengths are often cited as weaknesses to some observers.

Increased access has meant increased crowds, detracting from what many

museumgoers view as essential to the experience – quiet, reflective time spent with

the collection. The reach of the corporate model into the management of museums

has drawn criticism as well. Corporate involvement in sponsorships fosters belief in

a dwindling lack of independence in curatorial and display considerations. To some,



Student 0068

14

increased merchandising and the perceived excess inherent in this exercise vulgarize

the art being represented. Only time will tell if the blockbuster can provide

satisfaction to everyone’s liking, as one can be assured of more to come in the not so

distant future.



Student 0068

APPENDICES

I. TABLE 1 – TOP 20 MUSEUM EXHIBITIONS (by total Museum Attendance), 2002

II. Raphael, Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, c. 1514-16

Rembrandt, Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, 1639



Student 0068

Appendix I

TABLE 1 - TOP 20 MUSEUM EXHIBITIONS (by total Museum Attendance), 2002

EXHIBITION VENUE TOTAL

ATTENDANCE

AVERAGE

DAILY

ATTENDANCE

Van Gogh and Gauguin Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 739,117 6,719

Van Gogh and Gauguin Art Institute of Chicago 690,951 6,281

Masterpieces from the Prado Museum National Museum of Western

Art, Tokyo 516,711 5,616

Matisse / Picasso Tate Modern, London 467,166 4,671

Surrealist Revolution Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris 450,000 4,500

The Artists of the Pharaohs Musée du Louvre, Paris 450,000 4,285

Treasures of Ancient Egypt National Gallery of Art,

Washington 430,772 4,026

Gerhard Richter MOMA, New York 333,695 4,020

The Secret Gallery and the Nude Museo del Prado, Madrid 289,239 4,074

Andy Warhol Tate Modern, London 218,801 4,052

New York Renaissance from the Whitney Museum Palazzo Reale, Milan 119,575 766

Art from the Chicago Public Schools Collection Art Institute of Chicago 101,216 779

Buddha: Radiant Awakening Art Gallery of New South Wales,

Sydney 82,594 779

New Architecture in LA and Douglas Gordon Museum of Contemporary Art,

Los Angeles 81,643 770

Andreas Gursky Museum of Contemporary Art,

Chicago 76,919 777

Impressionist Still-Life Phillips Collection, Washington 73,160 770

Treasures from the Kremlin Indianapolis Museum of Art 70,704 760

American Sublime Pennsylvania Academy of the

Fine Arts, Philadelphia 47,559 767

Richard Artschwager Serpentine Gallery, London 43,149 770

Milan in a Van Victoria and Albert Museum,

London 38,000 776

Source: The Art Newspaper (cited in Anonymous 2003)



Student 0068

Appendix II

RAPHAEL, PORTRAIT OF BALDASSARE CASTIGLIONE,

C. 1514-16, MUSEE DU LOUVRE, PARIS, FRANCE

© MUSEE DU LOUVRE/A. DEQUIER - M. BARD

REMBRANDT, PORTRAIT OF BALDASSARE CASTIGLIONE, 1639, ALBERTINA, VIENNA, AUSTRIA

© ALBERTINA MUSEUM

4

The inscription on the drawing is in the artist’s hand:

On the left: de Conte batassar de Kastijlyone van raefael – ‘The Count Balthassar Castiglione by Raphael’

On the right: verkoft voor 3500 gulden – ‘sold for 3500 guilders’

Below: het geheel caergesoen tot luke van Nufeelen heft gegolden 59456: - : Ano 1639 – ‘the whole

cargo of Lucas van Nuffeelen fetched fl. 59456. Anno 1639’ (Benesch 1954: 103)



Student 0068

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANONYMOUS (2000) ‘The Trouble with Blockbusters’, Economist, 11 November, v.357, i.8196,

pp. 105-106.

----------------- (2003) ‘Showcasing: The busiest shows are rarely the most enjoyable.’ Economist

15 February, v.366, i.8311, p. 78.

BENESCH, OTTO (1954) The Drawings of Rembrandt: Volume II – The Leiden Years/The Early

Amsterdam Period, 1625-1640, London: Phaidon.

CHANG, RICHARD (2005) ‘Exhibit: Mummies at Bowers Museum’, Orange County Register

17 April.

DELINGPOLE, JAMES (2006) ‘What are museums for? The Charles Douglas-Home Memorial

Trust Award 2005.’ Times Online, 17 March 2006 [Internet] <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

article/0,,6-2090955,00.html> Viewed 21 March 2006.

DUNN, JIMMY (2005) ‘The US King Tut Exhibit Tour’ [Internet] <http://www.touregypt.net/

featurestories/tutexhibit.htm> Viewed 07 March 2006.

FREY, BRUNO & VAUTRAVERS-BUSENHART, ISABELLE (1996) ‘Special Exhibitions and Festivals:

Culture’s Booming Path to Glory’, In FREY, BRUNO (2003) Arts & Economics: Analysis &

Cultural Policy. 2nd Ed., Berlin: Springer, pp. 67-93.

FREY, BRUNO (2003) Arts & Economics: Analysis & Cultural Policy. 2nd Ed., Berlin: Springer.

FULLER, STEPHEN (2004) The Economic and Fiscal Impact of the Proposed Corcoran Gallery

Expansion on the District of Columbia.

GIBSON, ERIC (2003) ‘The Art Crowd: What’s wrong with blockbuster museum exhibits? Too

many people.’ WSJ.com Opinion Journal, 22 May. [Internet] <http://www.opinionjournal.com>

Viewed 20 February 2006.

GROYS, BORIS (2002) ‘The Museum in the Age of Mass Media’, Catalogue to Documenta 11

(Translated by Matthew Partridge), pp. 108-114.

HANNUM, TERENCE (2003) ‘Not Known Until Named.’ Bridge Online. [Internet]

<http://www.bridgemagazine.org/online> Viewed 05 March 2006.

HASKELL, FRANCES (2000) The Ephemeral Museum: Old Master Paintings and the Rise of the Art

Exhibition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

HEILBRUN, JAMES & GRAY, CHARLES (2001) The Economics of Art and Culture. 2nd Ed.,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

JANTZ, MERLE (2003) ‘How the Arts – and Carnegie Museums – Drive Tourists to Pittsburgh’,

Carnegie, May/June 2003, pp. 20-22

JEFFRIES, STUART (2005) ‘Art for shuffling’s sake’, The Guardian. 23 February 2005.



Student 0068

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

JOHNSON, PETER (2003) ‘Museums’, In: Towse, Ruth, (ed.) (2003) A Handbook of Cultural

Economics. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., pp. 315-320

KANTER, LARRY (1999) ‘Van Gogh, Inc.: You’ve Seen the Paintings. Now Buy the Lunchbox’,

Salon Money, [Internet] http://www.salon.com/money/feature/1999/02/12feature.html>

Viewed 11 March 2006.

KIRK, LISA (2005) Artist’s Statement. [Internet] <http://www.lisakirkprojects.com> Viewed 06

March 2006.

MACDONALD, HEATHER (2001) ‘The Met’s Triumphant Democratic Elitism’, City Journal,

Winter 2001.

MCLEAN, KATHLEEN (1999) ‘Museum Exhibitions and the Dynamics of Dialogue’, Daedalus, v

128, i 3, pp. 83-88.

MULLENS, ANNE (2004) ‘The Making of a Blockbuster’ BCBusiness September 2004, pp. 55-63.

NINETTO, AMY (1998) ‘Culture Sells: Cézanne and Corporate Identity’, Cultural Anthropology,

v 13, n 2, pp. 256-282, May 1998.

RE-TITLE.COM (2005) ‘Profile of Lisa Kirk’, [Internet] < http://www.re-title.com/artists/lisa-

kirk.asp> Viewed 06 March 2006.

SKRAMSTAD, HAROLD (1999) ‘An Agenda for American Museums in the Twenty-First

Century’, Daedalus v.128, i.3, p. 109-116.

SPAYDE, JOHN (1999) ‘Temple of the Truth or Forum for Identities?’ Utne Reader, 27 October

1999.

STANLEY, DICK, ROGERS, JUDY, SMELTZER, SANDRA, & PERRON, LUC. (2000) ‘Win, Place or Show:

Gauging the Economic Success of the Renoir and Barnes Art Exhibits.’ Journal of Cultural

Economics v.24, pp. 243-255

TOWSE, RUTH, (ed.) (2003) A Handbook of Cultural Economics. Cheltenham, United Kingdom:

Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.

VACHON, DANA (2006) ‘Cocktails for the Arts: Museums compete for young patrons.”

International Herald Tribune, 12 January 2006.

WEIL, STEPHEN (2002) Making Museums Matter. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution

Press.

Documents

Art Business Marketing Assessment