The Museum Educators’ Perspectives
According to Bergeron and Tuttle’s (2013) 3-year study of U.S.
museums, high-performance organizations succeed when they
invest in personal relationships, forge emotional connections,
and create meaningful experiences. Similarly, Wenger (1998)
says organizations should ask themselves if they are effectively
communicating with their audiences, allowing for various forms
of knowledge to emerge and be reciprocally exchanged, connect
issues from the local to the global, and be aware of not privileging
perspectives. To consider how these recommendations relate to
perspectives of museum educators from the San Antonio community,
I invited two museum educators to share their perspectives.
Kaela Hoskings works for a contemporary art foundation2 that
deals exclusively with contemporary art, artists, and programming,
while Kate Carey works for a modern art museum3 that has
an emerging contemporary art collection.
Kaela (see Figure 4) believes engaging with contemporary art
can be an intimidating experience, but when someone talks and
shares their ideas about art with you on a personal level, this is
important in breaking down barriers. It is important that everything
be a conversation, because these forms of social interactions
set people up for success and allow individuals to extend stories
to others. Kaela likens the broad range of programming that takes
place within and beyond the museum setting to a menu with a
variety of dining options.
There are different learning styles and activities that attract
people in different ways. Some people like the lecture
format and want to be like a sponge in a lecture, while
other times, you might want to make art, work with the
artist directly, or have a chance to meet with other people
and learn about the art together. Program variation gives
people choices about how to engage with art. (K. Hoskings,
personal communication, July 2, 2013)
Kate (see Figure 5) also touches upon the importance of a
variety of programming as these opportunities reach different
audiences with diverse interests and learning styles through formal
and informal activities bringing vitality to the learning experience.
Kate is proud of the many firsthand experiences and points of
view that are gained when people are given opportunities to talk
directly with a living artist, as this can be a rare learning opportunity
that people might not otherwise have access to.
People don’t often have opportunities to hear from people
who make those objects and hear about the processes,
influences, and significance that they hold to the artist. In
museums, people often come and view the work and make
their own interpretations and connections to the work,
but by having the artists there to talk about them is what
makes these social engagements unique and important.
(K. Carey, personal communication, July 1, 2013)
Both Kaela and Kate see the efforts of the museums they
represent as strengthening community by serving as community
centers where people from inside and outside of the art world
come together. Together they are starting conversations and
serving as a springboard to encourage visitors to come back. As
Kate said, it’s not about promoting the museum’s vision about art:
“It’s about being a good partner and sharing in the community
learning does not see the relationships between the master and
apprentice as fixed, learning is more about the ongoing conversations
and interactions between participants (Lave & Wenger,
1991). Alex exemplifies these practices when he invites his afterschool
art students to attend artist lectures, workshops, and art
openings to experience the dialogues and visual explorations as
members who share a passion for the Arts. Learning is not hierarchical;
rather, it is unilateral.
Alex views the types of social engagements that he has been
involved in as empowering individuals and groups to build selfesteem.
For example, when he spoke of working with the prison
inmates during art classes and subsequent mural programs, where
he recruited some of the most talented inmates to make murals
for each floor of the detention centers, he noted that the prison
guards really appreciated his efforts because no one wanted to
be kicked out of the art programs due to bad behavior. These
individuals wanted to become part of a community, although
sometimes it meant working with people that normally they
would physically confront.
By learning how to organize with others and work together
as crews, there is a community that develops between
inmates that would not be possible otherwise. This process
broke barriers because under “normal” conditions, the
inmates would be in opposing gangs and have little in
common. But by having a shared interest and focus, they
built bonds and formed friendships. (A. Rubio, personal
communication, July 2, 2013)
Alex values art centers and organizations because they serve as
a “social stimulus” to bring people together to celebrate stories of
individuals, informed by our memories, and other experiences
that go well beyond limited explorations of art that might focus
on less important issues. Alex values how social engagements
with art, particularly from his experience using the apprentice
approach to art education, can spark cycles of inspiration that
continue and evolve over time. These “cycles of inspiration” or
“cycles of mentorship” continue to link individuals through time
and space by allowing individuals like Alex and others to give
“back to the community what the community has given me”
(A. Rubio, personal communication, July 2, 2013). Alex continues
to look for new opportunities to keep building those cycles of
learning, and for that, I am grateful.4