{"id":4435,"date":"2012-03-20T08:00:49","date_gmt":"2012-03-20T06:00:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.option.culture.marrot.org\/?p=4435"},"modified":"2014-01-02T09:17:05","modified_gmt":"2014-01-02T07:17:05","slug":"qui-devrait-diriger-les-grandes-institutions-culturelles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.option-culture.com\/?p=4435","title":{"rendered":"Qui devrait diriger les grandes institutions culturelles ? Who should manage major cultural institutions?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Au moment o\u00f9 s\u2019affrontent, par presse interpos\u00e9e, le pr\u00e9sident du Centre Georges Pompidou et le pr\u00e9sident de la <\/em>Centre Pompidou Foundation, il semble utile de revenir sur les conflits de l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 qui naissent de la d\u00e9cision de confier \u00e0 un \u00ab\u00a0non sp\u00e9cialiste\u00a0\u00bb la direction de grandes institutions culturelles fran\u00e7aises\u00a0: domaine national de Versailles, ch\u00e2teau de Fontainebleau, cit\u00e9 de l\u2019Architecture et du Patrimoine, centre Georges Pompidou, mus\u00e9e du quai Branly, etc.<\/em><\/p>\n

Voici le d\u00e9but de notre tribune, qui fait \u00e9cho \u00e0 un pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent billet (http:\/\/blog.option.culture.marrot.org\/?p=4387<\/a>), \u00e0 retrouver \u00e0 l’adresse suivante : http:\/\/lecercle.lesechos.fr\/economie-societe\/societe\/autres\/221144301\/devrait-diriger-grandes-institutions-culturelles<\/a>.<\/p>\n

La version anglaise<\/span><\/strong>, pour nos amis anglophones.<\/p>\n

Who should manage major cultural institutions?
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

At this moment, when the president of the Centre Georges Pompidou and the president of the Centre Pompidou Foundation are crossing swords via the press, it seems useful to consider again the conflicts of legitimacy that arise from the decision to entrust the management of major French cultural institutions to a \u201cnon-specialist\u201d: Versailles and its park, Fontainebleau castle, the Cit\u00e9 de l\u2019Architecture et du Patrimoine, the Georges Pompidou center, the quai Branly museum, etc.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

With hindsight, it now seems evident that the actions of these managers, who exercise an executive function which is not limited to \u201cpresiding\u201d over these institutions, i.e., representing them, finding partners, and fundraising, leads to a number of consequences which should be reflected on without polemic.<\/p>\n

These consequences are on several levels, even if they are not necessarily present cumulatively in the institutions in question: excessive communication exposure, personalization of management in the president alone, increasing weight of special events, lack of transparency, taking liberties with the curators\u2019 deontology for lending works and special exhibitions, obsession with the number of visitors, lack of vigilance in relations with donors, and increasing entry prices.<\/p>\n

This last point is especially worrisome, as the \u201cCour des comptes\u201d underlined in its report on national museums, because it leads to reducing for a growing number of people access to a cultural offering which is in principle intended for the greatest number.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Real management skills?<\/em><\/p>\n

As far as the ability to manage, which is the least one should expect from \u201cmanagers\u201d, these skills are far from universally present, be they skills in human resources management, ability to set priorities and to make strategic choices, or even to deal efficiently with problems caused by a large number of visitors: increasing visitor satisfaction, presenting and interpreting the collections, managing people waiting in line, cultural mediation, relations with local and regional government and with stake holders\u2026<\/p>\n

It is true that certain of these same traits can be found in institutions managed by conservation and heritage specialists.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, a cultural institution has a higher probability of realizing its full artistic potential and optimizing its operation when it is managed by a person whose prestige, widely-known reputation, intellectual authority, charisma and leadership abilities are uncontested, and who possesses \u2013 in addition \u2013 real management skills by virtue of his professional experience.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

For an optimized allocation of roles<\/em><\/p>\n

Contrary to what is sometimes said, the most current research in the management field demonstrates that the most important aspect in terms of managing an institution resides in the ability to define a unique \u201cvision\u201d, flowing from the institution\u2019s missions and which is approved and supported by employees, governing bodies and partners.<\/p>\n

Individuals who are immersed in a given discipline (architecture, history, sciences, ethnology, art history) have the greatest possibility of developing such a vision. This accepted principle of management, which shows that a different approach heads to a less than optimal situation in terms of the institution\u2019s influence, is consistent with the approach taken by the world\u2019s largest cultural institutions, which entrust to managers the role for which they are best suited: that of associates of a highly-respected scientific or artistic figure. This is management\u2019s highest calling: to contribute to the realization of artistic projects in coherence with the cultural manager\u2019s vision. This state of mind, characterized by a healthy humility, should never have been forgotten by certain managers.<\/p>\n

To conclude with a concrete proposal: an international call for candidacies should be organized for the next round of nominations to lead major cultural institutions. But will the choice fall on an \u201cadvisor to the prince\u201d?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Que pensez-vous de cette analyse ?<\/p>\n

A lire \u00e9galement :<\/p>\n