Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 297–308, 2001 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.Pergamon

Printed in Great Britain0260-4779/02/ $ - see front matter

PII:S0260-4779(01)00036-X

The Contemporary Museum andLeisure: Recreation As a MuseumFunction

Awoniyi Stephen

Overview

Today, the museum in modern society has acquired a significantly broader pub-lic role than its early predecessors. Underlying its present-day symbolic and utili-tarian roles, therefore, is the goal of benefiting the wider public. This contri-bution first recapitulates the traditional view of the museum as partner incurating public education, and then moves to a more synoptic consideration ofthe museum’s interaction with the public and advances the view that this broadpublic context facilitates the experiences of leisure. It proposes that themuseum, without abdicating what it currently does, can usefully examine itselfwithin the framework of leisure facilitation with the intention of enlarging itsvalue (i.e. the museum’s value) within contemporary society. Using that foun-dation, the museum can articulate and harness the possibilities of leisure (whoseattributes the museum already embodies) as an added function in its mission ofserving the contemporary public. This contribution concludes with a poeticlook at the value of leisure in modern society and suggests that the functionsof the museum discussed here can all be integrated.

Introduction

The museum in contemporary society has evidently acquired a considerablybroader public role than its early predecessors. Remarkable in fostering thisaccomplishment is the fact that the modern museum is, in large, a public insti-tution, so that underlying its symbolic and utilitarian roles, therefore, is the goalof directly benefiting more of the public. Among its primary functions, themuseum serves as a collector and preserver of objects, but among its broadercultural roles the museum serves as a symbol of community pride and, generally,as an institution which contributes to civic enlargement. The museum’s imageand actions are ostensibly and intentionally guided by the goal of contributingto the advancement of the collective. Drawing upon these functions and roles,this contribution recapitulates the traditional view of the museum and thenmoves the discussion to a parallel, but different, scenario. In the former, thequintessential scenario, the object or artifact is seen as the key element under-pinning the museum, and from that essential component emerges a fundamentalmuseum function: the education of the public. In the succeeding synoptic scen-

298 The Contemporary Museum and Leisure

ario, the museum—given its combination of spaces, artifacts, visitors, and itsplace embedded within popular culture—is viewed as a context for the broaderexperiences of leisure. This latter scenario incarnates the thesis of the presentcontribution: the modern museum, through its own ‘natural’ evolution, hasembodied an additional definable function; it effectively features elements andfosters experiences which make it definable as increasingly a context forrecreation. The contribution concludes with an overview of the evolution ofthe design of the museum building, a key objective operator in this accretionto the role of the museum. Reflecting on the concepts of leisure presented, andre-evaluating the context of the museum and its evolution, museum pro-fessionals are encouraged to discover possibilities for further enhancement ofthe role of the museum within the community.

Function of the Museum

Stephen Weil, one of the decade’s notable thinkers on museum matters, hassuggested that it is useful to draw a distinction between the function ofmuseums and their purpose. Commonly, claimed Weil (1990) museums havebeen defined in terms of their most distinctive function. “The very utility of adefinition is to clarify what is different and distinctive about the subject itdefines”, wrote Weil, and “what is distinctive and different about museums…isthat they collect and display objects”(p. 45). Consequently, Weil claimed thepractice of collecting to be a function of museums. But, continued Weil, thefact that collecting is done as a means to a “larger and publicly beneficial pur-pose” (p. 45) is frequently overlooked in definitions. We ought to start, arguedWeil, “with the proposition that the museum’s raison d’etre is to provide animportant public benefit” (p. 50) through producing an impact on the lives ofpeople. That “impact”, as Goodman chose to explain it, is the “improvementin the comprehension and creation of the worlds we live in” (cited in Weil(1990) [p. 55]1. Museums are of different kinds, Goodman added, but the statedgoal should be a common end for all of them, regardless of their different orien-tations.

One of the most recognized ways in which museums strive to help us meetthe goal of improvement in the comprehension and creation of our world isthrough their educational function. Hooper-Greenhill (1992) has claimed that“knowledge is now understood as the commodity that museums offer” (p. 2). Itis an optimistic appraisal, yet there is little doubt that the contemporary museumattempts to provide us with new information or attempts to help us re-structureold knowledge through interpretation. Weil (1990) claimed that museums pro-vide stimulation and empowerment for us as learners. In empowerment, heexplained, members of the public are provided with the opportunity (throughthe museum’s programs) to make personal, better-informed judgements andchoices about the past and the future respectively. Bennett (1995) noted thatindividuals can use the museum’s resources to make “authored statements” (p.104) in their acquisition of knowledge. In stimulation, the museum’s programsare valuable in widening our perspectives, raising our creative acuity, and gener-ally encouraging us to “participate in the organization and reorganization of[our] experience” (Weil, 1990 [p. 55]; also Goodman, 1988, p. 145).

The museum serves its educational function, among others, by “assembling a

299Awoniyi Stephen

collection of…works that it seeks to make both physically and intellectuallyaccessible” (Weil, 1995, p. 82). While discussing primarily art museums, Weil’sobservations are equally applicable to other kinds of museums which work withcollections. Museum objects are thus to continue to be regarded as essentialcomponents of the museum purpose. Weil (1990) had earlier argued that thecollections alone do not constitute a sufficient condition for a museum to be, norcollecting (including preservation) its purpose, but he identified the presence ofmuseum objects to be a necessary condition for the museum’s existence.Indeed, condensing the role of the museum in a minimalist fashion, Goodman(1988) succinctly stated that the museum’s major mission is “making workswork” (p. 145). In other words, the museum accomplishes its goals byaccessioning, borrowing, preserving, using, and generally managing works(collections, museum objects, or artifacts) effectively. These essential works arethe medium which the museum uses to “[interact] with all our experience…inthe continuing advancement of our understanding” (Goodman, 1988, p. 147).2

The artifact does not only serve as a tool for the museum, however, for thepublic, by its seeming interest in museum objects, seems to be investing a differ-ent kind of value upon some of these objects in themselves. As presented in anexample by Weil (1995) eleven thousand visitors a day attended a Rene Magritteexhibition in New York during the winter of 1992 to 1993, with ticket scalpers[touts] reselling $12.50 tickets for as much as $100 per pair. Alexander (1988)has attributed our interest in collecting, preserving and viewing artifacts to anintuition about history. It should be noted here that a sense of history is a contex-tual concept which subsumes, equally, interest in both the past and presentfor the benefit of the future. Thus, as Weil (1995) noted, museums assemble acollection—both from the past and the present—for the benefit of the presentgeneration as well as “to serve as the patrimony of a succession of future gener-ations” (p. 83). As Alexander (1988) continued, the artifacts enable us to esteemhuman achievements (which could be construed as imbuing us with a sense ofpride) and discover human inheritance (which could also be seen as providingus with a contextual and cosmic sense of connectedness). Weil (1995) notedthat the artifact in the museum enables us to “gain a better appreciation of thatuniquely human capacity for creative transformation” (p. 108) which is clearlyembodied in the work, and allows us to “celebrate the human accomplishmentof the many” (p. 108).

Alexander (1988) offered several criteria by which we appreciate artifacts andreflect on their significance to us. These criteria include age, skill, cultural mean-ing, aesthetic quality and rarity. Allusions were made above, in greater or lesserdegrees, to the first four criteria in the discussion of historical significance,human accomplishment and creativity. The fifth criterion, rarity, might be aproduct of age, exceptional creativity, cost, or a combination of those or morefactors. Weil (1990) observed that when truly rare and beloved objects are foundamong a museum’s exhibited collections, they “provide visitors with an extra-ordinary experience” through their encounters with objects which are “not gen-erally a part of their everyday lives” (p. 52).3

Museums, it has been said, have a greater mission of serving an importantpublic benefit through the accomplishment of their functions and the use oftheir resources. Ultimately, as Goodman (1988) stated, through our encounterwith museums and their artifacts, our experiences are re-organized and our

300 The Contemporary Museum and Leisure

worlds are re-made. Some observers with a broader agenda suggest that thescheme of the re-making of our worlds is not framed solely by immediate, inti-mate, personal outcomes such as broadening our knowledge of a different cul-ture or honing our artistic techniques. These observers see certain catholicsocietal and cultural values which have been wrought by the lives of museums.For instance, Bennett (1995) restated Hooper-Greenhill’s argument that thepresent day public museum sustains the democratic order through affording the“sharing [of objects that would have otherwise been] private” and “exposing[what would otherwise have been] concealed” (p. 89). Through the rebuffingof the tyranny of old aristocratic privileges, and the opportunity for the edu-cation of all citizens made possible, the museum is serving the “collective goodof the state” (p. 89). Bennett also pointed out that the museum has, on someoccasions, served as a reformer of public manners. By discouraging, among itsvisitors, forms of behavior associated with certain places (for example, the bois-terous pleasures of fairs and bars), the museum provides the setting for refinedforms of public behavior to be internalized. In contemporary society, the roleof the museum is valuable as a place of education, a source of civic pride, anda place to enhance social behavior and foster a sense of community throughspending time with friends and strangers alike.

The Contemporary Museum: An Added Role

The contemporary museum is, largely, a public place; it is not the franchise ofonly the few, as in earlier times. The emergence of the museum from theshadows of privilege into the arena of public life (and mass culture) has attend-ant implications. The endless unfurling of culture is an irresistible force. Anyinstitution caught in its tide is moulded into a new form which embodies someof the ideals or characteristics of the evolving culture. The current of culturehas swept the modern museum into an unpremeditated role: it is, today, a settingfor the recreational experience. Without having to compromise its traditionalfunctions, the modern museum may do well to examine itself—and, hopefully,discover some benefits—by situating itself, if only for discursive purposes,within the larger definitional context of the leisure establishment. This is thecase because much contemporary museum visiting takes place during timewhich may be described as leisure time, draws upon discretionary income andoften occurs with an attendant expectation of a pleasurable experience—thesame conditions which, among others, describe the contexts of many otherforms of recreation and amusement. The perspective of the museum as a contextfor recreation certainly need not conflict with the museum’s functions of col-lecting and educating, nor does it necessarily negate Weil (1990) and Goodman’s(1988) explication of the role of the museum as serving a greater public benefit:that of contributing to a good quality of life.

Qualities of Leisure in a Leisure Context

The museum as a context which affords recreation can be investigated throughthe perspective describing the occurrence of leisure in terms of the nature ofthe individual’s experience.4 Shaw (1985) noted that the idea of leisure asexperience has become “increasingly popular among leisure researchers” (p. 2).

301Awoniyi Stephen

Howe and Rancourt (1990) also indicated that models of leisure which view itas subjective experience or state of mind “hold the most promise” for under-standing leisure (p. 401). Kelly and Godbey (1992) explained this orientationin interpretation in terms of the emergence of a post-materialist world viewwhich places great emphasis on “the quality [italics added] of life’s experiences”(p. 498).

One of the scholars most credited with advancing the leisure-as-experienceconcept is John Neulinger. He proposed that there are two broad, primary categ-ories of leisure conceptualization: objective and subjective (Neulinger, 1981).Objective definitions of leisure are based on more easily apprehended indicatorssuch as time. Subjective definitions, on the other hand, are more concernedwith the experience of the individual. Neulinger (1981) stated that a subjectivedefinition would “lead us to emphasize the qualitative rather than the quantitat-ive aspects of leisure” (p. 49). Thus it is the characteristics which describe thecontent of the experience that count. The view is echoed by Kelly (1990) whenhe wrote that “leisure is defined in terms of what is perceived in the experienceitself” (p. 419).

Some of the qualities which describe the leisure experience were outlinedby Shaw (1985) as perceptual dimensions of leisure. These include, amongothers, such phenomena as enjoyment, freedom, relaxation, personal growthand social interaction—qualities which can readily be derived, it should benoted, in a museum environment. Samdahl and Kleiber (1988) observed thatthese experiences of leisure are characterized by positive affect. Roberts (1999)explained that lay people who, in their “everyday understandings associate leis-ure with choice, lack of constraint, being able to express oneself, and doingthings voluntarily”, also refer to leisure as being “pleasurable or enjoyable andsometimes relaxing” (pp. 146–147).5

The qualities which describe an experience are embellished within thatexperience. Making reference to freedom, one of the perceptual dimensionslisted above (and considered to be a necessary defining quality of leisure), Rojek(2000) wrote that “in dealing with leisure we are dealing with human relationsin which people believe themselves to be more free than in other parts of theirlives” (p. 207).6 Also writing about freedom in leisure, Harper (1986) noted thatit is “experienced as an intensification of our ordinary experience [i.e. of free-dom itself]” (p. 127).7 The experience is, so to speak, “thicker” (p. 127). Thus,while integrated into the entire event, the quality of freedom is still recognizableto the individual (pp. 125–126). Like freedom, qualities of leisure can beexpected to be intensified and recognizable during participation in a leisureexperience.

If the foregoing analysis is tenable within the context of the contemporarymuseum, visitors who see their experience as leisure-like are likely to perceivean amplification (Harper, 1986) of the qualities inherent in that experience (e.g.enjoyment is recognized in the midst of the physical activity of walking fromexhibit gallery to exhibit gallery; perception of freedom is accentuated, eventhough some minor constraints—such as inability to touch art works—exist).Human action combined with perception defines the leisure event. As Kelly(1990) reminds us, it is in the “real contexts of action” that we are able toexperience leisure (p. 420).

302 The Contemporary Museum and Leisure

The Museum Context as Facilitator of the Experience of Leisure

Education

The central role of the museum object in the existence and function of themuseum has been noted above. The museum object, however, can also be seenas a facilitator of the leisure experience. Among the ends of leisure, wrote JoffreDumazedier, is the freely chosen effort to broaden one’s knowledge (cited inEdginton et al., 1998). A major function of the museum is the use of its objectsfor education. While the form of learning at a museum may be different in sev-eral ways from learning in the traditional classroom, it is relevant here that learn-ing in the former is done without many of the rules and obligations whichaccompany the latter—an important distinction to make when discussing leisure.

It may also be relevant to point out that one of the cultures known to haveheld leisure as one of the highest ideals, the ancient Greek culture, also sawintellectual elevation as a necessary component of the process which wasbelieved to lead to the attainment of that highest goal. The Greeks set out to“produce, via education”, wrote Goodale and Godbey (1988), “a higher orderof [the human]” (p. 18). The authors also wrote:

To the early [Greek] philosophers, then, leisure was not simply the freedom fromthe necessity of being occupied…Leisure was an essential element in the realizationof the ideals of the culture: knowledge leading to virtuous choices and conductwhich, in turn, leads to true pleasure and happiness. (pp. 23–24)

Contemplation

Cultivation of the mind in the ancient Greek culture was fostered through con-templation. Notably, Aristotle, like several other Greek philosophers, believedthat the human was distinguished by the ability to think and reason (Goodaleand Godbey, 1988). To him, contemplation brought humans “as close as possibleto practicing what is most godlike or divine within our nature” (Goodale andGodbey, 1988, p. 23). Contemplation itself was possible because of the avail-ability of time for the free Greek citizen, but this objective dimension (i.e. freetime) of leisure, itself, was nobly turned around by the Greeks as an opportunityfor cultivating the good citizen. As Goodale and Godbey summed it up, “excel-lence of the soul [and] fellowship with the divine [were] the ideals within whichthe philosophy of leisure was born” (p.24).

In a parallel modern perspective, Rojek (2000) described Umberto Eco’s pointof view that the “aesthetic idea of culture entails a degree of idleness as a necessarycondition for cultural growth” (p. 113). The individual cultivation of culture “inthe midst of the staple transactions of mundane reality” (p. 113) is not possible,the argument continued, and so the person who would attain the high culturemust engage in “a certain detachment from everyday life” (p. 113). Literally andmetaphorically, the museum offers this opportunity, in displaying works of art thatvisitors can sit back and contemplate—and, if possible, disappear into its layeredand deeper world and message. While seated in the ordinary space of the museum,an individual can transcend ‘mundane’ experiences and journey within deepermanifestations of the experience. As Harper (1986) wrote concerning the intensi-fication that characterizes the leisure occasion, “an experience [can be] integratedwithin [yet] demarcated from our more ordinary experiences” (p. 125).

303Awoniyi Stephen

Social Experience

The museum, especially the modern museum with its array of ancillary spaces(e.g. cafeteria, theater, shop), affords a social experience for the visitor. Socialinteraction, noted Edginton et al. (1998) is a component of many types of leisureengagement. Other authors have highlighted the significance of the socialexperience in the leisure context (Payne, 1991; Podilchak, 1991; Shaw, 1985).

Place

Above all, the varieties and configurations of spaces characteristic of many mod-ern museums enable activities which are associated with leisure and its experi-ences to occur. Galleries, soaring (and usually well-lit) atria, theatres, cafeteria,courts and elegant fountains all attract energetic and admiring visitors. Thesespaces and elements of the physical setting enable people to be pleasantly sur-prised, encourage visitors to esteem, cherish, sit and relax, and make it possiblefor a variety of social experiences and special social events to take place. Insome cases, the very act of visiting the venue even takes second place to otherpleasures—for instance at the Pompidou Center in Paris where some visitorssimply come to view the city from the top of the building and depart withoutsetting foot in a gallery (Filler, 1991)). These thoughts about the physical contextof the modern museum direct attention to its physical form and attendant impli-cations.

The Contemporary Public Museum and Leisure

By the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the public museum had taken hold,with people of all callings beginning to visit them (Davis, 1990))8, and visitingthe museum became a fashionable activity for the middle-class Rybczynski(1993). The large numbers of viewers to be accommodated by museums todayhave necessitated modifications to the design of buildings intended to hold anddisplay artifacts. As a consequence, there has been a desire among museumdesigners and their clients to create a setting endowed with a contemporaryidentity fit for the museum’s re-emergence as an important civic institution andone which can effectively accommodate large groups of people. The architec-ture of many earlier museums, temples usually Classical in form where art couldbe viewed, “provided a serene and noble setting for the experience of art”(Rybczynski, 1993, p. 36).

The image of the museum as a magnanimous, sacrosanct place lasted well intothe twentieth century and is, in fact, still largely with us. But other architecturalapproaches, which have had an impact on imagery, have been explored overthe decades of the twentieth century. For example, Rybczynski (1993) hascharacterised the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas, and the Menil Col-lection in Houston, Texas, as non-imposing structures where the visitor is easilyand directly led to the artwork. The simpler forms exploited by these twomuseum buildings are due, among other things, to the fact that they are bothrelatively small museums which do not have to accommodate large crowds. Inaddition, because they are privately endowed, they do not have to rely on admis-sion charges (nor have to justify public funding) for their survival. Most contem-

304 The Contemporary Museum and Leisure

porary public art museums, argued Rybczynski, “are obliged to take a differentarchitectural approach, one in which the building [as well as] the collectionmust attract the public” (p. 45).

The Role of the Museum Building and Physical Setting in Fostering aCulture of Pleasure

Attracting the masses to the museum has been partly conditioned by the needto generate revenue. What the public desires, suggested Mintz (1994) is theintersection of education and entertainment. The building, its facilities and itssetting—no longer just its contents alone—are being planned to entice andenthrall. We are succeeding in creating what the art museum curator WilliamRubin has called “pleasure palaces” (cited in Davis (1990, p. 18)). No longer isthe museum always to be considered as a serene temple, isolated from the worldaround it. The “desanctification” (Davis, 1990, p. 42) of the museum as a settingfor art can be traced to places like the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris.Designed to house, among other things, the Musee National d’Art Moderne, itwas opened in the late 1970s. Besides art display, the building contains a library,a center for music, cinemas, restaurants and cafes. Indeed, the Center was billedby one of its architects to be “a building for culture, information and entertain-ment” (Davis, 1990, p. 41).

The Pompidou Center, unlike most earlier museums, was kept open late intothe evening, and was filled with “life, food, and drink” (Davis, 1990, p. 41) inaddition to its art, films and lectures. The museum leaders, according to theauthor, were “indeed providing ‘entertainment’ that matched anything currentlyavailable in Paris” (p. 41). In the plaza in front of the center, as described byDavis, “visitors encounter hundreds of fellow citizens strolling, chatting, orwatching dozens of wandering dancers and musicians who fill the air with themusic of drums, banjos, trumpets, and more” (p. 38). From its opening, thecenter has, not surprisingly, been a magnet for visitors.

Like the Pompidou Center, blended into unhallowed city life flourishingaround it, other museums have discovered the benefit of being located in theheart of a city, for splendid are such places for attracting a potential audience.For example, the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts has been built within an area ofthe city centre earmarked to contain theaters, concert halls, and other smallermuseums (Davis, 1990; Searing, 1983). Museum officials at the Center for theFine Arts in Miami, when the building was first erected, hoped that theirmuseum would be helped by being “an air-conditioned mecca in the midst ofsmall shops [and] stores” (Davis, 1990, p. 69).

However, the idea of creating pleasure palaces has not gone entirely unchal-lenged. When the eminent American architect, I. M. Pei, capped the 1980s reno-vation of the Louvre with a glass pyramid which drew curious looks, he wasaccused of committing “aesthetic heresy” (Sancton, 1993, p. 69). In his defense,Pei responded that “the mixing of art, culture and commerce is not impossible”(Sancton, 1993, p. 69), and in his design of the East Building of the NationalGallery of Art in Washington, D.C., Pei again employed what Filler (1991)described as “a vast glass-roofed atrium—replete with escalators and potted ficustrees” (p. 14). Filler pointed out that it gave the building “an aspect of an upmar-ket shopping mall” (p. 14). Such an atrium recalls “a common feature of many

305Awoniyi Stephen

recent hotels, office buildings, and shopping malls”, stated Rybczynski (1993,p. 50), but he also noted that the East Building has been one of the most visitedsites in Washington.9 At the Louvre, Pei also angered some critics by combiningthe museum with an underground shopping gallery which included boutiquesand fast-food counters. In the final analysis, “intentional or not”, suggested Filler(1991), “the architect’s adaptation of the imagery of the contemporary marketplace” has reinforced the image of the museum as a manifestation of popularculture (p. 14).

Challenges which have Impelled the Move Towards Pop Culture

Speaking at the Architectural League in New York in 1986, the architect MichaelGraves stated that “this is a moment in history where we have to realize thatwe’re not just building Kunsthalles or picture galleries”. According to Graves,“we’re building institutions that have places for discussion, places for study, anda social climate as well as a climate in which to see painting and sculpture” (citedin Davis (1990, p. 32)). Rybczynski (1993) pointed out that many contemporarymuseums, apart from having picture galleries which only occupy a fraction ofthe total area, also accommodate curatorial and staff areas, auditoria, lecturerooms, lobbies, restaurants, and the now indispensable souvenir shop and book-store. In addition, there is often now a large space intended for unrelated socialoccasions such as banquets, galas and other public performances. “This expan-sion of the museum’s role makes purists uncomfortable”, stated Rybczynski,“but, given the economic pressures under which all museums labour, it seemsinevitable” (p. 18).

Indeed, as architect Pei noted regarding the commercial entities he includedin the renovation of the Louvre, rental revenue generated from those enterpriseswas needed to finance an underground garage. The growing emphasis on earnedincome, offered Mintz (1994), “has led many museums to develop strategies forattracting a more diversified audience” (p. 33) and that has been causingmuseums to evolve as institutions which must encompass a broader range ofoptions.

As part of the strategy to generate greater revenue, museums must competefor the public’s discretionary time (Mintz, 1994)—time which people use forrecreation, among other things. But other recreational enterprises are also com-peting—and they are doing it in the arena which used to be the preserve ofmuseums. Take, for instance, the entry of some theme parks onto the educationscene. Walt Disney’s EPCOT Center in Orlando is geared towards providing edu-cation in a context of amusement (Mintz, 1994). Such a move by some commer-cial enterprises has forced museums to add more entertainment to their pro-grams in the hope of attracting additional visitors.

Another threat to museums, raised by Mintz (1994), is a combination of shiftsin the dynamics of modern metropolitan life, service obligations, and the riseof some for-profit enterprises such as the Discovery Zone—a learning play-spacewhose programs, the author claimed, are based on years of research conductedin children’s museums and science centers. Mintz argued that Discovery Zonecenters are located in malls in middle-class suburbs. Suburban dwellers, reluctantto visit city centers where the crime rate is higher (and where many long-estab-lished museums are located), are presented with the Discovery Zone as a con-

306 The Contemporary Museum and Leisure

venient alternative. Unlike publicly funded museums, a Discovery Zone doesnot have an obligation to develop “equity programs to serve the underserved”(Mintz, 1994, p. 34) and can thus target the wealthier middle-class.

Such pressures as these are forcing many museums to assume a more obviousmarketing orientation. Mintz (1994) mentioned how, interestingly in 1994, sev-eral major museums were searching for new CEOs (Chief Executive Officers).The very idea of a CEO, claimed the author, indicates a shift in museum culture.Quoting critic John McDonald, Mintz wrote that “the modern museum directoris less of a scholar and more of an entrepreneur” (p. 34), while Filler (1991)writing in The Times Literary Supplement, also noted about museums that thereis a “drive to attract a mass public through aggressive promotional and marketingmethods” (p. 14).

The Contemporary Context

Jack Lang, the former French Minister of Culture, wrote that “museums mustoffer cinemas, auditoriums, pleasant restaurants, rest areas, bookstores, bou-tiques, and gardens. Simply put, the museum must be receptive to the spiritand flesh of human beings” (Davis, 1990, p. 7).10 The audience of the modernmuseum has been described by Davis as “a leisured bonhomme” (p. 20) pursu-ing the search for pleasure, and in respect of this trend, Filler (1991) has likenedthe late twentieth-century museum to a bazaar.

Some observers caution against the risk of losing sight of the original functionsof the museum, and Filler (1991) believed that the commercial trend had alreadypushed works of art into a secondary role. He wrote then, “The spirit as wellas the substance of the works of art on view within the new popular pleasurepalaces have been given much less attention in many of the most publicizednew museums of the past two decades” (p. 14). In fact, as mentioned earlier,at the Pompidou Center, Filler has claimed that many visitors ride the glass-enclosed escalators to the top of the building merely in order to gain a magnifi-cent view of the city and then leave without setting foot in a gallery.

Despite all of the above, some exaggeration possibly accepted, the idea of ashopping mall, as suggested by Rybczynski (1993) may not be a bad model formuseums which are forced to attract a broader public, just so long as the originalfunctions and purposes of museums are not jeopardized. Indeed, he stated, themuseum could be a little bit of a mall, a temple, a grand palace, and a container.

The Museum, Modern Life and the “Poetics of Leisure”

In the postwar years, wrote Rojek (2000), a powerful point that has emergedfrom the literature is the “immense seduction offered by relations of leisure andconsumption as areas of human fulfilment and enrichment” (p. 197). The authorcontinued that this increased emphasis on the value of the leisure experiencehas been facilitated by the expansion of the cultural sphere, a circumstanceundoubtedly supported by the role of public institutions such as the museum(as a context of cultural significance).

In earlier writings, Rojek (1995) drawing on Baudelaire and Bachelard,expounded on the notion that part of what draws people to different types ofleisure activity—including such things as museum visitation—is “the scent of

307Awoniyi Stephen

poetry” which is entailed (p. 122). Amidst the “upheaval, excitement andenergy” (p. 122) of modern accomplishment-driven life, an opportunity to findsome calm is desirable. Some experiences of the museum setting—such as theencounter with art—can be calming episodes; even viewing anthropological andhistoric objects is a return to the calmer past. These experiences illustrate a“poetic return to the elemental” among the “exploding turbulence” of the mod-ern world (p. 123). Although Rojek criticized Baudelaire and Bachelard for notrecognising the apparent contradiction that Modernity sometimes fragmentsconsciousness, the author still claimed that leisure offers a “charm of fulfilmentwhich the density of everyday life negates” (p. 124). Leisure, Rojek continued,is part of the dreamworld of escape and fulfilment which has a “tangible poeticquality” and with which modernity illuminates daily life (p. 124).

The contemporary museum is a place of traditional and newly-redefined cul-tural functions. It is outstanding that the functions that have been identifiedabove are not, with ideal management, incompatible. Using its collected artifactsand physical spaces, the modern museum can function remarkably well as acontext for education, reliving leisure experiences and the general bettermentof life for people in society.

Footnotes

1. Also see Goodman (1988, p. 145).2. It should be noted that the artifact also serves as an origin of instruction in itself. It accomplishes

that function, for example, through serving as a model, directly interpreted by the observer,which instructs the student who learns and copies its techniques. In either situation of expertor self-interpretation, the artifact works by broadening the intellectual experience of each personthat views it. Some viewers, of course, might just appreciate the opportunity to engage the objectrecreationally, for instance, through the pleasures its aesthetic possibilities afford.

3. An additional note: The cost of some objects may be a ready-to-grasp indicator of value or signifi-cance. See the following for examples: Barker, 1989; Barker, 1993; Itoi, 1995; Walker, 1987;Walker, 1989; Weil, 1995).

4. In the following discussion, leisure, the theoretical concept which describes the objective andideative (e.g. ‘spillover,’ ‘compensation’ (Edginton et al., 1998)) contexts of recreation, will beused. The concept of leisure affords the general exploration and discussion of phenomena sur-rounding recreation at a broader (perhaps deeper) substantial level—e.g. beyond objective indi-cators of recreation such as time and activity, there have been other perspectives such as theexistential view of leisure (Kelly and Godbey, 1992) the psychological dimension of leisure(Neulinger, 1981) the socio-cultural/socio-economic context of leisure (Allen, 1989; Pieper, 1963;Veblen, 1934) etc.

5. See, also, Harre (1990), Payne (1991), Podilchak (1991), Roadburg (1983). While Payne (1991)and Podilchak (1991) attempted to distinguish between fun and enjoyment, the authors illustratedboth qualities as desirable characteristics of the leisure experience.

6. The concept of freedom is considered to be one of the most widely acknowledged by leisurescholars as central to the interpretation of the leisure experience. It is, however, considered asa complex notion. It involves such questions as engagement or discontinuation of an activity orexperience (Jackson, 1991) removal of constraint (Harper, 1986; Hooper-Greenhill, 1992; Jack-son, 1991; Reed, 1996) intensification of the experience (Harper, 1986) etc.

7. Harper drew upon Dewey’s idea of intensification.8. This followed the ‘democratization of art’ (Rybczynski, 1993, p. 14) in the decades following the

French Revolution.9. This is not to claim that the reason for high visitation is the atrium, but its attraction could be

a factor.10. Also, see (Filler, 1991, p. 14).

308 The Contemporary Museum and Leisure

Bibliography

Alexander, H. G. (1988) Why preservation? InL. Aagaard-Mogensen (ed.), The idea of the museum:Philosophical, artistic and political questions, (pp 7–15). Lewiston/Queenston, NY, Edwin Mell-en.

Allen, R. T. (1989) The philosophy of leisure. InT. Winnifrith and C. Barrett (eds), The philosophyof leisure, (pp 20–33). New York, St. Martin’s.

Barker G. British rail’s runaway Renoir, ARTnews, 1989, Summer 88:39.Barker G. The march of old masters, ARTnews, 1993, September 92:35–37.Bennett, T. (1995) The birth of the museum: History, theory, politics. Routledge, London.Davis, D. (1990) The museum transformed: Design and culture in the post-Pompidou age. Abbe-

ville, New York.Edginton, C. R., Jordan, D. J., DeGraaf, D. G. and Edginton, S. R. (1998) Leisure and life satisfaction:

Foundational perspectives. WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston.Filler M. Money-changers in the temple, The Times Literary Supplement, 1991, July 19, 14-15.Goodale, T.L. and Godbey, G.C. (1988) The evolution of leisure: Historical and philosophical per-

spectives. Venture Publishing, State College, PA.Goodman, N. (1988) ‘The end of the museum?’, In L. Aagaard-Mogensen (ed.), The idea of the

museum: Philosophical, artistic and political questions, (pp 139–155). Lewiston/Queenston, NY,Edwin Mellen.

Harper, W. (1986) Freedom in the experience of leisure. Leisure Sciences, 8(2), 115–129.Harre, R. (1990) Leisure and its varieties. Leisure Studies, 9(3), 187–195.Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992) Museums and the shaping of knowledge. Routledge, London.Howe, C. Z. and Rancourt, A. M. (1990) The importance of definitions of selected concepts for

leisure inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 12(4), 395–406.Itoi K. Bleckner up to $125,000, ARTnews, 1995, May 94:47–48.Jackson, E. L. (1991) Special issue introduction: Leisure constraints/constrained leisure. Leisure

Sciences, 13(4), 273–278.Kelly, J. R. (1990) Leisure (2nd ed). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Kelly, J. R. and Godbey, G. (1992) The sociology of leisure. Venture, 1992, State College, PA.Mintz A. ‘That’s edutainment’, Museum. News, 1994, November/December, 73:32–35.Neulinger, J. (1981) To leisure: An introduction. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Payne, J. H. (1991) Understanding adult education and leisure. Leisure Studies, 10, 149–162.Pieper, J. (1963) Leisure: The basis of culture. New American Library, New York.Podilchak, W. (1991) Establishing the fun in leisure. Leisure Sciences, 13(2), 123–13623.Reed, E. S. (1996) The necessity of experience. Yale University, New Haven, CT.Roadburg, A. (1983) Freedom and enjoyment: Disentangling perceived leisure. Journal of Leisure

Research, 15(1), 15–26.Roberts, K. (1999) Leisure in contemporary society. CABI Publishing, Oxford, England.Rojek, C. (1995) Decentring leisure. Sage, London.Rojek, C. (2000) Leisure and culture. Macmillan, London.Rybczynski, W. (1993) A place for art: The architecture of the National Gallery of Canada. National

Gallery of Canada, Ottawa.Samdahl, D. M. and Kleiber, D. A. (1988) ‘Self-awareness and leisure experience’. Leisure Sciences,

11(1), 1–10.Sancton T. ‘Pei’s palace of art’, Time, 1993, November 29, 68-70.Searing, H. (1983) New American art museums. Whitney Museum of American Art, New York.Shaw, S. M. (1985) ‘The meaning of leisure in everyday life’. Leisure Sciences, 7(1), 1–24.Veblen, T. (1934) Theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. The Modern

Library, New York.Walker R. W. The $3.6 million Pink Lady, ARTnews, 1987, September, 86:25.Walker R. A. $60 million van Gogh? ARTnews, 1989, September, 88:31.Weil, S. E. (1990) Rethinking the museum: And other meditations. Smithsonian Institution, Wash-

ington, DC.Weil, S. E. (1995) A cabinet of curiosities: Inquiries into museums and their prospects. Smithsonian

Institution, Washington, DC.