I often joke to people that the ultimate manifestation of an art storage facility will resemble an Amazon warehouse where all movements become gradually automated. For logistics’ sake –efficiency and cost– this makes most sense. Yet fear and perception will prevent this from happening, but should they?
What actually prevents us from moving toward this type of operation? I blame fear wearing a “risk mitigation” costume. We manage collections of cultural patrimony (art included) in deep, inefficient ruts left by the ox carts of previous generations. At that time, it made certain sense, but all things must occasionally evolve away from gills and grow feet. Failure to evolve in general (but especially now), when the industry bleeds out funds to pandemic recovery, will only further pump the brakes on returning to “normalcy”. “Now” is “normal”.
I am actually pointing out that we must not only remain open to renovating our mindsets, but we must actively pursue these changes at all times. “Normalcy” is complacency. It means you are not seeking to improve. We often perceive that our institution has locked us in a well-regulated, bureaucratic prison, but once you turn on the lights, you will realize it is actually just an escape room and, thus, just a game. All you need to do now is conjure your creativity to get out.
Just last week, I asked a vendor working on a project how big his operation is and how many crews he has working at a time. He said he would have more but “people these days don’t want to work.” This is the closed mindset; he has not adapted his hiring practices, in other words. He went on to tell me that after he posted the job, several people never showed up to scheduled interviews, and one experienced person wanted more money. Of course, this happened because they have better options (but they did not have to ghost him).
Similarly, I heard a story recently where one person’s institution wanted to send and receive fewer couriers and use the checkpoint systems more. The institution, further, complained that they should have come up with this system themselves or something comparable before. Having heard other similarly regressive stories, I questioned if they would have openly received the proposal in the first place should their registrar or conservator proposed it. Many want to jump on this bandwagon to save money now that a handful of major institutions have already adopted it, but will they make changes when they must do so alone?
Solutions abound, but not everyone dares try things. Years ago I was petitioned by a company trying to sell a new product they developed, and they specifically mentioned that they had no intention of trying to sell it to museums. Maybe you can guess the reason: because museums make decisions glacially.
This attitude often resembles the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This condition is a cognitive bias in which people (or institutions) overestimate their ability in a specific area and a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills. To avoid this affliction, one must constantly assess their knowledge and the conclusions they draw rather than simply accepting them.
Listen. Observe. Institutionally, departmentally, and individually remain open to and actively encourage new ideas that may bring about desired results. Often, we think that we do not have time to experiment and just have to get “it” done. This perception leads to inefficiencies and closed-mindedness. Sure, this happens at times but is a problem if that is your “normal”. Strive, for “always improving” instead of “normal”.
