Last year, at the AAM Annual Meeting in Baltimore, I signed up for the AAM Diversity Coalition’s Diversity Workshop, expecting a rather debate-loaded enterprise. After all, “diversity” is a serious political subject. To my surprise, the sessions were extremely enjoyable. Could diversity possibly be so much fun? What brought the participants together (ethnic heritage, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, disability) refreshed our main goal: to be better museum professionals.
Discussions on how museums can broaden their audiences have been lumped into a catchall: “diversity” has become a morally charged umbrella term, similar to “change” or “community.” All three terms indicate a new awareness in museums of social changes within their institutions and constituencies. The resulting discourse tends to be framed as a “problem to be solved” (the lack of diversity) and triggers declarations of best intentions.
Could it be that we talk so much about diversity because so little is really changing? Clearly, the frequent references to diversity in museum discourses do not necessarily indicate progress in daily museum operations. In “Museums, Racism, and the Inclusiveness Chasm” (Museum News, November/December 2000) Carlos Tortolero asserts that the effort to integrate the museum field with staff members of color has failed. But whereas people of color, along with people with disabilities, and other minority groups are visibly underrepresented in the American museum profession, lesbian and gay staff and visitors face a different problem. They are invisible.
Over the last two decades, the relationship between museums and their lesbian and gay audiences has followed a complex pattern. The AIDS crisis made visible the impact of gay and lesbian artists on American culture, which led to the first collective response within the art community and the museum world to a gay-related topic: the establishment in 1989 of a Day Without Art in conjunction with World AIDS Day (December 1). The AIDS Memorial Quilt became the largest ongoing community arts project in the world as well as a tool for education. Science museums developed teacher resources and online historical information. The Estate Project for Artists with AIDS and Visual Aid are two of several art projects reflecting the impact of AIDS on the cultural community. This year’s digital Day With(out) Art indicates the impact of the Internet on the increasing number of AIDS-related art and museum events developed to mark World AIDS Day.
Early attempts to display gay-related art were met with fierce resistance by Rev. Donald Wildmon’s conservative American Family Association and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), among others. The 1989 retrospective exhibition of the work of Robert Mapplethorpe at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, partly funded by a grant from the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA), was cancelled (though it was later shown by the Washington Project for the Arts). The controversy led to a debate about government subsidies, provoked Congress in 1990 to enact restrictions on future NEA grants, and resulted in the arrest of the director of the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, a venue for the exhibition, though he was later acquitted of obscenity charges. The 1990 David Wojnarowicz exhibition “Tongues of Flame” at Illinois State University also spurred a national debate. In the public’s mind, both controversies reinforced the idea that gay and lesbian history and culture belong in the realm of sexuality and obscenity. The complexity of the community’s aesthetic, historical, and cultural experience was lost.
Despite the highly politicised atmosphere, many art and history museums and their permanent exhibitions seemed unaffected. Though educational institutions, museums did not react to the larger educational questions raised by the controversies. In their label texts, museums often struggle with a language that hides as much as it indicates. Rarely do curators include references to lesbian and gay history in mainstream exhibitions, though extensive historical studies on the topic have been produced in recent decades. Homophobia, one of the most aggressive but most tolerated forms of bigotry and hate in contemporary society, is not on the radar screen of most American museums and their educational divisions.
However, given the increased interest in lesbian and gay historiography and the community’s growing visibility in other public realms, the mainstreaming of gay and lesbian history seems imminent. How will the inclusion of this history affect American museums? What are the potential conflicts?
WHAT’S NEW IS OLD: VISIBILITY AND HISTORY
Often when we investigate a “new” topic, we discover that it has a long history. And, in fact, there is no vacuum of knowledge when it comes to the relationship between museums and their lesbian and gay visitors. It is not new for gay men and lesbians to urge the documentation of their lives and their history within a public context. Nor have museums suddenly discovered the existence of these visitors. Rather, what has happened is a general social and cultural shift in the approach toward homosexuality in the public arena, which only now, rather late, has reached museums.
In the United States, this process started after 1945 with the emergence of small gay and lesbian human rights groups. Today, at the turn of the millennium, the gay and lesbian community has growing political influence and is aware of its economic and fund-raising potential. This community has set out to reclaim its history and change the cultural and political institutions that traditionally have ignored its presence. As a result, the gay and lesbian audience is being recognized by mainstream society. Madison Avenue has developed clear-cut marketing strategies for gay and lesbian consumers. Politicians have learned to profit from the “gay vote.” Many universities and publishing houses have established lesbian and gay study programs. Lesbian and gay topics and characters have attained a new visibility in film, theater, and television.
These changes have taken place only in recent decades. But the relationship between a gay and/or lesbian identity and its public perception has been discussed since the mid-19th century. Referencing the homoerotic poetry of Ancient Greece, the German Karl Heinrich Ulrichs-the leading gay voice in the second part of the19th century-stressed the importance of visibility and history to the establishment of a homosexual identity. The call for a documentation of gays and lesbians within history, science, and art united many diverse voices-art historians, cultural critics and groups, historians, artists, and activists-some openly, others less so. In the first decades of the 20th century, Germany was at the center of this international debate, but that changed as Hitler rose to power. Magnus Hirschfeld’s famous museum in his Institute for Sexual Science, the first institution to contain many gay-, lesbian-, and transgender-related artifacts, was looted by Nazi students in May 1933. Post-war homophobia in Europe and the United States marginalized or “closeted” discussions on gay and lesbian cultural representation until the June 1969 Stonewall riots in New York. For the first time, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) Americans protested openly and successfully against police harassment. But it wasn’t until the end of the 20th century that gays and lesbians became visible in established cultural and public institutions.
For most of the 20th century, museums functioned not only as educational agents of Western society, but also as schools for mainstream respectability and manners. For the most part, museums were (and are) observers, not agents, of cultural change. Only in recent decades have museums begun to re-evaluate their social function, though they have long been aware of their gay and lesbian visitors. In the 20th century, the sphere of culture and art served many gays and lesbians as a safe haven within a hostile world. But they were silent visitors. And as such, they were welcome in museums.
The current cultural shift marks the end of the closeted relationship. So far, few museums have viewed the gay and lesbian community as a potential new constituency, a specific audience, or an important source of funding. The question museums now face is how to transfer this silent relationship into an open and more mutually beneficial alliance.
A SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) in Washington, D.C., is one institution that has attempted to do so. I have worked for the museum (and other institutions) as a consultant on gay-related research and documentation for a number of years and believe that its work in this field can serve as an example.
USHMM’s mission states that the museum will document the suffering of the primary victims of the Nazis-Jewish people-as well as other groups that were targeted for racial, ethnic, or national reasons, including Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), people with disabilities, Polish people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, political dissidents, and homosexuals. Nevertheless, no one could have predicted that only few years after the museum’s opening “American Gays & Lesbians, Families and Friends” would be acknowledged as among the founders of the museum. Never before had the gay and lesbian community publicly contributed such large donations to a national museum; never before had the community been recognized as a museum founder.
In fact, in the years before the museum opened in 1993, some members of the gay and lesbian community doubted that the Nazi persecution of homosexuals would be addressed within USHMM’s permanent exhibition, despite the museum’s stated goal to include all victims. At that time, the museum’s collections held few related photos and artifacts. USHMM hired me to obtain such items as well as to serve for a shorter period as a link to the lesbian and gay community. The late Jeshajahu Weinberg, the museum’s founding director, and then-Deputy Director Elaine Heumann Gurian were the driving forces behind the institution’s attention to this subject. For the first time, a Holocaust museum’s staff began to implement gay-related research, documentation, and acquisition projects within their regular tasks.
It was a coincidence that the museum opened on the weekend of the Gay and Lesbian March on Washington in 1993. But from the start, USHMM welcomed gay and lesbian visitors as a significant audience. In 1996, USHMM organized the $1.5 Million Gay and Lesbian Campaign, the first such campaign organized by an American museum. Several bonds link gays and lesbians to the museum. Due to the AIDS crisis, this is a community dealing with death and remembrance, central topics at USHMM, though in a different context. Furthermore, gays and lesbians are in search of their history. And the pink triangle, the Nazis’ mark for homosexual men in the concentration camps, has become a prominent, if increasingly controversial, symbol for the community.
SUGGESTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
1. LESBIAN AND GAY MATERIAL CULTURE
The gay and lesbian community has a strong interest in its history and, increasingly, is turning to public institutions to gather information. Discrimination and repression of homosexuality in the 19th and 20th century often led to its detailed description in police, medical, and legal documents. The “love that dared not speak its name” was discussed by writers and psychiatrists, art and cultural critics, military personnel, journalists, and self-appointed guardians of morality. Today, such documents projecting the homosexual as “other” are rich material sources: autobiographical documents, photographs, journals, and artworks depicting gay and lesbian life in the 19th and 20th century can be re-interpreted outside their historical frame. And existing museum collections can be reviewed for gay and lesbian content.
Museums can help in the search for important resources and material culture within the gay and lesbian community itself. Marginalized groups often do not believe that they could hold objects of interest to others. GLBT historical societies and their growing collections; published historical studies; the strong presence of gay and lesbian resources on the Internet; and international GLBT archives and museums facilitate access and research.
2. OUTREACH/IN-REACH
Communicating with a new audience segment should be an open process. Both communities and museums have their sensitive points; coming together is a learning experience for both sides. The GLBT organizational profile has expanded over the last decade, from local to national, from volunteer to professional groups. To reach this audience, museums could send to both local GLBT groups and the media-particularly GLBT-focused online news outlets such as Planet Out-information about specific gay-related as well as general museum activities on a regular basis. October, Lesbian & Gay History Month, or Gay and Lesbian Pride Days, which often are scheduled between May and July, are opportune times for making contact or scheduling programs.
Outreach to diverse constituencies often leads to changes within museums themselves: the so-called “in-reach.” Eventually, this in-reach will extend to all divisions in the institution, from exhibits to education to development.
Lesbian and gay museum staff members may or may not choose to participate in this process. They work in museums not because they are gay or lesbian, but because they are qualified professionals. Deciding whether to come out in the workplace is an individual decision, but GLBT affinity groups can raise awareness and provide a safer atmosphere. However, openly gay and lesbian staff members are not necessarily experts on GLBT history. It is not their responsibility, but that of the museum’s leadership and division heads, to guide the institution through any changes in approach. Gay and lesbian-related exhibitions, research projects, and acquisitions can be initiated by experts and consultants in this field. Once their work is done, however, this knowledge and expertise should be absorbed and implemented as a regular task of the appropriate museum division.
3. A SAFE WORKPLACE
Museums are reflections of society. Anti-discrimination policies, domestic partner benefits, and clear leadership all can help gay and lesbian staff feel safe and appreciated. Museums should confront homophobia both externally and internally. Some members of the corporate world have strived to recognize a diverse workforce and may be able to provide successful examples of staff training programs and/or help in understanding legal requirements.
4. DIVERSITY AND DOLLARS
According to a recent study by MarketResearch.com, the gay and lesbian community will have an estimated buying power of $444 billion by 2004. But if museums want gay and lesbian financial support, museums must offer results. Curatorial responsibility demands not just the development of outreach activities for a specific audience, but a thorough examination of gay and lesbian history, including its place in, and characterization by, mainstream society.
Museums should strive to recognize and address all segments of the GLBT community, which includes people with disabilities and represents all ethnic, religious, social, and economic backgrounds. The community works hard to adequately represent and acknowledge this diversity. For example, the 2000 Gay and Lesbian March on Washington was organized by a predominantly non-white and non-male group.
Museums are public institutions. Addressing gay and lesbian topics may lead to conflicts with other audiences. However, museums must understand that diversity means not just enrichment but also dealing with social conflict and mediation between potentially hostile groups. Eminently qualified to conduct the art of peaceful negotiation, museums do not have a choice about whether to deal with issues of diversity and social conflict. They simply must, every day.
5. MUSEUMS AND GLBT YOUTH
“I think it would be wonderful if there was some kind of museum out there that had displays that actually pertained to GLBT history. . . . Many [gays] grow up feeling like [they] have never done anything worthwhile or that they’re the only person like this around. That is not true, and somehow, they have to have some way, or somewhere, that they can learn that without the fear of being chastised for asking questions [or] punished. . . .” (GLBT youth from Alaska)
Museums cannot solve social conflict. But they can provide, if they choose to do so, a civic space that allows for a reexamination of a culture marked not only by beauty and human achievements, but also by violence and hate. Such an effort might be particularly appreciated by an important group that museums almost never consider: GLBT youth. Most of us are aware of the vulnerable position of members of this group within their families and schools. Educational programs for young people have always been an important museum function. What role, if any, do museums play in the lives of GLBT youth?
In February 2000, I developed a survey on museums and GLBT youth and distributed it to Youth Guardian Services, an Internet-based GLBT youth group with a membership of approximately 1,100. Between Feb. 10 and March 21, 2000, 218 people responded. Here is a brief summary of the survey’s findings:
Most the respondents were high school students between the ages of 14 and 19. Fifty-eight percent were male, 40 percent were female. Seventy-eight percent were white, 8 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were African American, 5 percent were Asian American, and 2 percent were Native American. Sixty-eight percent lived with their families; 47 percent in cities and 29 percent in the suburbs.
Nearly two-thirds of the respondents visited a museum several times a year. Eighty-eight percent indicated an interest in learning about GLBT history.
However, museums were seen as the worst source of that information. Only 4 percent of the respondents said they learned about GLBT history from museums. Other sources included the Internet (89 percent), books (65 percent), gay and lesbian media (54 percent), and friends (53 percent).
Where did you learn what you currently know about GLBT history? (Check all that apply)
 |
In answer to the question, “If you could describe your favorite GLBT exhibit, what would it be?” most respondents answered, “never seen one.” Many suggested topics for possible exhibits, including: gay civil rights history; science as it relates to GLBT issues; the impact of AIDS during the 1980s; gays who have been “erased” from history; Stonewall; the marches on Washington; homosexuality and the Holocaust; family life; and sexual harassment. Some respondents mentioned that exhibitions also have the potential of endangering their visitors: a visit to a gay exhibition could be interpreted as evidence of the visitor’s sexual orientation and consequently lead to harassment, another reminder of the vulnerable position of GLBT youth, even in their local surroundings. “Anyone closeted will avoid special GLBT exhibits for fear of being exposed,” wrote one respondent. “Perhaps . . . these exhibits [should be incorporated] with another exhibit featuring a different minority that may have faced similar problems/attitudes.”
What do GLBT youth think about museums? Seventy-three percent of those responding to the survey agreed that “museums are important institutions for educating GLBT youth.” The “mass media is the only link that gay people have with each other and the world,” wrote one respondent. “Unfortunately it is this media which usually perpetuates negative stereotypes and false images. Museums are meant to be meccas of truth and history. . . . So, were there to be more GLBT exhibits at museums, this would give an alienated community, especially the youth, the opportunity to see more about those who [came] before them to make our lives more comfortable and accepted in the future.”
“Museums are one of the few kinds of places where you don’t have to have an excuse to go,” wrote another. “GLBT stuff in museums would be good for the entire community, even non-GLBT. Museums are for the purpose of education and awareness and appreciation of all cultures and types of people.”
Half of the respondents felt “safe being openly GLBT in a museum environment.” Only 5 percent reported that they had “been intimidated, harassed or discriminated in a museum.” Still, 36 percent said they did “not feel comfortable asking museum staff members about GLBT-related objects or topics in their exhibitions.” And only 16 percent said that “museums I have visited contribute positively to my life as a GLBT youth.”
The doors are not closed. More than half of the survey respondents agreed that their “youth groups should contact museums for help in setting up GLBT educational outreach and public programs.” Sixty-eight percent supported targeted gay and lesbian fund raising “for museum programs if those museums improve our understanding of GLBT history and life.”
It is an astonishing contrast: Despite the lack of information and encouragement the respondents experienced, they still have considerable faith in the current and future role of museums. How can we reward this trust? I have three suggestions:
1. Museums should start to acknowledge the diversity of the young people in their communities and reflect this diversity in their general outreach programs.
2. The first introduction to a museum for GLBT youth is frequently the institution’s Web site. Providing information on gay and lesbian history on your Web site is a first step toward engaging GLBT youth.
3. Remember that in the future GLBT youth will be an important constituency for museums, but not a silent one. As one survey respondent put it, museums should “show more, be more open, accept, and be accepted.”
OVERVIEW GAY AND LESBIAN ARCHIVES
LGBT Archives and Libraries List, US:
New York Public Library
ONE Institute & Archives, US
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California
Kinsey Institute, US
June L. Mazer Lesbian Archives, US
Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives:
Homodok-Lesbian Archive, Amsterdam
Fonds Suzan Daniel, Belgium:
Gay and Lesbian Archives of South Africa
Gay History on the Web
LGBT People of African Descent, US:
Online Guide to LGBT History
GAY AND LESBIAN MUSEUM INITIATIVES
AAM Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Concerns Professional Interest Committee
Gay Museum, Berlin
International Museum of Gay and Lesbian History
Magnus Hirschfeld Society, Berlin
National Museum of Lesbian & Gay History, New York:
Northwest Lesbian and Gay History Museum Project
THANKS
The author expresses his sincere thanks to Youth Guardian Services Board Member Caitlin Ryan and Executive Director Jason Hungerford for their generous advice and support with the survey.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCE ARTICLE
Klaus Mueller: The Invisible Visitor: Museums and the Gay and Lesbian Community. In: Museum News, Sep/Oct 2001. Vol. 80, No. 5, American Association of Museums.