Dr. William Cogar
I. Introduction: Ten years ago, in 1994, a very significant book was published, titled Ubi Sumus: What is the State of Naval and Maritime History Today? [Ubi Sumus: "Where are we?"]. Edited by John Hattendorf, the Ernest J. King Professor of Maritime History and Chairman of the Maritime History Department at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, the book is a series of articles by international scholars reflecting on the state of naval and maritime history throughout the world. Through the 1980s there had been a long-time concern by naval and maritime specialists, principally in the academic areas, that the serious historical study of naval and maritime history has not and is not given firm institutional support. Further, in 1989, the Council of American Maritime Museums reported that public education in the field of maritime and naval history was "disadvantaged," that there is a general lack of awareness of the field within the academic community. The "Report" noted that for maritime museums, the lack of academic training in the subject was "a critical issue." Coming out of this trend and belief, Hattendorf asked the contributing authors to address some very significant issues of the profession; namely, to analyze "the strengths and weaknesses ... in terms of scholarship, scope of teaching [the subject at the higher education level], supporting organizations, publishing houses, journals, and any other way in which [the subject of maritime and naval history] organizes itself." The book is a wealth of information, opinions, and trends for many nations that have maritime and naval heritage, including the United States. The book is also now ten years old, and what was asked and addressed a decade ago in published form needs to be asked and addressed again, especially given the many and significant changes since the early 1990s. It would be very beneficial if new opinions were made public - thereby providing two benchmarks to allow us in this field not only to see what is being done or not done but what trends exist and why these trends - good and bad - are occurring in order to advance the good and correct the bad. Our profession and this field are too important not to see it as a necessary and valuable service to our nation and its citizens. Much of what I touch on is anecdotal; to gather hard and accurate statistics on responses to the questions Hattendorf posed to scholars would be ideal and I hope that this can be accomplished. II. What was said in 1994 on American Naval and Maritime Museums? Maritime historian Ben Labaree wrote on the American maritime field while naval historians Ken Hagan and Robert Shulman focused on American naval history. Generally, the authors were upbeat and optimistic on maritime and naval museums, although Hagan and Shulman wrote that museums are a thriving industry, although the future of some [of the naval] museums was under a cloud. Referring to the state of maritime history at the higher education level when saying that America's maritime past is rapidly disappearing, Labaree wrote that the bright spot on the scene was America's maritime museums. This is what I believe exists in 2004. While today's twelve official naval museums come under the authority of the Navy (as well as some receiving financial support from foundations), the vast majority of maritime museums, then and today, are private, non-profit entities, and thus depend heavily on endowments, gifts, and membership. Labaree also said in 1994 that increasingly, museums are reliant upon admission fees, retail sales, and program charges. He stated, somewhat cynically, that the management of these museums focuses most of their attention on whatever activities they believe will attract tourists and other visitors. For various reasons, this attention and focus on gate and gate-related revenue activities is definitely more the norm today than it was even ten years ago. There is an aside, he said, to this "unfortunate" aspect: the need to attract visitors account for what American maritime museums are most noted - the preserved vessels afloat, on land, and under cover. But very importantly, I believe, is what he then said: "to the non-sea-going public, these vessels do not interpret themselves very well and no amount of maritime jargon will help". As such, the effort to explain these exhibits to the visitor takes up a large share of the budget, leaving less and less for other important functions that maritime museums do; namely, study and interpret other objects and images in the collections, respond to the public's questions, research and writing, and providing the American public with diverse and interesting programs. After examining some of the major maritime museums, Labaree urged maritime and naval historians to look at what is happening at museums because, he said (and I concur!) that if maritime history (or better, maritime and naval heritage?) is to survive in America, it will depend largely on these institutions rather than on our colleges and universities. He concluded by saying that millions of school children and adults are made aware of our nation's maritime heritage through museums. "Because they provide the primary line of contact between the public and our maritime past, whatever we can do to improve them in the long run serve the efforts of us all." III. The State of Museums Today: Again, my impressions and statements are based upon anecdotal information. Some museums are doing well; some are doing better, but most seem to be having difficulties. Indeed, generally speaking, these are not happy times for maritime and naval museums. Attendances are falling for many and some have seen this trend for more than a couple of years. Revenues have declined, as evidenced by the reduction of forces at more than a few places. This, in turn, has meant a reduction in programs, exhibitions, services, and/or reduced times offered to the visiting public, researchers, and patrons. Again, this is personal opinion, and I would very much welcome a real analysis of attendance records, revenue streams, fluctuations in staff sizes (and their reasons), fiscal health, etc. Various reasons are cited for the decline in attendance at many museums. These include: a) Economy (people do not have as much spending money); b) Gasoline Prices (people are less likely to travel); c) National Security (post-911 apprehension - continued terrorist threats); Weather (outdoor places are affected by this, especially). As for falling revenues, some reasons include: a) declining membership; b) a poor economic portfolio in a down market; and c) greater competition for limited grants from the federal, state, and local governments, as well as from corporations and foundations. Then, of course, there is always the issue of increasing costs, especially in such areas that cannot be controlled, like insurance and utilities. All of these are absolutely true reasons for many maritime and naval museums undergoing a tough time or a downturn. However, I believe that these are actually more symptoms to more subtle but far more significant reasons. IV. Recommendations to Consider for Maritime and Naval Museums: While we in the field know and love "matters maritime," I invite people to think that our knowledge and passions for the subject is not shared by many; certainly not by as many to confidently reverse some of these declining trends. In the realm of what I would call the traditional ways that museums convey their mission - exhibitions and programs - I would encourage our professionals to think in larger and more strategic ways. We may find it easy and indeed comfortable to convey our mission to our choir, our stakeholders; i.e., those who already love and support maritime history and heritage. But to convey our missions to a general public that is coming through our gates in fewer and fewer numbers and that likely do not comprehend maritime heritage or believe easily and simply what value it has for people and society requires a broader and more open approach to all aspects of our subject. Maritime heritage consists of incredibly broad subjects and many related themes. The subject, as John Hattendorf wrote, "is not a closed category of human activity." Maritime and naval museums may do well t\by being less isolationist and thus more broad, more relevant, and more nationally significant in the subjects conveyed through exhibitions and programs. We must begin to be seen by the public as relevant, and that relevancy is not merely an appreciation of the past but a basis to grasp and confront the issues that face us in the present and in the future. I wonder whether we can become more successful and actually different if we consistently concentrate on living people and their cultures, not on those events from the dead past. If we are to succeed, we must be seen and appreciated by the visiting public, our real clients, as relevant, as important to today and tomorrow and not just something that may have been important yesterday. This is true in what we say in museums and how we say it. We must work to promote the sense that we are true resources for learning, inspiration, enlightenment, relevancy, and yes, even entertainment. Besides the traditional ways that museum missions are conveyed (exhibitions and programs), another new and rather exciting area that some art, science, and natural history museums seem to do with increasing success is to leverage the collections and our peoples' Intellectual Property. There are many new and dynamic ways that collections can be used, outside the traditional ways, that go very well and successfully to both mission and market. If we are to reverse these declining trends and ensure our place in the next years, we must first ask ourselves again tough and serious questions about our subject and its relevance. We must offer different and bold remedies and procedures. We must seek those answers that will not only take a look at the profession of maritime and naval heritage in 2004 but to provide more insight and benchmarks to identify specific trends and therefore to again ask, Ubi Sumus." The times dictate that we must be bold and courageous if we truly want our museums and our subject of maritime and naval heritage to be the valued product for the American public that we know it can and should be.
|
