After the turn of the 21st century, museums and their future were discussed in several forums. Museums were rethinking their priorities and policies, as well as their responsibilities (Berger 2004). Books that explored the museums and
their possible roles and identities for the new era were published (Hein 2000;
Schubert 2000; Witcomb 2003; Cuno 2004; Genoways 2006). Conferences and talks were organised in the wake of the change of the millennium. Muse- ums were analysed from a global, not only Western perspective (Knell, et al.
2007). Even the roles of national museums were discussed within an extensive research project Making National Museums (organised by the Universities of Leicester, Linköping and Oslo), which resulted in a publication that featured national museum narratives across the world, and which discussed the myths of nationality (Knell et al. 2011). Covid-19 has triggered authors to map the future of museums after the pandemic. One of the questions concerns possible changes in customer expectations.
As many stakeholders were working with future-related issues, so was the Finn- ish National Gallery. I was, at the time, working with the national art museum development initiatives and had a possibility to initiate a future-related exper- imental project. Future Art Museums (2009) was conducted in collaboration with museology students from the University of Helsinki, as well as art students from the Fine Arts Academy/University of Arts. The students worked in groups.
Experimental information mining, boundary-stretching artworks in public spaces and bold questioning contributed valuable ideas regarding the potential of the field. Questions were related to the different and even contradictory expectations that museums face on one hand, and the societal potential that they have, on the other. All of this was put into a publication (Pettersson 2009a).
As one part of the project, we conducted a virtual discussion with experts repre- senting different fields: politics, sociology, economy, future research and muse- ums. The well-known politician Sirpa Pietikäinen, sociologist Pasi Saukkonen, professor of economics Saara Taalas and future researcher Anita Rubin, all shared their ideas about four themes: museums and artists, museums and the public, museums and public debate and museums and the economy, together with myself and Kaija Kaitavuori, who was at the time the Head of the Develop- ment Department (Pettersson 2009a, pp. 80–115). Ten years after this virtual debate, the conclusions are still worth revisiting. They show how some questions are still valid – and some have become outdated. Quite interestingly the set also reveals that which we did not see coming.
Museums and artists
• Art/artists/museums are drivers of socio-cultural change
• Artists/art are vital for our identity
• The relationship between artists and museums should be negotiable
• Artists no longer depend on the spaces in museums
• Artists’ competencies could be utilised in museum management
• Museums should move towards more transparent communication in relation to the art field
Museums and the public
• A museum that tries to cover it all is sure to fail
• A museum can be a generalist with the public, an expert on art
• The same visitor can have different roles and needs, depending on time and place
• A museum can have fans
• A museum must pay attention to the language it uses and to whom it talks (diversity, demographical changes)
• Experiencing art is personal: the right to participate and even touch it is important
Museums and public debate
• Civic action groups as potential networks
• The possibilities of interculturalism
• The role of art critics as interpreters and filters
• Museums have different needs for public debate Museums and the economy
• What is the funder’s/owner’s relation to the museum?
• More emphasis on the transparency of publicly funded services: what and why
• Can a museum that collects entrance fees serve as a proactive partner in a public debate?
• Key performance indicators: What is being measured? On whose terms?
Can the activities be measured in the first place?
• Companies to be educated by museums
The participants of the discussion emphasised that museums represent conti- nuity and possibilities for change at the same time. Museums were seen as huge power engines for art and culture. Art was regarded as a channel of expression for hopes and fears, and even the most difficult issues (Pettersson 2009a, pp.
112–113). This becomes clear when society is in crisis. The cultural institutions carry a strong symbolic value and public spaces are needed as safe and demo- cratic places of contemplation.
Ten years after the project, the world has changed a lot. It is especially inter- esting to analyse what we, participants of the discussion, did not catch on our radar earlier. Polarisation of values, political turbulence, neo-conservatism, humanitarian crises, development of technology, climate crisis and ecological issues were not examined earlier. Also, the funding mechanisms for the arts and culture were based on relatively safe ground, the main source being pub- lic funding. Therefore, alternative funding models from crowdsourcing to big donations from companies or individuals who wish to give back to the system were not an option, either.
On the other hand, there were also topics that have remained the same. Let’s take museums and the public as an example: all the points mentioned are highly relevant still from today’s perspective. Museums need to focus, articulate their expertise and understand the needs of visitors. As John Falk and Lynn Dierking have shown, museum visitors have different needs and identities (explorers, facilitators, professionals, experience seekers, rechargers) depending on the situation (Falk & Dierking 2018). Museums work extensively with their return- ing visitors and products are being developed to support this behaviour. The nationwide Museum Card, launched in 2015 in Finland, is a prime example of this. Museums are also more and more aware of social responsibility and their diverse audiences.
Projects such as the Future Art Museums project are excellent reminders of how significant it is for any museum to draft future-related scenarios, even the most unusual ones, in order to develop practises as part of a strategic process. Think tanks that focus on future trends and future researchers are excellent partners, not to mention the American Alliance of Museum’s Center for the Future of Museums (est. 2008), which is mapping out the cultural, political and economic landscape, along with publishing annual TrendWatch reports.