The Rise of the Must-See Exhibition: Blockbusters in Australian Museums and Galleries 9781472485748, 9781315597119, 9781317090991, 9781317091004, 9781317090984

Citation preview

 i

The Rise of the Must-​See Exhibition

Blockbuster exhibitions are ubiquitous fixtures in the cultural calendars of major museums and galleries worldwide. The Rise of the Must-​See Exhibition charts their ascent across a diverse array of museums and galleries. The book positions these exhibits in the Australian cultural context, demonstrating how policy developments and historical precedents have created a space for their current domination. Drawing on historical evidence, policy documents and contemporary debates, the book offers a complex analysis of the aims and motivations of blockbuster exhibitions. Its chronological approach reveals a genealogy of exhibits from the mid-​nineteenth century onward to identify precursors to current practice. This provides a foundation upon which to examine the unprecedented growth of blockbusters in the latter half of the twentieth century. The examples discussed offer a unique opportunity to study how institutional growth, political support, individual champions and audience interest have influenced the development of large-​scale temporary exhibitions. The Rise of the Must-​See Exhibition considers blockbusters as an international phenomenon and, as such, is highly relevant to practitioners working across the cultural sector around the world. The book will also appeal to academics and students engaged in the study of museums and galleries, arts management and curating, as well as those interested in the history of exhibitions and cultural policy. Anna Lawrenson is a Lecturer in the Museum and Heritage Studies Program at the University of Sydney. Her career has spanned critical museology and applied practice, having worked in academia and the arts sector. Her research is concerned with how the history, funding and administration of public museums shapes public engagement through exhibitions and programs. Chiara O’Reilly is Director of the Museum and Heritage Studies program at the University of Sydney. Her research has grown out of an interest in the complexity of the French Romantic movement and currently has a specific focus on the history of museums and galleries, institutional collections and exhibitionary space.

ii

Routledge Research in Museum Studies

Snapshots of Museum Experience Understanding Child Visitors Through Photography Elee Kirk, Will Buckingham Academics, Artists, and Museums 21st-​Century Partnerships Edited by Irina D. Costache, Clare Kunny Public Art and Museums in Cultural Districts J. Pedro Lorente An Ethnography of New Zealand’s National Museum Grappling with Biculturalism at Te Papa Tanja Schubert-​McArthur Museums and Photography Displaying Death Elena Stylianou, Theopisti Stylianou-​Lambert Museums and the Ancient Middle East Edited by Geoff Emberling and Lucas P. Petit Collecting Computer-​based Technology Curational Expertise at the Smithsonian Museums Petrina Foti Museums as Cultures of Copies Edited by Brenna Brita For more information about this series, please visit www.routledge.com/​ Routledge-​Research-​in-​Museum-​Studies/​book-​series/​RRIMS.

 iii

The Rise of the Must-​See Exhibition Blockbusters in Australian Museums and Galleries Anna Lawrenson and Chiara O’Reilly

iv

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Anna Lawrenson and Chiara O’Reilly The right of Anna Lawrenson and Chiara O’Reilly to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Lawrenson, Anna, author. | O’Reilly, Chiara, author. Title: The rise of the must-see exhibition : blockbusters in Australian museums and galleries / Anna Lawrenson and Chiara O’Reilly. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018029655 | ISBN 9781472485748 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781315597119 (ebk) | ISBN 9781317090991 (epub) | ISBN 9781317091004 (web pdf) | ISBN 9781317090984 (mobi/kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Museums–Australia–History. | Museum exhibits–Australia. Classification: LCC AM93 .L39 2018 | DDC 069/.50994–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018029655 ISBN: 9781472485748 (hbk) ISBN: 9781315597119 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Out of House Publishing

 v

For Emilé, Matilda, Manon and Tobias

vi

 vii

Contents

List of figures  Acknowledgements  Abbreviations and acronyms  Introduction 

ix xii xiv 1

PART I

Laying the foundations: culture, spectacle, exhibitions, 1850s–​1940s 

13

1 International expositions: social, scientific and spectacular  15 2 Private interests: championing temporary exhibitions and setting the standards of taste 

40

PART II

The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–​1990s 

67

3 In the national interest: the growing role of government support 

69

4 Building capacity and professionalism: confident cultural leadership fortifies the blockbuster 

92

PART III

Blockbuster or bust: the necessity of the blockbuster in the twenty-​first century 

115

5 Relinquishing the national: state support and competition  117

viii

viii Contents

6 Global buy-​ins and blockbuster tropes 

140

7 Scholarship and the exportation of Australian exhibitions  166 Epilogue 

191

Index 

197

 ix

List of figures

0.1 Queue for Masterpieces from Paris: Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and Beyond: Post-​Impressionism from the Musée d’Orsay, 7 January 2010, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. Courtesy of the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.  1.1 C.W. Andrews; W.G. Mason, Ceremony of Opening the Paris Exhibition at the Museum, Sydney, 1854. Courtesy of National Library of Australia Rex Nan Kivell Collection NK2106/​1. U716; S1227.  1.2 ‘The Intercolonial Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia’, The Illustrated London News, 2 March 1867. Courtesy of Museum Victoria (https://​collections.museumvictoria.com. au/​items/​253831).  1.3 The Sydney International Exhibition, published by Alfred May and Alfred Martin Ebsworth Melbourne, 30 August 1879. Courtesy of State Library of Victoria (www.slv.vic. gov.au).  2.1 Invitation to a Conversazione in the Exhibition Building on the Evening of Tuesday 7th May 1901, at 8 p.m. for Australian Commonwealth Celebrations, G. B. H. Austin lithographer, Sands & McDougall Limited. Courtesy of State Library of Victoria (www.slv.vic.gov.au).  2.2 ‘The Light of the World’, Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser, 4 April 1906, p. 875. Courtesy of State Library of New South Wales BN336A.  2.3 ‘Humour in Ultra-​Modern Art’, Argus, 7 August 1923, p. 7. Courtesy of National Library of Australia.  2.4 ‘Fortune in Art Comes to Sydney’, Daily Telegraph, 15 November 1939, p. 7. Courtesy of National Library of Australia MFM NX 209.  3.1 Hal Missingham, Director of the Art Gallery of New South Wales, pictured at work on 3 December 1945, the year of his appointment. Courtesy of Fairfax Syndication. 

2

24

27

30

41 48 54 58 71

x

x  List of figures 3.2 Queue for Modern Masters: Manet to Matisse, National Gallery of Victoria, 1975. Courtesy of National Archives of Australia A6180, 12/​6/​75/​16.  3.3 Opening of The Chinese Exhibition: a selection of recent archaeological finds of the People’s Republic of China, National Gallery of Victoria, 18 January 1977. Courtesy of National Gallery of Victoria.  4.1 1988: The most exciting year of Gallery and Museum events in 200 years, poster, Australian Bicentennial Authority, State Library of South Australia. Courtesy of Art Exhibitions Australia (formerly The International Cultural Corporation of Australia).  4.2 Queue for Dinosaurs from China, Australian Museum, 1983. Courtesy of National Archives of Australia A6180, 6/​9/​83/​31.  4.3 Stakeholder launch of Gold of the Pharaohs, National Museum of Victoria, March 1989. Featuring Dr Colin Hope showing displays to Prime Minister Bob Hawke and other dignitaries. Photo: Frank Coffa. Copyright Museums Victoria 1989.  5.1 Street banner for The Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musée d’Orsay, Melbourne, 2004. Photo: Christian Markel. Courtesy of National Gallery of Victoria.  6.1 Crowds for Masterpieces from Paris: Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and Beyond: Post-​Impressionism from the Musée d’Orsay, 20 March 2010, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. Courtesy of National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.  6.2 Actor Matthew Lewis, who plays the character Neville Longbottom in the film series, poses with fans at the Harry Potter Exhibition launch at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, New South Wales, 19 July 2011. Photo: Ella Pellegrini. Courtesy of Newspix.  6.3 Billboard for Tutankhamun and The Golden Age of the Pharaohs, Museum Victoria, November 2011. Photo: C. O’Reilly.  7.1 Opening of Yiwarra Kuju: The Canning Stock Route display, Rejas de Chapultepec, Mexico City, 24 October 2016. Featuring Alejandro Salafranca, Coordinator of the Historic, Artistic and Cultural Heritage of Mexico City, David Engel, Australian Ambassador to Mexico, Claudio Ruz Gutiérrez, General Director of Protocol and Diplomacy of Mexico City and José Manuel Rodríguez Ramírez, Deputy Technical Director of Open Galleries, Ministry of Culture of Mexico City. Photo: Milton

79

81

93 102

106 125

146

151 154

 xi

List of figures xi Martínez. Courtesy of Secretaría de Cultura CDMX. www.flickr.com/​photos/​culturacdmx/​30545644165/​in/​ album-​72157675559517406/​ (CC BY-​SA 2.0).  7.2 Installation view, ACMI’s DreamWorks Animation: The Exhibition, Arts Science Museum, Singapore 2015. Photo: Anat Meiri. Courtesy of ACMI.  7.3 Street banner promoting ACMI’s DreamWorks Animation: The Exhibition at Seoul Museum of Art, Seoul, South Korea 2016. Photo: Chris Harris. Courtesy of ACMI.  7.4 Exhibition prospectus for Tyrannosaurs: Meet the Family. A travelling exhibition by the Australian Museum, c.2015. Courtesy of Australian Museum and film director, Matt Drummond, Hive Studios. 

172 177 179

181

xii

Acknowledgements

This book grew out of friendship and a shared love of exhibitions. It was sustained over long conversations and completed over cups of tea and biscuits. It’s not often that you get to work with someone who shares your passion and complements your approach: conceptually and practically. We both appreciate the discourse and deliberation that has been afforded by this collaboration. Beyond the partnership we have benefitted greatly from the input of colleagues in our department. We would especially like to thank Mary Roberts for her incisive comments at the very outset of this book project. Anita Callaway and Ann Elias provided equally perceptive feedback in the later stages of the book’s development. Amongst our colleagues, further thanks are needed for Marni Williams, Mark Ledbury, Briony Neilson, Stephen Gilchrist, Roger Benjamin, Susan Potter, Natali Pearson, Ann Sutherland and Matt Poll, who have all helped to support this project in their own way. Belinda Nemec cast an expert eye over our manuscript and taught us much in the process. In addition we need to acknowledge our many students who have debated with us over the years. We interviewed many individuals within Australian museums and galleries:  Australian Centre for the Moving Image, Australian Museum, Art Gallery of New South Wales, Australian National Maritime Museum, Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, National Gallery of Australia. We thank them all for their time and generosity in sharing so many insights. Special thanks are reserved for staff who have helped us obtain permission for illustrations and find images to enrich our text. This includes individuals at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image, Art Exhibitions Australia, Australian Museum, Museum Victoria, National Gallery of Australia, National Library of Australia, State Library of New South Wales and State Library of South Australia. Research librarians at a number of institutions have also been highly valued and we thank staff for being so helpful in responding to our enquiries. This project would have been much more difficult without TROVE (https://​trove.nla.gov.au): a vital resource which must be acknowledged by all scholars of Australian history. Funding from the School of Literature, Arts and Media at the University of Sydney was crucial to the project’s development allowing us to travel and

 xii

Acknowledgements xiii supporting the early stages of research. Parts of our research were presented at conferences in Australia and New Zealand and early ideas were developed for an article for Museums and Society. We must finally thank our friends and families. This book would not have been possible without their encouragement. Special mention must be made of Kerry-​Ann, Bill, Damian, Les and Lily. Our children have grown with the book and become exhibition aficionados in their own right. Our partners, Adam and Hamish, have been enduring champions of us and the project and we thank them for their support.

xiv

Abbreviations and acronyms

AAEC ABA ACMI

Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation –​established 1976 Australian Bicentennial Authority (1980–​1990) Australian Centre for the Moving Image (Melbourne, opened 2002) AEA Art Exhibitions Australia –​established 1991 (previously International Cultural Corporation of Australia) AGDC Art Gallery Directors Council (active 1948–​81) –​various other names before 1976 AGNSW Art Gallery of New South Wales (Sydney) –​founded 1871 as Academy of Art, named Art Gallery of New South Wales in 1880, then National Art Gallery of New South Wales from 1883 to 1958 AGSA Art Gallery of South Australia (Adelaide) –​founded 1880 as National Gallery of South Australia, renamed 1967 AGWA Art Gallery of Western Australia (Perth) –​founded in 1895 as the Public Gallery, Museum and Art Gallery, became an autonomous institution in 1959 and renamed the Art Gallery of Western Australia in 1978 AM Australian Museum (Sydney) –​founded 1827 BM British Museum (London) –​founded 1753 ICCA International Cultural Corporation of Australia (established 1980, became Art Exhibitions Australia in 1991) MAAS Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (Sydney) –​founded in 1879 as the Technological, Industrial and Sanitary Museum; 1988 to 2014 known as the Powerhouse Museum 1982 Observatory came under their umbrella MAMA Murray Art Museum Albury –​founded as the Albury Regional Gallery in 1981, redeveloped and opened as MAMA 2015 MV Museum Victoria (Melbourne) –​founded 1854 as Museum of Natural and Economic geology, 1858 first director appointed to National Museum of Victoria, renamed Museum of Victoria in 1983 when it amalgamated with the Science Museum of Victoria, renamed Museum Victoria in 1998

newgenprepdf

 xv

Abbreviations and acronyms xv MWM NGA NGV NLA NMA QAG

QM SLV

TMAG V&A VAB VMEC

Melbourne Winter Masterpieces (program launched 2004) National Gallery of Australia (Canberra) –​founded 1982 as Australian National Gallery; renamed 1992 National Gallery of Victoria (Melbourne) –​founded 1861 National Library of Australia (Canberra) –​founded 1960 National Museum of Australia (Canberra) –​founded 2001 Queensland Art Gallery (Brisbane) –​founded 1895 as the Queensland National Art Gallery, renamed in 1959 Queensland Art Gallery. A second site, Gallery of Modern Art opens, 2006 both sites become known as QAGOMA from 2011 Queensland Museum –​founded in 1862 State Library Victoria (Melbourne) –​founded 1856 as Melbourne Public Library, 1869–​1944 incorporated with the Museums and the National Gallery, renamed State Library of Victoria in 1960, then State Library Victoria from 2014 Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery –​founded in 1848 as Royal Society of Van Diemen’s Land for Horticulture, Botany, and the Advancement of Science renamed in 1889 Victoria and Albert Museum (London) –​founded 1852 Visual Arts Board, active 1973–​2013 Victorian Major Events Company, active since 1991

xvi

 1

Introduction

Canberra, Australia’s bush capital, the height of summer. It’s hot. Eucalyptus leaves crackle underfoot –​in stark contrast to the lurid green grass of the parliamentary triangle. It’s only nine o’clock in the morning, yet the heat is rising sharply, radiating off the concrete path. This is going to be a day of extremes. It should be a day for the indoors, for seeking respite in an air-​conditioned shopping centre or cooling off in the pool. Yet hundreds of people are braving the heat, waiting patiently in an ever-​lengthening queue. Why? To visit the latest blockbuster exhibition at the National Gallery of Australia. They want to see the masterpieces that have travelled all the way from Paris. The Musée d’Orsay, we are told, will never lend these works of art again. The exhibition of 112 paintings boasts ‘nine by Gauguin, eight by Cézanne, five by Monet and seven by Van Gogh’ (Dunkerley 2012). The big names are all there. This is a once-​in-​a-​lifetime opportunity. It is an unmissable event. A must-​see! This was the scene of the 2009–​10 blockbuster exhibition Masterpieces from Paris: Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and Beyond: Post-​Impressionism from the Musée d’Orsay, the most successful exhibition in the history of the National Gallery of Australia (Fig. 0.1). Nationally, it ‘broke the record for attendance at an art exhibition’, attracting more than 470,000 visitors and injecting $94 million into the local economy (NGA 2010, 37, 47). Demand for the show was so great that it threatened the visit of the president of the United States of America, Barack Obama; Canberra is an isolated city with ‘only so many hotel rooms available … we can’t put up tents’ (Chris Peters cited in Alexander and Mitchell 2010). Masterpieces from Paris set a new benchmark for exhibitions in Australia, against an already high standard. But how did we get here? How did an exhibition of Post-​Impressionist painting, staged in a territory of around 350,000 people, attract an audience that rivalled world standards (Stoilas 2011, 23–​4)? This book takes Masterpieces from Paris as a starting point. From here, it looks back to trace the lineage of this, and other, exhibitions and beyond, to consider the repercussions of this landmark event. This book is the first to position current Australian blockbusters in a historical continuum beginning in the colonial period. We argue that large-​scale

2

Figure 0.1 Queue for Masterpieces from Paris: Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and Beyond: Post-​Impressionism from the Musée d’Orsay, 7 January 2010, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. Courtesy of the National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.

 3

Introduction 3 temporary exhibitions at that time served as a testing ground for exhibition design and management, enabling increasingly ambitious projects as the years passed. Our focus on historical exhibitions also reveals the emergence of infrastructure: exhibition buildings and other support systems to ease the financial burden of staging these events. After the Federation of the colonies in 1901, government support for international loan exhibitions became more coordinated (Gardiner-​Garden 1994). These shows may not have been called blockbusters, but many of them bear the same hallmarks. As the first critical evaluation of the blockbuster exhibition across the diversity of museum disciplines in Australia, this book broadens both national and international literature on the subject. Recognising contextual influences –​social, economic, political, diplomatic and cultural –​that inform the staging of blockbuster exhibitions is also central to our approach. This permits a more nuanced analysis of blockbusters, revealing major shifts: from art galleries, which led the movement for loan exhibitions, to their uptake by other museums that are now creating blockbusters for the international market (ACMI 2017, 32; AM 2015), and the continuing influence of government and commercial exhibition developers. This interdisciplinary and contextual approach goes beyond the typical study, which is often skewed towards art history and blockbusters focused on the ‘authentic’ object (Barker 1999; Freedberg, Jackson-​Stops, and Spear 1987; Spear 1986), or discussions of specific exhibits as case studies (Basu and Macdonald 2008). In concentrating on the broad category of large-​scale temporary shows, rather than on their subject matter, the book develops a more complex understanding of the format’s origins, positioning blockbusters in a richer social-​cultural context. Focused on Australia, the book offers a sustained examination of the circumstances that have contributed to the current dominance of large-​ scale temporary exhibitions. Australia possesses many unique qualities that make it a worthy site for consideration. Isolated spatially and historically, this book reveals that Australia has a long history of hosting large-​scale exhibitions and is now a space of innovation. In 1966, historian Geoffrey Blainey famously asserted that the history of Australia had been determined by its geography:  the ‘tyranny of distance’ (1966). The combination of Australia’s distance from Britain  –​its imperial originator  –​and the great distances between its major cities has left a lasting imprint on the country’s physical and intellectual development (Blainey 1966). The Australian blockbuster exhibition has been similarly moulded by these conditions –​shaping (both practically and intellectually) the way audiences experience cultural production from elsewhere (Frost 2014; McDonald 2016, 8–​9). Physically, the relative isolation of Australia  –​as a vast and sparsely populated continent surrounded by ocean  –​meant that there was always a story to be made of the immense effort involved in bringing exhibitions here. The selling of blockbusters as once-​in-​a-​lifetime opportunities to view international collections was arguably true for many Australians in the

4

4 Introduction nineteenth century who would have to endure a lengthy sea voyage to visit the perceived centres of Western art and culture. The legacy of this isolation is still felt; even though international travel is now considerably faster and cheaper, it is by no means universal. Geographically, Australia ‘remains exceedingly distant from other places in the world’ (Capling and Nossal 2001, 448). To travel to or from Australia involves air or sea transport; even its ‘closest neighbours are several hours’ flying time away’ (Capling and Nossal 2001, 448). As a consequence, when collections come to Australia, audiences turn out in droves: ‘Australians seem to have an insatiable thirst for big exhibitions. One in 15 will turn out for the blockbusters’ (ICCA spokesperson, cited in Cochrane 1990, 28). An interstate trip is more feasible than an international grand tour. For audiences, physical and intellectual distances are compressed when an exhibition is imported into Australia. For exhibition organisers, the influence of distance remains, and in its physical isolation Australia offers a contained site to consider the economic risks of blockbusters. The high cost of bringing large and valuable exhibitions to Australia means that such projects are by no means guaranteed to be financially successful (Gill 2012, 18; McCarthy 1978, 43–​ 4). Although institutions here have been pushed –​like their international counterparts –​ away from government dependence and towards greater financial autonomy and reliance on generating their own income, Australia’s specific conditions of distance and isolation remain.1 Australia’s history as a series of British colonies, established from 1788 onwards, has meant that the history of exhibitions, cultural collections and institutions is likewise contained.2 This created a market for the importation of cultural collections, as observed by Betty Churcher in her role as director of the National Gallery of Australia, when she noted that Australian institutions ‘began to collect after much of the world’s cultural heritage was already securely tucked away in public collections dispersed all over the world’ (1994, 88). Australia has thus long supported a system of loans to compensate for perceived gaps in collections, so that local audiences could experience global cultures (Empire Art Loan Exhibitions Society 1946). Exhibitions were central to this and as the examples in this book demonstrate, a regular traffic in objects, particularly on loan from the United Kingdom (which many settler Australians described as ‘home’ until well into the twentieth century), was established. This subsequently expanded through the efforts of individuals and institutions; finally, as the nation took shape under the commonwealth government, global diplomatic relationships took on a more central role (Berryman 2013). Today the blockbuster is embedded in Australian cultural life, with institutions both devising their own exhibitions and hosting externally developed ones (Churcher 1994; Frost 2014). The term ‘blockbuster’ is a relatively new one. It certainly post-​dates exhibitions that fit the current criteria for blockbusters (Haskell 2000). But the etymology of the blockbuster –​now celebrated as a spectacular event synonymous with popular appeal  –​has destructive overtones. We rarely

 5

Introduction 5 reflect on these origins but, in World War II, ‘blockbusters’ were large aerial bombs that could destroy an entire block of buildings. By the 1950s the term was used to describe box-​office success in film, television, theatre and music (Film Bulletin 1954, 8; Rosen 1951, 31, 44; Variety 1951, 9), cementing its association with commercial success. Not until the 1970s  –​a period associated with shows like the Treasures of Tutankhamun, first at the British Museum and then on tour in North America –​was it applied with any regularity to museum exhibitions (Edwards 1976; Glueck 1975, 24; Guardian 1972; Kramer 1975, 95; Kramer 1978a, C1; Kramer 1978b, D1). Today’s understanding of blockbuster exhibitions dates from that time –​in which large, high-​profile exhibitions captured the public’s attention, and anything popular and financially successful was labelled a blockbuster. A confluence of factors contributed to the rise of the twentieth century museum blockbuster: museums were being criticised as elitist, governments and funders were demanding accountability, and the museum sector itself was beginning to question its own values and purpose. Blockbusters were the perfect vehicle for change, as they opened the museum to new audiences and offered opportunities to generate revenue through ticket sales, merchandising and commercial sponsorship. Critical analysis of the blockbuster followed in the 1980s. Australia was at the vanguard of blockbuster culture –​both as an early adopter and as a site for intellectual debate. Most definitions of the term draw on the work of American art historian Albert Elsen, but few writers acknowledge that Elsen first published his ideas on blockbusters in the Art Museums Association of Australia’s Adelaide conference proceedings in 1984 (Elsen 1984). His paper was revised and printed in Art in America in 1986, and it is this latter article that is usually cited (Elsen 1986). The fact that Elsen’s definition of the blockbuster was first presented in Australia is a clear indication of blockbusters’ importance here, and also demonstrates an early desire to analyse the format and debate its virtues (North 1984). At the heart of Elsen’s analysis was his definition of the blockbuster as a ‘large-​scale loan exhibition which people who normally don’t go to museums will stand in line for hours to see’ (1984, 1). This highlights one of the defining qualities of blockbuster exhibitions: they seek to be popular and expand audience. In doing so they are often ambitious in scale, and complex –​due principally to their reliance on loans  –​thus requiring significant resources to stage. Barker ventured that, due to this complexity, ‘the host institution has almost always received commercial sponsorship to help cover the costs of staging the exhibition’ (1999, 127). Being reliant on loans, blockbuster exhibitions are by their very nature temporary, and can be marketed as rare opportunities to see treasures from elsewhere on display for a short time. Their uniqueness, it is hoped, will attract the large audiences required to justify the institution’s investment. According to Elsen and Barker, ‘blockbuster’ is a label that can only be applied in retrospect –​if a show actually attracted the crowds (Barker

6

6 Introduction 1999, 127; Elsen 1984, 1). Therefore, the definition of a blockbuster is twofold:  its own intrinsic characteristics (loans-​based, temporary, large-​scale, commercially driven) sit alongside public affirmation as gauged by visitor numbers. Marketing an exhibition as a blockbuster implies a speculative, even aspirational, assertion by the host museum, revealing its desire for popular acclaim.3 The popular appeal of blockbusters is a frequent point of contention:  media and galleries proudly tout record-​ breaking numbers while critics argue that their positioning as popular events represents a shameless desire to capitalise on culture by putting profit before quality. Australian art historian Sasha Grishin, for instance, has argued that ‘The problem with blockbuster exhibitions is that by converting art into popular entertainment and by often promoting trite nonsense as the greatest experience in art, they trivialise art and legitimise the insignificant as great art’ (2009). But to blockbusters’ supporters, their mass appeal represents a democratisation of the museum, in which culture is accessible to a wider audience, not just to connoisseurs or academics in ivory towers (Elsen 1984, 10). These arguments have been especially heated for art galleries, whose rarefied atmosphere risks being polluted by popular appeal. Such debates reached a high point in the 1980s, when American art journals gave them significant coverage. Alongside Elsen’s work, these journal articles are now the standard texts on blockbuster exhibitions (Conforti 1986; Freedberg, Jackson-​Stops, and Spear 1987; Spear 1986; Tillman 1986; Wallis 1986). But, due to their art-​historical focus, they mostly ignore the broader institutional context in which blockbusters are mounted, perhaps reflecting a larger crisis in the role of academic art history and connoisseurship (West 1995). These scholars’ preoccupation with how the discipline of art history is affected by the blockbuster presents a narrow view of the place of blockbusters in the wider museum sector, and ignores questions about the function and role of institutions raised by the new museology (Vergo 1989). This theoretical framework pushed museums to reach outwards rather than focus inwards and drove them to involve the public to a far greater extent (Weil 1999). This occurred alongside a shift in funding that forced museums to seek new ways to become economically sustainable (Gilmore and Rentschler 2002; Rentschler 2001). Measurements of audience numbers and satisfaction are part of this paradigm shift, where museums have sought to be more responsive to audience needs and are required to be more accountable for the funding they receive –​transforming exhibitions into a way of building capital within cultural organisations. Capital is central to the internal logic of blockbusters. For audiences, museum exhibitions  –​particularly large-​scale blockbuster events showing masterpieces or treasures –​provide an accessible way to accumulate cultural capital. They function on all three levels identified by Bourdieu (2016). First, viewing an exhibition is an embodied experience. As Bennett has argued, the

 7

Introduction 7 museum exhibition is a site in which subconscious moral instruction takes place in the form of behavioural modification (Bennett 1995). This allows visitors to be schooled in appropriate behaviour: familiarity with the institution leads to an embodied accumulation of cultural capital materialised in appropriate reverence. As a largely consumer exercise, the experience also provides visitors with an opportunity to gain objectified cultural capital in the form of souvenirs. The exhibition catalogue, branded tote bag and umbrella all allow a material demonstration of accumulated cultural capital. Finally, visitors can become one of the elite: part of the institution by purchasing a membership. Museums sell big-​ name artists and ancient civilisations  –​must-​ see events –​but they trade in cultural capital. What they use to entice visitors into the cycle of capital accumulation is the authority of the institution and its revered status as a holder of knowledge. While the public may be enticed by the desire to accumulate cultural capital from the authority of the institution, the museum seeks to accumulate economic capital. Shearer West has called this the ‘double-​coding’ of the blockbuster: at a tactical level, the blockbuster is a large-​scale, temporary, loans-​based show; at a philosophical level, it is a cultural transaction (1995, 74–​5). Importantly, these higher functions of blockbuster exhibitions have been served by museum exhibitions since their very beginnings. For this reason, this book looks at similar exhibitions held before the official age of the blockbuster. Many early exhibitions possess the same qualities and similarly trade in cultural capital; investigating them illuminates some of the precedents that have coloured today’s landscape. The family tree of large-​scale temporary exhibitions is intricate. This book focuses on just one branch: the blockbuster exhibition. It traces the genealogy of this now-​ familiar format and, in so doing, looks back to progenitors with which it shares some history, but from which it has now diverged. Among these progenitors are the international expositions of the nineteenth century (Goldfarb 2002). As immense, temporary, spectacular events that dominated the cultural calendars of the emerging Australian colonies, they have many links with today’s museum-​based blockbusters. But their lineage diverged as Australian cultural institutions matured and the role of the expositions was refined. A  nearly continuous line can be drawn from those nineteenth century expositions to more contemporary incarnations.4 But these expositions have grown into almost exclusively trade-​based events, regulated by the Bureau International des Expositions, and aimed at initiating a ‘global discussion’ around ‘the biggest challenges of humanity’ (‘Our History’ 2018).5 Another branch of the temporary exhibition family tree has grown into international art biennales and triennales. From the first of these, the 1895 Venice Biennale, the model has been replicated and has become a mainstay of contemporary art (Altshuler 2008; Altshuler 2013).6 Like expositions, the biennale has grown to become very different from blockbuster exhibitions.

8

8 Introduction In their focus on living artists, biennales are firmly positioned in contemporary art discourse and the artistic avant-​garde. These are but two examples of how exhibitions have differentiated since the nineteenth century. Other permutations might include efforts by cultural institutions such as libraries to replicate the blockbuster exhibition.7 These, however, are beyond the scope of this book. In order to investigate the derivations of current blockbusters across a range of museum disciplines, we needed to impose some limitations. The Rise of the Must-​ See Exhibition:  Blockbusters in Australian museums and galleries charts a path that begins with nineteenth century exhibitions. Part One of the book establishes this historical background. These early examples include international expositions and, into the twentieth century, privately backed art exhibitions. In them we can see the development of now-​familiar formats for exhibitions packaged and marketed as events. They also fostered professional expertise and shaped museum and gallery collections and display practices. In doing so, they set audience expectations. From an analysis of these shows it is clear that Australian audiences have always had a desire to experience material culture from elsewhere. Part Two considers the arrival of the official blockbuster in the 1970s. This period saw museums shift away from individual patrons and instead incrementally take on the role of managing and hosting large-​scale exhibitions. The shift was made possible by several factors:  cultural institutions were better equipped physically to host temporary, large-​scale shows, and their leaders were in a stronger position, with museum and art gallery directors enjoying greater autonomy. This development was further aided by changes at a governmental level, which created a more supportive environment for the collaborative exchange of large-​scale touring exhibits. Governments saw the economic, diplomatic and cultural benefits of these projects. Moreover, public interest did not wane. The combination of all these elements helped establish the blockbuster as the modus operandi of the major state art galleries and museums in attracting new and large audiences. Moving into the twenty-​first century, Part Three considers blockbusters in a more thematic way, by examining funding structures, types of exhibitions, and innovations. We discuss three particular areas:  the move towards a state-​based system of support in lieu of the previous national one; the globalisation of the format, which has resulted in a number of familiar blockbuster tropes; and opportunities for exhibitions developed in house, based on scholarly research. These three areas enable an analysis of the complex state of blockbusters in Australian institutions today. Museums and art galleries are now required to demonstrate economic benefits, be accountable to their funders, satisfy audience expectations, and fulfil their missions as sites of education and custodians of collections. Given these demands, blockbusters now seem essential to the survival of large-​scale institutions in an increasingly corporatised environment. Such talk of survival recalls the

 9

Introduction 9 origins of the term: are blockbusters now used as a pre-​emptive strike in the battle to secure ongoing funding? Australia’s cultural sector has endured a decline in funding (accompanied by closer scrutiny from funders) and a simultaneous rise in the expectations of visitors, who demand a ‘once-​in-​a-​lifetime experience’. As we look to the future, a number of important questions need to be answered by museums and galleries, as well as their funders. Is the current situation sustainable? Blockbusters are resource-​intensive projects; a strong focus on them has implications for museums’ and galleries’ core activities, such as collections care, scholarly research, and public education. This is related to each institution’s unique identity. What will it mean for institutions if, over time, they simply become empty vessels to be filled by the latest international touring show? And how can non-​metropolitan museums compete in this market? Some of Australia’s larger regional art galleries are forging international partnerships in order to present their own programs of blockbusters, but many institutions simply do not have the capacity for such an investment. Finally, we ask, will audiences continue to come? Australian audiences have demonstrated a strong and sustained interest in attending large-​scale exhibitions for more than a century, but is there a limit to how many ‘must-​see’ exhibitions they will attend?

Notes 1 The dominant arrangement in Australia is arm’s-​length government funding at the state and national levels. Regional or local institutions still rely on government funding, but their modes of governance are more varied. All government-​funded cultural institutions are under pressure to supplement their funding with self-​ generated income. 2 Australian terminology tends to differentiate between disciplines in museums. Museums of visual art are usually called ‘art galleries’ (a term also applied to commercial galleries). The term ‘museum’ usually refers to an institution covering disciplines such as natural and social history, ethnography, the applied arts, and science and technology. 3 For the purposes of this book, we do not define blockbusters according to absolute visitor numbers  –​as some others have (Barker 1999, 127)  –​but rather according to their success when measured against the norms of the host institution. For example, some regional art galleries in Australia are seeking popular acclaim for exhibitions that do meet other blockbuster criteria but could not achieve internationally comparable visitor numbers. This does not preclude them from claiming that such an exhibition was, according to that museum’s standards, a blockbuster. 4 In Australia, Brisbane hosted Expo ’88 in 1988. The most recent exposition took place in Astana, Kazakhstan, in 2017. 5 As at February 2018, Australia is not a member of this Bureau. 6 Australia is also part of this tradition. It was first represented at the Venice Biennale in 1954, and launched its own home-​grown version, the Biennale of Sydney, in 1973.

10

10 Introduction 7 The National Library Australia of Australia has experimented with blockbuster exhibitions, most notably Treasures from the World’s Great Libraries (2001–​02). This was supported by blockbuster organiser AEA but, unlike gallery and museum blockbusters, admission was free –​and thus it lacked a blockbuster’s commercial imperative (Bolton 2002, 55; NLA 2001).

References ACMI. 2017. Australian Centre for the Moving Image Annual Report 2016–​17. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Alexander, Cathy, and Peter Mitchell. 2010. ‘Not Enough Hotel Rooms: Obama’s Visit Sparks Concerns’. Australian Associated Press Financial News Wire, March 16. Factiva: AAPFIN0020100316e63g0018i. Altshuler, Bruce, ed. 2008. Salon to Biennial: Exhibitions That Made Art History. London: Phaidon Press. Altshuler, Bruce, ed. 2013. Biennials and Beyond  –​Exhibitions That Made Art History: 1962–​2002. London: Phaidon Press. AM. 2015. Media Release: T-​Rex’s Family Goes Global. Sydney: Australian Museum. December 11. Accessed August 11, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8do92xf. Barker, Emma. 1999. ‘Exhibiting the Canon: The Blockbuster Show’. In Contemporary Cultures of Display, edited by Emma Barker, 127–​46. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press. Basu, Paul, and Sharon Macdonald, eds. 2008. Experiments in Exhibition, Ethnography, Art, and Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bennett, Tony. 1995. The Birth of the Museum:  History, Theory, Politics. London: Routledge. Berryman, Jim. 2013. ‘Art and National Interest:  The Diplomatic Origins of the “Blockbuster Exhibition” in Australia’. Journal of Australian Studies 37 (2): 159–​73. Blainey, Geoffrey. 1966. The Tyranny of Distance: How Distance Shaped Australia’s History. Melbourne: Sun Books. Bolton, Robert. 2002. ‘Library’s Quiet Achiever Seeks Open Cheque-​ Books’. Australian Financial Review, July 11. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2016. ‘The Forms of Capital’. In Social Theory Re-​Wired:  New Connections to Classical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wesley Longhofer and Daniel Winchester, 184–​97. New York: Routledge. Capling, Ann, and Kim Richard Nossal. 2001. ‘Death of Distance or Tyranny of Distance? The Internet, Deterritorialization, and the Anti-​ Globalization Movement in Australia’. The Pacific Review 14 (3): 443–​65. Churcher, Betty. 1994. ‘Art Museums and Tourism: The Impact of the Blockbuster’. In Creating Culture:  The New Growth Industries:  Conference Papers, 11–​12 August 1994, 85–​9. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Communications and the Arts. Cochrane, Peter. 1990. ‘Major Exhibitions Will Soon Quench Our Thirst for Art’. Sydney Morning Herald, February 10. Conforti, Michael. 1986. ‘Museum Blockbusters:  Hoving’s Legacy Reconsidered’. Art in America 74 (June): 18–​23. Dunkerley, Susanna. 2012. ‘Gallery Says “au Revoir” to Masterpieces’. AAP Bulletins, April 18.

 11

Introduction 11 Edwards, Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen. 1976. Tutankhamun:  His Tomb and Its Treasures. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art & Alfred A. Knopf. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. In Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers, 1–​18. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. Elsen, Albert. 1986. ‘Museum Blockbusters:  Assessing the Pros and Cons’. Art in America 74 (June): 24–​7. Empire Art Loan Exhibitions Society. 1946. Constitution. London: Art Exhibitions Bureau. Film Bulletin. 1954. ‘They Made the News’, August 8. Freedberg, S.J., Gervase Jackson-​Stops, and Richard E. Spear. 1987. ‘On “Art History and the ‘Blockbuster’ Exhibition” ’. The Art Bulletin 69 (2): 295–​8. Frost, Andrew. 2014. ‘Blockbuster Exhibitions: See Incredible Historical Art on Your Own Doorstep’. Australia Culture Blog (Guardian Australia). August 5. Accessed January 18, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yae42q2d. Gardiner-​Garden, John. 1994. Arts Policy in Australia: A History of Commonwealth Involvement in the Arts. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. Gill, Raymond. 2012. ‘Treading Water on High Cost of Scholarship and the Lure of Popular Entertainment’. Age, April 7. Gilmore, Audrey, and Ruth Rentschler. 2002. ‘Changes in Museum Management: A Custodial or Marketing Emphasis?’ Journal of Management Development 21 (10): 745–​60. Glueck, Grace. 1975. ‘“Impressionist Epoch” at Met Sets Record for Attendance; More “Blockbusters” in Offing’. New York Times, February 8. Goldfarb, Brian. 2002. ‘Museum Pedagogy:  The Blockbuster Exhibition as Educational Technology’. In Visual Pedagogy: Media Cultures in and Beyond the Classroom, 143–​62. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Grishin, Sasha. 2009. ‘The Rise and Rise of the Blockbuster Exhibition’. Australian Art Review 18 (February–​April): 28–​30. Guardian. 1972. ‘The Tutankhamun Show’, March 29. Haskell, Francis. 2000. The Ephemeral Museum: Old Master Paintings and the Rise of the Art Exhibition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kramer, Hilton. 1975. ‘Art View:  The Met Succumbs to Box-​ Office Mentality’. New York Times, March 2. Kramer, Hilton. 1978a. ‘“Blockbuster” Art at National Gallery’. New York Times, May 30. Kramer, Hilton. 1978b. ‘Art View: Blockbusters Weren’t the Whole Show’. New York Times, December 31. McCarthy, Phillip. 1978. ‘The Golden Dud’. National Times, July 15. McDonald, John. 2016. ‘Art Attack’. Spectrum Magazine Summer/​Autumn, November 5: 8–​9. NGA. 2010. Annual Report 2009–​2010. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. NLA. 2001. ‘Treasures from the World’s Great Libraries’. Collection. National Library of Australia. Accessed February 19, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ y8b65enk. North, Ian, ed. 1984. Art Museums and Big Business. Canberra:  Art Museum Association of Australia. ‘Our History’. 2018. Bureau International des Expositions. Accessed February 19. www.bie-​paris.org/​site/​en/​bie/​our-​history.

12

12 Introduction Rentschler, Ruth. 2001. ‘Entrepreneurship: From Denial to Discovery in Nonprofit Art Museums?’ Working Paper No. PONC98. Presented at the Program on Nonprofit Corporations, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Rosen, George. 1951. ‘Radio-​Television:  NBC-​TV’S Blockbustin' Lineup’. Variety 183 (11): 31, 44. Spear, Richard E. 1986. ‘Art History and the “Blockbuster” Exhibition’. The Art Bulletin 68 (3): 358–​9. Stoilas, Helen. 2011. ‘Exhibition and Museum Attendance Figures  2010’. Art Newspaper 223 (April): 23–​6, 28–​9. Tillman, Lynne. 1986. ‘Museum Blockbusters: Dynasty Reruns: “Treasure Houses of Great Britain”’. Art in America 74 (June): 35–​7. Variety. 1951. ‘Pictures Grosses: “Vadis” New Peak in Pitt, $48,000’. 184 (12): 9. Vergo, Peter, ed. 1989. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books. Wallis, Brian. 1986. ‘Museum Blockbusters: The Art of Big Business’. Art in America 74 (June): 28–​33. Weil, Stephen E. 1999. ‘From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum’. Daedalus 128 (3): 229–​58. West, Shearer. 1995. ‘The Devaluation of “Cultural Capital”:  Post-​ Modern Democracy and the Art Blockbuster’. In Art in Museums, edited by Susan M. Pearce, 74–​93. London; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone Press.

 13

Part I

Laying the foundations Culture, spectacle, exhibitions, 1850s–​1940s

14

 15

1  International expositions Social, scientific and spectacular

Exhibitions are our latest and highest industries. They require the attention of our most intelligent men to bring them to a successful issue, and they are at the same time a most correct and useful record of the progress of a nation. (Governor Hon. J.P. Bell at the opening of the Fifth Annual Exhibition of the National Association [Brisbane], 1880. Queensland Times, Ipswich Herald and General Advertiser 1880, 4) Since the foundation of Victoria, there has always been a disposition to foster and encourage home productions by means of exhibitions. (J.G. Knight, ‘Introduction’ in Official Record of the Intercolonial Exhibition of Australia 1866–​67 1867, xxiii)

Across the globe, the nineteenth century provided many opportunities for the general public to view temporary exhibitions. This was as much the case in Australia as in more established centres. Perhaps the most visible of these events were the international expositions, also known as ‘great exhibitions’, ‘expositions universelles’ or ‘world’s fairs’. As spectacular events comprising crowded assemblages of art and industry, they played a crucial role in shaping contemporary exhibitionary culture –​and ultimately public museums –​around the world (Bennett 1995). They filled large and elaborate purpose-​built temporary exhibition halls, whose construction celebrated new industries of the modern world and the advent of consumer culture. They drew huge audiences, and served as forerunners of today’s blockbuster exhibitions, due to their format and ambition. Brian Goldfarb is just one theorist who has suggested that blockbusters are in fact ‘the closest contemporary analogy to the great exhibitions of the nineteenth century’ (2002, 147). International expositions, in Australia and abroad, were widely reported in newspapers, and Australia’s participation helped promote the new British colonies and celebrate their industry and advancement (Darian-​Smith et  al. 2008; Freestone, Proudfoot and Maguire 2000). This chapter argues that the expositions’ legacies are

16

16  Laying the foundations manifold: they created exhibition infrastructure in the form of buildings, advanced the skills of professionals in the field, contributed to local collections and attracted government support for  –​and popular interest in –​the temporary exhibition format. For exhibition makers in Australia, participating in international expositions helped establish a culture of display, and we argue an understanding of the format and logistics involved, that would eventually equip them to generate such shows locally. We can trace a trajectory from Australians participating in international expositions overseas, to staging intercolonial shows locally, to hosting full-​scale international expositions. This reveals a growing confidence and capacity on the part of exhibition makers. We further argue that for viewers, early exhibitions in the Australian colonies established important precedents for public display, which in turn helped cultivate an audience ready to accept more ambitious offerings. Underpinning the desire to participate was an understanding of exhibitions’ potential to educate on a mass scale, reflecting the nineteenth century understanding of seeing as the primary method of learning (Bennett 1995; Knight 1867). This early history reveals major themes that have endured in current blockbusters:  contemporary ideas of spectacle and its importance in Australia, the roles of individuals in building capacity and governments’ growing awareness of the value of temporary exhibitions.

Exhibitionary practice in nineteenth century Australia Australian exhibitionary practice in the nineteenth century followed global trends, with a mixture of displays in formal cultural institutions alongside more fleeting exhibitions and temporary spectacles staged elsewhere. The Australian colonies were distinct from the metropolitan powers in their geographical isolation from Europe. Exhibitions came to be crucial spaces for education and civic reform because they offered the community a chance to see and reflect on ideas of progress (Rusden 1857). And unlike European centres, the colonies were still young; significant morale was needed to maintain rapid development (Armstrong 1906). In the cultural sector alone, the pace of change was considerable. Across Australia, new colonial outposts adopted European models and set up cultural institutions and educational organisations in the image of the motherland. Historian Geoffrey Serle, in his discussion of the development of the colony of Victoria, wrote:  ‘The cultural habits and institutions of Britain were transplanted, and a worthy replica of the cultural life of an English provincial city was formed’ (1963, 353). This practice was mirrored in all the Australian colonies. In its first century, for example, Sydney, the continent’s first European settlement, quickly established major cultural organisations, including Australia’s oldest museum, the Australian Museum (of natural history and ethnography,

 17

International expositions 17 established in 1827), a university in 1850, a public library in 1869 and the beginnings of an art gallery (with the foundation of an academy of art) in the 1870s. A science and technology museum was founded in 1879. Melbourne, established in 1835, grew even more quickly, due to the gold rushes of the 1850s and 1860s that rapidly transformed the economy and population of Victoria. Thus a public library was opened in 1853 which included a room for fine arts; a museum of natural history and ethnography was established in 1854; an art gallery in 1861; and a technological museum in 1871. Other cities across Australia witnessed a similar pattern of establishing cultural organisations (Markham and Richards 1933). These institutions became, and have remained, central spaces for temporary exhibitions and permanent collections of cultural material (Underhill 1979). These cultural institutions and exhibitions served a civic purpose in the developing colonies. This was made obvious, for example, by one of the founders of the Melbourne Public Library, Lieutenant-​Governor Charles La Trobe (1801–​75), whose ambition for the institution was driven by a sense of the positive ‘influence likely to arise from voluntary adult mental improvement, as well as of the intellectual and moral elevation to be created by a cultivation of the works of standard authors’ (The Catalogue of the Melbourne Public Library for 1861 1861, v). Likewise, the educational potential of multidisciplinary expositions held outside institutions was emphasised. Educator George W. Rusden stated, on the opening of the new Exhibition Building in Melbourne in 1854, that expositions brought people together: ‘for the good of work and learning … which puts us hand to hand, and shoulder to shoulder, striving emulously for the advantage of all’ (1857, 24). Both La Trobe and Rusden saw potential for culture to contribute to formal learning and moral improvement, in addition to galvanising the local population under the banner of progress. International expositions in particular, because of their exhaustive displays, provided ready evidence of this development and maturation. The civic role of exhibitions has been theorised by academics including Tony Bennett and Carol Duncan. It was understood in the nineteenth century that the ‘first responsibility’ of the art museum was to ‘enlighten and improve its visitors morally, socially and politically’ (Duncan 1995, 16). Bennett applies this more broadly by looking at the roles of international expositions alongside more formal cultural institutions. He concludes that, as displays became open to the public –​whether in museums or expositions –​ they served a civic and democratic role, functioning as ‘new instruments for the moral and cultural regulation of the working classes’ (Bennett 1995, 73). For Bennett, the exhibitionary space was one of power, in which its structures elicited a response from patrons. It was not simply a space for education in a formal sense but was also, as Duncan similarly notes, a space for moral instruction. Central to Bennett’s argument is the fact that exhibition spaces provided opportunities to not only see the latest displays –​technical,

18

18  Laying the foundations cultural, historical and artistic  –​but also to become part of the display. Exhibitions provided opportunities for visitors to both see and be seen; the ‘exhibitionary complex’: perfected a self-​monitoring system of looks in which the subject and object positions can be exchanged, in which the crowd comes to commune with and regulate itself through interiorizing the ideal and ordered view of itself as seen from the controlling vision of power –​a site of sight accessible to all. (Bennett 1995, 69) Thus it was exhibitions’ unique combination of ‘spectacle and surveillance’ (Bennett 1995, 65)  that enabled a disciplining of visitors through self-​regulation, transforming the potential problem of disorder among large crowds into an orderly consumption of culture. Exhibitions were responsible for ‘winning hearts and minds as well as disciplining and training bodies’ (Bennett 1995, 62). Although Bennett’s argument draws primarily on the history of museums in England, it applies equally to Australia, to which British models of display, order and systems of knowledge were readily transplanted (Serle 1963, 353). Australia emulated exhibition models from Britain and Europe to position culture as a central part of a mature and ‘competitive’ colony. The Australian News for Home Readers offers just one example of praise for these new institutions and their displays, here the new Picture Gallery at the Victorian Public Library in 1865: Every day since its opening the gallery has been crowded, and the attendance as yet has not shown signs of diminishing. Victorians, it cannot be doubted, are sincere lovers of art, and the establishment of such a valuable institution in the metropolis will stimulate our local artists to use their best efforts to the production of works worthy to be placed in competition with those received from the mother country. (1865, 7) Three aspects of the exhibition are illustrated in this quote. Firstly, vision is at the heart of the exhibition space: by simply looking at these objects, local artists will be stimulated. Secondly, the notion of civic progress: the colony will be able to take over the role of producer and alleviate the need to import culture from the motherland. Finally, and crucially for the success of exhibitions, there is a ready and enthusiastic audience, willing to participate. It was not just the civic underpinning of Australian exhibitions that emulated European –​particularly British –​models. The physical nature of displays also reflected the types of public spectacle staged elsewhere. As Richard Altick makes clear in his research into London from the Tudor

 19

International expositions 19 period to the 1880s, the nineteenth century was rich with public spectacle outside official institutions (1978). Such spectacles were most often commercial ventures that conflated entertainment with education or instruction. Before public museums were easily accessible, these exhibitions  –​which included ‘displays of pictures, objects, or living creatures, including human beings’ (Altick 1978, 2) –​helped to form ideas on display, and to shape audiences’ expectations. They were also inherently democratic spaces that ‘engaged the attention of the “lower ranks” [and] also attracted the cultivated’ (Altick 1978, 3). These aspects correlate directly with the function of blockbusters to this day, which continue to be commercial enterprises bearing the ‘two great streams of appeal  –​amusement and instruction’ (Altick 1978, 509). Temporary exhibitions and public spectacles were a vibrant part of social life in the Australian colonies; in this respect too they reflected overseas trends. Moreover, there was a great variety of exhibits on offer, some organised by groups such as mechanics institutes (spread throughout Australia), regular agricultural fairs, temporary exhibitions held by art societies and amateur botany groups, as well as travelling panoramas and dioramas (Colligan 2002). This generated a rich culture of public spectacle. The novelty and complexity of these displays is the focus of Anita Callaway’s research situating public spectacles  –​such as transparencies, tableaux, panoramas and theatrical scenery  –​as essential components of the emerging visual culture of the maturing nation (2000). Callaway shows how colonials negotiated a vexed relationship with the imperial motherland and how this manifested in visual spectacles. For example, the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales in England in 1863 precipitated events in the colonies that took over city streets with lighted buildings and temporary paintings (Callaway 2000, 30–​6). Her innovative research defines a new component of the visual culture of Australian history –​one where the exhibition of transparency paintings was a mix of art, mass entertainment and extravagance. This structure of display has many parallels in the current use of spectacle and ‘must-​see’ events as fixtures of cultural tourism in Australia and internationally.1

International expositions: Australia’s contributions Australia’s participation in the international exposition movement, as this chapter will go on to show, is directly connected to the development of exhibition and cultural infrastructure and a growing professional capacity. We reveal how Australian colonies contributed to international expositions, staged their own smaller-​scale local versions and eventually hosted large-​ scale international expositions on home soil. They helped establish audience expectations for exhibitions, and were popular. The Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, held in London in 1851, and the Exposition universelle des produits de l’agriculture,

20

20  Laying the foundations de l’industrie et des beaux-​arts de Paris of 1855 are credited as the modern beginnings of the international movement of large-​ scale temporary expositions. This was a movement that reflected a profound social change, enabling citizens of different classes to commingle among the displays. It is one that French historian Ernest Renan identified in his description of the crowds visiting the Paris exposition of 1855 as being drawn by the exhaustive display of European ‘merchandise’ (1855, [3]‌). His description of this spectacle reveals parallels with the commercialisation of cultural experiences seen internationally in blockbusters today (Ho 2017; Pearson 2015, 21; Safe 2003, 14). International expositions have been extensively studied and have come to be understood as complex spaces of modernity and cultural imperialism representing a globalisation of culture (Darian-​Smith et  al. 2008; Greenhalgh 1988; Greenhalgh 2011). They have also been identified as spaces for the demonstration of knowledge, social engagement and popular entertainment –​aspects that, in particular, highlight continuity with today’s blockbusters. The Australian colonies were participants in the global phenomenon of international expositions, and we argue that their participation provided opportunities for Australians to hone their skills in developing exhibition content. They were represented in London in 1851 and Paris in 1855, and continued to send exhibits across the globe for much of the nineteenth century and beyond (Orr 2006). The scale and ambition of these expositions also inspired a local variant  –​the ‘intercolonial’ exhibition  –​ staged in Melbourne in 1866 and 1875, and in Sydney in 1870 and 1873. The intercolonial exhibits adapted international models to a more local focus that celebrated the healthy intercolonial rivalry in their assemblage of colonial showcases (Intercolonial Exhibition 1866 Official Catalogue 1866). Finally, after these experimental models were mastered, full-​scale international expositions were hosted by Australian colonies, in Sydney (1879–​80) and Melbourne (1880–​1 and 1888–​9). While this seems a logical and coordinated development –​from participating in international expositions to staging their own –​the history is in fact much more complex. Early Australian attempts at participation in these global events were chaotic. Before Federation in 1901, the Australian colonies were autonomous and thus made separate contributions to international expositions. These were typically organised by individuals and committees, with some support from colonial governments. The displays represented a diverse range of opportunities for Australian exhibitors: potential financial gain, expanding trade and symbolic affirmation of the colony’s position and identity. By considering how the 1851 London and 1855 Paris exhibits were understood and used in Australia, we can better understand mid-nineteenth century ideas on the value of the exhibition format. Exporting Australian content to international expositions, we argue, had a significant effect on the history of exhibitions in Australia.

 21

International expositions 21

Previews at home, and Australian participation in the 1851 and 1855 international expositions For the Australian colonies, the opportunity to participate in the 1851 Great Exhibition in London was coloured by a deep symbolism particularly because many settler Australians thought of the United Kingdom as ‘home’ (The Freeman’s Journal 1851, 7–​8; Sydney Morning Herald 1851, 2). So, despite the logistical demands of organising the exhibits, and the costs involved, organisers framed participation as a chance to demonstrate colonial advancement to an international audience. Commentary in the Australian press reinforced this idea, noting their potential to attract new settlers and help position the colonies as an active and useful part of the British Empire (Adelaide Observer 1850, 2). There was an eagerness to make a good impression in the motherland, although there was speculation that the local contributions might not be up to international standard:  ‘[I]‌t is doubtful whether a sufficient quantity of articles have been sent home to fill the space in the exhibition … This will create a false and discouraging idea as to the extent of our diligence’ (The Freeman’s Journal 1851, 7). In spite of local enthusiasm and ambition to show the advanced status of the colonies, the reality of Australia’s participation was far from successful (Hoffenberg 2008). A  general lack of coordination and the inexperience of the organisers were impediments. The exhibits were a jumble of industrial and agricultural products, architectural models, mining and geological specimens, and taxidermied wildlife (Official Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations 1851, 177–​84), sourced primarily from private individuals and manufacturers, with little input from the nascent cultural organisations. Newspaper commentary underlined factors that hampered success, including the slowness of gathering material together and the complexity and costs of sending it to London (Bathurst Free Press 1850, 4).2 Although the London display may have been a disappointment, the process brought local benefits. Apart from the experience that organisers gained by mounting the exhibition, there was a benefit for Australian audiences. For example, South Australia’s contribution was first shown to an eager public in Adelaide before it was shipped across the ocean. This two-​day preview attracted ‘about a thousand persons of various ranks and respectable demeanour, fashionably dressed in city garb or substantially clad in the more homely attire of the rural interior’ (Adelaide Observer 1850, 2). Like the London exhibitions studied by Altick, exhibitions in Australia were democratic spaces, attracting a broad cross-​section of society. Moreover, they drew exceedingly enthusiastic audiences. That so many people attended this modest showing, consisting of grains, minerals and olive oil (Adelaide Observer 1850, 2), demonstrates the public appetite for exhibitions at the time.

22

22  Laying the foundations In 1850 this type of preview appears to be unique to Adelaide, but the idea was taken up by other colonies for subsequent endeavours. For example, Melbourne and Sydney each held a preview as part of their preparations for Paris in 1855. Their submissions were better organised and more ambitious, demonstrating a greater awareness of the planning involved. In Melbourne, the preview was the catalyst for the construction of a dedicated temporary exhibition building, described in The Age as ‘our own Crystal Palace’ after the famous venue of London’s 1851 exposition (Age 1854, 9). In a colony that was only twenty years old, this represented an enormous investment and ambition. The building itself stood as an important monument to the colony’s advancement, giving ‘an impression on the senses of a kind not often experienced in this colony  –​so young in the arts of beauty’ (Age 1854, 9). The Age noted that it was ‘the building and the brilliant groups [of visitors] that are gathered in it that constitute the “great show” ’ (Age 1854, 9), suggesting that, just as with blockbusters today, the venue and the crowds were a compulsory part of the spectacle and an important measure of success (Mendelssohn 1992; Pes, da Silva, and Sharpe 2017). The building became an example of ‘temporary’ display infrastructure that endured and was even expanded to accommodate a preview of material destined for the 1862 London exposition (Barry, cited in Archer 1861, 22). Beyond the physical infrastructure that it prompted, the preview also reinforced a growing professionalism in managing exhibitions: tighter curatorial control, increased confidence in managing the logistics of touring, forward planning to capitalise on local audiences and collaboration with government and cultural institutions. The selection of objects was regulated by the Special Instructions for the Guidance of Local Committees and Intending Exhibitors (1853), which suggested the size and scale of displays, as well as noting the organisers of the exhibition. The resulting diverse display included minerals, a grand piano, artworks and industrial products, all selected from private individuals and commercial companies. Much of the display material was sourced from Bendigo, a developing regional centre, described just three years earlier as merely ‘thickly timbered ranges’ (Argus 1854, 5). It made sense to consolidate exhibits in Bendigo before sending them to Melbourne and eventual shipment to England. In a further demonstration of the organisers’ aptitude, these objects were also previewed in Bendigo, where the ‘display impressed its audience with its gold nuggets, minerals, machinery and works of art’, before moving on to a Melbourne preview (Argus 1854, 5). There it was seen by 40,000 visitors –​ or just over half the city’s population (Morrison 1995, 6). Thus the effort of mustering objects from across Victoria for an exposition in London that very few colonials would see was justified by making the local contribution available to a local audience. A final advance demonstrated by this 1854 preview was the closer collaboration between organisers and the colonial government. A  selection of objects came from public collections, including some minerals and specimens

 23

International expositions 23 of fauna from an organisation identified as ‘the Government Museum’ (Official Catalogue of the Melbourne Exhibition 1854, in Connexion with the Paris Exhibition, 1855 1854, 7). The Official Catalogue notes that the trustees of the Melbourne Public Library exhibited two globes (1854, 26), while the Melbourne Mechanics Institute loaned a variety of items (1854, 26, 28, 29). Not only were the cultural institutions themselves developing, but a relationship was forming between those organisations and temporary exhibitions. In Sydney the connection between public cultural institutions and temporary previews was even more pronounced. There, the preview of material destined for Paris was first seen in the Long Gallery of the Australian Museum. Significantly, the museum was still under construction and the preview provided the first opportunity for the public to visit the building for an exhibition (Sydney Morning Herald 1854a, 5). Moreover, the New South Wales commissioners relied on museum staff to help supply natural history specimens (Catalogue of the Natural and Industrial Products of New South Wales 1854, 3). The organisers wanted the preview to be a major event. The catalogue notes that the Sydney preview was conceived as ‘an object of importance’ (Catalogue of the Natural and Industrial Products of New South Wales 1854, 5). The extensive temporary display represented the achievements and character of the colony, by including sculptures of colonial figures such as explorers Ludwig Leichhardt and James Cook, the Bishop of Sydney, and Dr James Mitchell (a local luminary and trustee of the museum), as well as paintings of colonial scenery (Fig. 1.1). These were shown alongside two casts of European sculptures –​the Apollo Belvedere and the Venus de Medici  –​which had been presented to the Australian Museum by Sir Charles Nicholson (provost of the University of Sydney, who established the Nicholson Museum) (Sydney Morning Herald 1854b, 4). Natural and industrial specimens were also on display, including gold from the New South Wales goldfields. The Long Gallery, itself a fine example of colonial design, provided an impressive showcase of colonial production. The ambition of the event was rewarded with an enthusiastic reception. The opening event saw ‘the spacious gallery surrounding the hall … filled with fashionably-​dressed spectators’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1854b, 4). But the show was also popular among a broad cross section of visitors: No less than two thousand five hundred and twenty-​one persons passed through its portals on Thursday last, and this mass (be it remembered during working hours) was comprised of a most heterogeneous multitude, representing all classes of the community, deporting themselves without exception … and evidencing, in the most unmistakable manner their gratification and wonder at the spectacle. (Sydney Morning Herald 1854d, 4) This ‘heterogeneous multitude’ reveals the reach of the exhibition which, like international blockbusters today, offered a range of entry points for

24

24  Laying the foundations

Figure 1.1 C.W. Andrews; W.G. Mason, Ceremony of Opening the Paris Exhibition at the Museum, Sydney, 1854. Courtesy of National Library of Australia Rex Nan Kivell Collection NK2106/​1. U716; S1227.

different audience segments. Its complementary suite of public programs included performances by the ‘Military Band some two or three times a week’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1854a, 5). The ‘sale of refreshments within the walls of the institution’ was also allowed (Sydney Morning Herald 1854c, 5). As with the Melbourne preview, these characteristics point to a growing professionalism in staging temporary exhibitions, and a mindfulness of visitor experience. Even at this early stage, the exhibition preview bore many of the hallmarks of a modern-​day blockbuster: it was temporary, popular, widely reported in the media and catered to a diverse audience (Elsen 1984). This strategy of locally previewing content destined for international expositions caught on and, we argue, resulted in several benefits:  a practical means of marshalling the objects; a chance to award prizes; and an opportunity to present the richness and progress of the colony to a local audience. As such, their regularity helped establish a local audience for temporary exhibitions. For the 1862 London exposition, for example, there were previews in both Melbourne and Sydney. In Melbourne this new exhibit re-​used the ‘Crystal Palace’, while in Sydney it was housed in the Sydney Mechanics School of Arts (Archer 1861; Catalogue of the Natural and Industrial Products of New South Wales 1861). The Melbourne Public Library hosted a number of previews, including one in 1875 showcasing

 25

International expositions 25 material to be exhibited in Philadelphia, and another in 1886 showing objects destined for London (Armstrong 1906, 36, 53), while the 1893 catalogue of the National Art Gallery of New South Wales lists a ‘Loan Collection’ destined for an exposition in Chicago (NAGNSW 1893). The previews celebrated colonial progress and were important temporary events aimed at educating a local audience. As exhibits they affirmed the colonies’ place in the international community and celebrated an idea of achievement that was central to the contemporary notion of progress. Practically, the exhibits were crucial for helping organisers develop essential skills and cultural infrastructure. As popular temporary exhibitions, they provided an opportunity to promote the new cultural organisations as spaces of both public education and entertainment. This dual focus has continued to be central to the staging of temporary exhibitions and blockbusters in museums and galleries. These early exhibitions set audience expectations, conformed to current formats, began the training of individuals and cultural workers in exhibition management, and stimulated infrastructure development. All of these benefits positioned the colonies to create more complex exhibitions as the nineteenth century progressed.

The first intercolonial exhibition: new ideas of local competition Intercolonial exhibitions occupied an intermediary position in the realm of nineteenth century exhibitions in Australia. Although far more ambitious ventures than the previews staged by individual colonies, they were not, at their inception, as grand as the fully fledged international expositions upon which they were based. The first intercolonial exhibition was held in Victoria in 1866, and was emulated in New South Wales in 1870 and 1873, Western Australia in 1881 and again in Victoria in 1887. Each was conceived as a platform for exhibiting progress in the colonies (‘Progress of Victoria’ 1867). Unlike previews of content assembled for offshore expositions, they required far greater cooperation and collaboration between the British colonies involved, adding a layer of organisational complexity (Knight 1866, 3–​11). Following on from earlier exhibitions, these shows were also more ambitious. It was through the staging of intercolonial exhibitions, we argue, that individuals emerged as skilled cultural workers, adept at organising and managing exhibitions. Furthermore, exhibition infrastructure was also more established by this time, whether as a result of previous temporary exhibition venues, new buildings or more established public cultural facilities. Finally, audiences continued to turn out, seeking entertainment and instruction. In all these ways these shows demonstrated the next stage of development in the exhibition culture of nineteenth century Australia. In his preface to the 1866 intercolonial exhibition guide, J.G. Knight compared the show to the earlier 1861 Victorian preview of objects bound for London, noting that the later exhibition demonstrated ‘a very gratifying march of improvement’ (1866, 6). The scale and complexity of

26

26  Laying the foundations intercolonial exhibitions, and the need for a more coordinated approach, demonstrate a strengthening of exhibition planning skills. The first intercolonial exhibition was ambitious in its desire to include material from all the Australian colonies  –​Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia  –​alongside other outposts of the British Empire, including New Zealand, Mauritius, New Caledonia and Batavia (Indonesia). Knight described the complex negotiations for procuring displays from each colony. Although some were readily forthcoming, in other places, such as New South Wales, organisers came up against ‘the coldness of a few politically bilious individuals’ who threatened the advance of the project (Knight 1866, 9). Knight detailed how the organisers used the media to raise awareness of the exhibition in the developmental phase (1866, 10). This demonstrates the perseverance required to organise an exhibition with such a broad scope, where it was necessary to circumvent unsupportive individuals. The ambitious scope necessitated a more substantial venue  –​grand ambitions required a grand building. Melbourne’s ‘Crystal Palace’, used in 1854 and 1862, was deemed too small, so a much larger structure was built on the grounds of the Melbourne Public Library.3 The official record celebrated the exhibition’s substantial scale, noting that ‘the present Exhibition Buildings and Courts occupy 56,240 feet, or nearly three times the area of the old Exhibition’ (Intercolonial Exhibition 1866 Official Catalogue 1866, 6). The Official Catalogue outlined how each colony was represented by its own court, displaying objects sourced from governments, private individuals and businesses (1866). Organisers attempted to bring cohesion to the displays, with objects arranged in categories:  ‘Mineral Products, Animal Products, Agricultural with Horticultural and Indigenous Vegetable Products, Manufactures and the Useful Arts, the Ornamental Arts, and Machinery’ (Intercolonial Exhibition 1866 Official Catalogue 1866, 8). Further context was provided by interpretative essays and photographic views of the colony. The photographs, amassed via a public call, were conceived as providing a systematic picture of Victorian progress, and were complemented by statistical information (Fox 1999, 174). These attempts to organise material thematically and geographically, together with the desire to provide a standardised stream of interpretation through essays and images, demonstrate an advanced understanding of the exhibition as a medium of communication in which objects, images and text contribute simultaneously to the overall visitor experience (Fig. 1.2).4 This exhibition also gave exhibitors an opportunity to test out new approaches to display and arrangement in preparation for their contributions to international events such as the 1867 Paris exposition. In fact this attitude –​that the intercolonial exhibition was merely a practice run for Paris –​ was lamented, because it compromised the integrity of the local display. The New South Wales court was ‘seriously marred’ by ‘the removal of goods for transmission to Paris’, and Queensland also despatched ‘the best of

 27

International expositions 27

Figure 1.2 ‘The Intercolonial Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia’, The Illustrated London News, 2 March 1867. Courtesy of Museum Victoria (https://​ collections.museumvictoria.com.au/​items/​253831).

her products’ for Paris before the end of the show (Official Record of the Intercolonial Exhibition of Australia 1866–​67 1867, xxvii). The fact that some exhibitors used this local event as an opportunity to test out displays demonstrates that these early exhibitions were partly about building capacity and developing skills. This reveals a tension between the desire to create a sophisticated local display and aspirations for an international presence. The scale of this exhibition  –​along with efforts to systematise the arrangement of objects and provide interpretation and a context for the ­display –​demonstrates an advance beyond earlier exhibitions, facilitated by the greater expertise of exhibition organisers. The president of the Melbourne exhibit, for example, was arts patron and Supreme Court Judge Redmond Barry. Barry gained experience in commissioning exhibitions over a number of years, acting as president of commissioners for Victoria’s contributions in 1855 and 1862. He also had significant connections in Victoria’s burgeoning cultural sector, having played a central role in establishing the Melbourne Public Library and the National Gallery of Victoria (Galbally 2004, 5). Barry had grand ambitions for the intercolonial exhibit, which, he felt, would inspire progress and development (Age 1865, 7). His advocacy and high standing in the colony were crucial in raising the exhibition’s profile.5

28

28  Laying the foundations Beyond advocacy, individuals who demonstrated an aptitude for the managerial side of exhibition-​making emerged during this period. John G. Knight for example built up experience over a series of exhibits.6 He helped organise the Victorian exhibition in 1861, worked on Victoria’s exhibits for the 1864 Dublin exposition and was responsible for both the 1866 intercolonial exhibition in Melbourne and Victoria’s submissions to Paris in 1867 (Leader 1892, 32). He designed elements of the exhibitions, including the ‘Gold Trophy’ displayed in Melbourne in 1861, London in 1862 and Paris in 1867 (Leader 1892, 32). An obituary noted that he had ‘a special talent’ for the complex role of organising exhibitions (Australasian 1892, 43). Knight wanted to improve the visitor experience, and reflected on the importance of this in his writings. This desire was also evidenced by two publications associated with the exhibition:  the official catalogue, and a more discursive guide to help visitors navigate the extensive displays. Knight stated that the guide’s aim was ‘to assist such visitors in making a more comprehensive survey of the buildings’ in a format that was ‘more interesting and generally acceptable than a dry catalogue’ (1866, 17). In his report, Knight reflected on the nature of these exhibitions, and his observations remain relevant to large-​ scale international exhibitions today: he argued that buildings should be beautiful edifices with a balance of exhibition space and sufficient circulation room (1867, xl–​xli). He further suggested that lectures could ‘stimulate enquiry’ and that musical performances were essential to encourage attendance (1867, xli), for ‘[t]‌he greater the attendance the greater will be the success of Industrial Exhibitions, and all legitimate means may fairly be resorted to promote that end’ (Knight 1867, xli). The influence of Knight –​and his attention to visitor experience, arrangement of objects, interpretation and programming –​ resulted in a very popular event, recording a total of 268,634 visitors during its season from October 24, 1866 to February 23, 1867 (Official Record of the Intercolonial Exhibition of Australia 1866–​67 1867, xliv), equating to around 40 per cent of the colony’s population.7 The legacy of Australia’s first intercolonial exhibition was significant: the buildings would go on to house a drawing school, technological museum, the National Museum of Victoria and the National Gallery of Victoria (Armstrong 1906, 20). The exhibits themselves formed the basis of the Industrial and Technological Museum collection that opened in 1870 (Rasmussen 2001, 79). The intercolonial exhibit was in itself a successful legacy, with other colonies emulating the model.

World fairs at home: inviting the world to Australia As the colonies grew, so too did their exhibitionary expertise and ambition: When the preparations for the Paris Exhibition of 1878 were being made, it occurred to the representatives of New South Wales and

 29

International expositions 29 Victoria that the time had arrived when they might invite the nations of the world, for their mutual benefit, to exhibit their productions in these distant colonies. (Report of the Royal Commission for the Australian International Exhibitions to the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty 1882, 9) Sydney was home to Australia’s first international exposition, from September 1879 to April 1880. The second was held in Melbourne from October to April 1880.8 These events left a significant mark. Sydney’s was particularly important because, being the first, it symbolically repositioned how the colony  –​and Australia generally  –​was perceived internationally (Freestone, Proudfoot and Maguire 2000). Importantly, these exhibitions showcased colonial economic development and progress, and brought the excitement and crowds of international visitors directly to Sydney and Melbourne (Freestone, Proudfoot and Maguire 2000). As a testament to the professionalism of the endeavour, the Sydney International Exhibition of 1879–​80 attracted exhibitors from many countries, including England, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, the United States and Japan (Sydney Morning Herald 1879, 5). This represents the beginnings of the exhibition as a diplomatic vehicle:  international participants were approached via ‘invitations issued by our government’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1879, 5). To this end, the show was opened by the governor of New South Wales, Lord Augustus Loftus, who proclaimed in his speech that the event celebrated ‘an era in Australian progress’ that welcomed ‘representatives of the old heroic nations [and] the bright daughter-​lands of England –​I welcome all of human brotherhood, to our newly raised Temple of Industry and Peace in a new world’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1879, 6). So the exhibition served as a vehicle for economic development and international diplomacy, as well as providing an educational and entertaining experience for visitors. As with earlier spectacles, the audience was broad. It was hoped that ‘all classes of the community will embrace … studying the many attractive collections which are exposed for their instruction’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1879, 5). This was encouraged via a variable ticket pricing system that included daily tickets (with cheaper rates on certain days), monthly and season tickets, and concessions for children (Sydney Daily Telegraph 1879, 3). The range of services for visitors included a regular program of musical performances and a variety of refreshment venues (Pont 2000, 149–​65). The exhibition was presented in the purpose-​built Garden Palace, along with a number of annexes to accommodate the vast displays (Fig. 1.3). The prominent presence of the Garden Palace itself, alongside the sprawling annexes and variety of activities on offer, marked the event as an all-​ encompassing spectacle unprecedented in the colony. Indeed, its scale made it impossible to miss, literally, as the Garden Palace dominated the city

30

30  Laying the foundations

Figure 1.3 The Sydney International Exhibition, published by Alfred May and Alfred Martin Ebsworth Melbourne, 30 August 1879. Courtesy of State Library of Victoria (www.slv.vic.gov.au).

skyline. The spectacle was a regular feature of the press coverage, which also reported on the associated concerts and events, the exhibits themselves, and visiting dignitaries (Freestone, Proudfoot, and Maguire 2000; Sydney Morning Herald 1879, 5–​6). This media attention also contributed to the exhibition’s characterisation as a ‘must-​see’ event, akin to the media coverage that is exploited in today’s blockbuster marketing campaigns. These exhibition traits –​the economic motivation, diplomatic underpinning, multiple entry points and activities, and media saturation –​clearly correlate with modern blockbusters (Berryman 2013; Elsen 1984; West 1995). Another legacy was important for the development of exhibition culture in Australia: the formation of collections and cultural organisations. The Sydney International Exhibition, for example, is directly linked to the founding of both the Technological, Industrial and Sanitary Museum (now the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences or MAAS) and the New South Wales art gallery (now the Art Gallery of NSW) in 1880. Many of the exhibits from the 1879 exhibition were earmarked for the new Technological Museum’s collection; when the exhibition closed, they remained in the Garden Palace. Tragically, the building was destroyed by fire in 1882 and the objects were lost, along with the museum’s first records (Proudfoot 2000, 210). Despite this physical loss, the influence of the International Exhibition can still be seen today, as the display categories used in 1879 continue to inform the historical structure of the collection (Proudfoot 2000, 208).

 31

International expositions 31 The Sydney International Exhibition was also central to the development of the Sydney gallery, providing both the foundation for its collection and exhibition infrastructure in the form of a building (Sydney Morning Herald 1880, 3) The exhibition included a display of fine arts from Belgium, Germany, France, Austria and Britain (Descriptive Catalogue of Pictures, and C., in the Art Gallery of the International Exhibition Sydney, 1879–​ 80 1879, [2]‌). The art gallery in Sydney purchased a number of works (Young 1983, 113). These formed an important foundation for the gallery’s collection when it opened in 1880. In a further connection to the exposition, the gallery was first housed in the temporary Art Annexe, built for the International Exhibition, before moving to its permanent home nearby in 1885 (NAGNSW 1888, 5). These permanent cultural facilities have served as exhibition venues for well over a century; both are prominent blockbuster hosts. Thus they occupy an important place in the lineage of large-​scale temporary exhibitions in Australia and the global exchange of material culture via such exhibitions. The legacy of Melbourne’s international expositions was less immediate, as that city’s cultural institutions were already further advanced, although some exhibits from 1880 did become part of the state collections (Rasmussen 2001). The Exhibition Building itself was used for a Centennial International Exhibition in 1888 and became a regular venue for a wide variety of entertainments and a key site for spectacle in Melbourne. It is one of the rare extant buildings of its kind still used as a temporary exhibition venue (Dunstan 1996). A practical legacy of these exhibitions was that organisers were able to master the logistics of transporting objects to Australia. Once objects arrived, organisers sought greater exposure by sending exhibits on tour. For example, some items displayed in the Sydney International Exhibition were sent on to Brisbane, where they were included in the fifth exhibition of the National Association (Queensland Times, Ipswich Herald and General Advertiser 1880, 4), before being exhibited at the Melbourne International Exhibition in 1880 (The Official Catalogue of the Exhibits: With Introductory Notices of the Countries Exhibiting 1880, 248–​50). Four paintings and copies of the Queen’s regalia, borrowed for Sydney from the Royal Collection, were also exhibited in both these venues and then travelled to South Australia, forming part the National Gallery of South Australia’s inaugural display (Adelaide Observer 1881, 35). Touring items once they had reached Australia was a strategy used by exhibition organisers well into the twentieth century. It sought to maximise the exposure of important objects that had already travelled a great distance. This approach was eventually supported by government policy at the national level after Federation in 1901 (Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment 1985). This lineage of exhibitions in Australia –​firstly participating in offshore events, then organising local previews, staging intercolonial exhibitions and eventually hosting large-​scale international expositions –​demonstrates

32

32  Laying the foundations a developing professional competence in staging complex, large-​ scale exhibitions requiring coordination of multiple lenders, both nationally and internationally  –​precisely the skills needed for staging international blockbuster exhibitions today. These projects also relied on government support, revealing the diplomatic underpinnings of these complex events, which we argue helped situate the Australian colonies in an international context, and affirmed links to the British Empire. Moreover, this parade of large-​scale events served to develop and satisfy a growing local audience. They helped educate the population, demonstrated notions of progress and were sites of popular entertainment –​all of which are among the aims of blockbusters today. In scale, in their temporary nature and in their need to attract large audiences to justify the expense, they parallel our current notion of blockbusters. Finally, these events contributed to the development of museum and gallery collections and infrastructure, and epitomised a new understanding of popular engagement with material culture.

The case of art: the role of temporary exhibitions While multidisciplinary international expositions dominated the cultural landscape in the nineteenth century, in the twentieth century, exhibitions of fine arts took centre stage. By the late nineteenth century, public art galleries had been established in Australia’s capital cities  –​Melbourne (1861), Hobart (1863), Sydney (1880), Adelaide (1881), Brisbane (1892), Perth (1895) –​and some regional centres such as Bendigo in Victoria (1887). These government-​sponsored institutions provided permanent exhibition spaces while also building up their own collections. The importance of access to collections was noted when the National Gallery of South Australia opened in 1881: The value of art culture in a young community cannot be overestimated. … to be unacquainted with the works of the great masters or not to have visited the leading public galleries in the centres of population in the old country, is to confess that one’s education has in this respect been neglected. (South Australian Weekly Chronicle 1881, 6) Displaying objects borrowed from international collections helped educate the local population, without requiring them to travel to the ‘old country’.9 So from a very early time, the temporary international loan exhibition became a common feature of the colonial cultural calendar, to compensate for shortcomings in local collections and make art accessible to the public. A  list of the major exhibitions of original art from 1845 to 1870 identifies frequent exhibitions staged by art and fine art societies, as well as exhibitions in public institutions and mechanics institutes across Australia (Kerr 1984). In parallel to this, private individuals, like Thomas Smart,

 33

International expositions 33 Joseph Josephson and Thomas Sutcliff Mort, opened their collections to the public in Sydney (Sydney Morning Herald 1862, 2). Such individuals also played a role –​through their own expertise –​in developing more permanent cultural facilities. For example, Mort was a commissioner for exhibitions in London in 1873, and Philadelphia and Melbourne in 1876 (Barnard 1974), and advocated for the establishment of an art gallery in New South Wales (NAGNSW 1891, v). Influential groups also supported this aim of making art available in the colonies. For example, the Royal Anglo-​Australian Society supported touring exhibitions that affirmed ideas of English heritage. In 1890, its Exhibition of British Art toured to Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne, with a specific aim of: bringing the Colonies into close touch with British Art, by annually securing for Australia an Exhibition of important pictures from the London galleries at the close of each season, in the same way as is done annually by the Corporations of Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, Dublin, Glasgow, and other great centres. (Exhibition of British Art by the Royal Anglo-​Australian Society of Artists: Exhibition Building, Melbourne, 1890 1890, 8) The catalogue stressed the exhibit’s dual purpose of securing future loans and funding the further development of the national galleries: ‘A reasonable support by the Public will ensure a larger and more important collection next year. It should be added that the profits, if any, will be expended for the benefit of the National Galleries in the three colonies’ (Exhibition of British Art by the Royal Anglo-​Australian Society of Artists: Exhibition Building, Melbourne, 1890 1890, 9).10 Like international expositions, this exhibition had a commercial imperative:  visitor numbers correlated directly to success and future viability. And the organisers employed a variety of techniques to market the event and increase visitation, including a program of lectures and competitions (Exhibition of British Art by the Royal Anglo-​ Australian Society of Artists: Exhibition Building, Melbourne, 1890 1890, 66–​8). In Adelaide and Melbourne it was shown in existing exhibition buildings, while in Sydney it was held in the privately owned Crystal Palace –​a venue that was also a concert hall (Exhibition of British Art by the Royal Anglo-​Australian Society of Artists: Crystal Palace, York Street, Sydney, 1890 1890). This type of loan-​ based art exhibition built on the legacy of international expositions by using the same well-​established formats, and in some instances the same physical infrastructure. Thus the work of those early events was consolidated in subsequent projects and became enshrined in institutional practice, changing only incrementally over the next century. As in the international expositions, practices were often honed locally before being scaled up for overseas endeavours. Some of the earliest

34

34  Laying the foundations institutional art loans in Australia were between the colonies. For example, in 1894 the art galleries of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia organised an ‘interchange’ of major works from their collections  –​an exchange that consisted of: six of the best pictures belonging to each Gallery, … on exhibition for six months, when they will be replaced by similar collections. Each colony will therefore have on exhibition at the same time twelve of the best pictures from the other two colonies. The public will thus be afforded an opportunity of seeing, at their own doors, the Art treasures of Sydney, Adelaide, and Melbourne. (Catalogue of the Loan Collections of Oil Paintings Exhibited at the Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide National Galleries on the 1st of September 1894, [1]‌) Such domestic endeavours fulfilled these government-​ funded institutions’ obligations to provide the public with access to collections, but they also enabled the infant galleries to hone their skills in logistical matters, such as the safe packing and transportation of works of art over long distances (Catalogue of the Second Interchange Loan Collections of Oil Paintings and Water-​Colour Drawings Exhibited in the Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide Galleries, April, 1896 1896, [1]‌). A second loan exchange was celebrated as a ‘practical “Federation in Art” ’ –​a reference to the growing political and social movement for Federation of the Australian colonies (Catalogue of the Second Interchange Loan Collections of Oil Paintings and Water-​Colour Drawings Exhibited in the Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide Galleries, April, 1896 1896, [1]). These interchange exhibitions are significant examples of intercolonial collaboration, and in many respects were forerunners to twentieth century collaborations that facilitated the touring of exhibitions across Australia.

Notes 1 The illumination of buildings has regained fashion recently in Australia through events such as Sydney’s annual Vivid Festival, Canberra’s Enlighten and Melbourne’s White Night. 2 Long distances are an enduring logistical difficulty that continues to shape the Australian experience of travelling exhibitions (Blainey 1966). 3 At the conclusion of the exhibition, the building continued to be used ‘for purposes in connection with the Public Library’ (Intercolonial Exhibition 1866 Official Catalogue 1866, 8). 4 For a discussion of the multidimensional nature of exhibitions, see Belcher (1992). 5 Barry continued to be involved with exhibitions in 1867 and 1876. Similar figures in Sydney included Edward Combes (Art Gallery), Edward Flood (founder of the Sydney Mechanics School) and Charles Moore (director of the Botanical Garden), who all had either official or voluntary roles advocating for the arts, and actively supported NSW’s participation in international expositions (Orr 2006).

 35

International expositions 35 6 In NSW, a similar figure was Jules Joubert; see Douglas (2012). Joubert moved from a position attached to the Agricultural Society  –​where he made many innovations in exhibitions –​to become the official NSW exhibits commissioner for the 1876 Philadelphia Exhibition, then took on a role drumming up exhibits from France for the Sydney and Melbourne international expositions. Dismissed, he then worked as an exhibition manager to develop a commercial model to fund and support exhibitions that toured to Adelaide, Perth, Christchurch and Calcutta in the 1880s with Richard Twopeny –​in effect exporting his experience onto a world stage. See Joubert (1890, 90). 7 The total population of Victoria in 1866 was 632,998 (‘Progress of Victoria’ in Intercolonial Exhibition 1866 Official Catalogue 1866, 7). 8 International expositions continued to be held throughout Australia, including in Adelaide (1887), Launceston (1891–​2 ), Hobart (1894–​5) and Brisbane (1897) (Darian-​Smith et al. 2008; Filipová 2015). 9 Museums continued to develop their collections through purchases and donations, field collection or exchange of specimens, while for libraries the purchase of books and manuscripts was at the heart of their collection development (Armstrong 1906; Mather et al. 1986; Rasmussen 2001; Strahan 1979). Unlike art galleries, these institutions appear to have had little use for temporary loans or exhibitions to achieve their educational aims. 10 A selection of works from this exhibit entered the nascent state collections.

References Adelaide Observer. 1850. ‘The Burra Burra Contribution to the Exhibition of All Nations’, August 31. Adelaide Observer. 1881. ‘The National Gallery of South Australia’, June 25. Age. 1854. ‘The Exhibition’, October 17. Age. 1865. ‘Intercolonial Exhibition of Australasia’, November 30. Altick, Richard Daniel. 1978. The Shows of London. Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press. Archer, William Henry. 1861. Catalogue of the Victorian Exhibition 1861:  With Prefatory Essays, Indicating the Progress, Resources, and Physical Characteristics of the Colony. Melbourne: J. Ferres, Government Printer. Argus. 1854. ‘Bendigo’, September 18. Armstrong, Edmund La Touche. 1906. The Book of the Public Library, Museums, and National Gallery of Victoria: 1856–​1906. Melbourne: Ford and Son. Australasian. 1892. ‘Obituary. Mr J. G. Knight’, January 16. Australian News for Home Readers. 1865. ‘The National Picture Gallery at the Public Library’, January 25. Barnard, Alan. 1974. ‘Mort, Thomas Sutcliffe (1816–​ 1878)’. In Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra:  National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Accessed October 20. http://​adb.anu.edu.au/​biography/​ mort-​thomas-​sutcliffe-​4258. Bathurst Free Press. 1850. ‘The Great Exhibition’, December 7. Belcher, Michael. 1992. Exhibitions in Museums. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Bennett, Tony. 1995. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London: Routledge.

36

36  Laying the foundations Berryman, Jim. 2013. ‘Art and National Interest:  The Diplomatic Origins of the “Blockbuster Exhibition” in Australia’. Journal of Australian Studies 37 (2): 159–​73. Blainey, Geoffrey. 1966. The Tyranny of Distance: How Distance Shaped Australia’s History. Melbourne: Sun Books. Callaway, Anita. 2000. Visual Ephemera:  Theatrical Art in Nineteenth-​ Century Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. Catalogue of the Loan Collections of Oil Paintings Exhibited at the Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide National Galleries on the 1st of September. 1894. Melbourne: Fergusson and Mitchell. The Catalogue of the Melbourne Public Library for 1861. 1861. Melbourne: Clarson Shallard. Catalogue of the Natural and Industrial Products of New South Wales: Exhibited in the Australian Museum by the Paris Exhibition Commissioners. 1854. Sydney: Reading and Wellbank. Catalogue of the Natural and Industrial Products of New South Wales. Exhibited in the School of Arts by the International Exhibition Commissioners, Sydney, October, 1861. 1861. Sydney: Reading and Wellbank. Catalogue of the Second Interchange Loan Collections of Oil Paintings and Water-​ Colour Drawings Exhibited in the Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide Galleries, April, 1896. 1896. Sydney: Charles Potter, Government Printer. Colligan, Mimi. 2002. Canvas Documentaries:  Panoramic Entertainments in Nineteenth-​ Century Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne:  Melbourne University Press. Darian-​Smith, Kate, Richard Gillespie, Caroline Jordan, and Elizabeth Willis, eds. 2008. Seize the Day. Exhibitions, Australia and the World. Melbourne: Monash University ePress. Descriptive Catalogue of Pictures, and C., in The Art Gallery of the International Exhibition Sydney, 1879–​80. 1879. Sydney: P.E. Reynolds. Douglas, Louise. 2012. ‘Jules Joubert:  Australia’s Nineteenth-​Century Exhibition Impresario’. National Library Magazine 4 (4): 27–​30. Duncan, Carol. 1995. Civilizing Rituals:  Inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge. Dunstan, David. 1996. Victorian Icon: The Royal Exhibition Building. Melbourne: The Exhibition Trustees in association with Australian Scholarly Publishing. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. In Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers, 1–​18. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. Exhibition of British Art by the Royal Anglo-​Australian Society of Artists: Crystal Palace, York Street, Sydney, 1890. 1890. Melbourne: Edgerton and Moore. Exhibition of British Art by the Royal Anglo-​Australian Society of Artists: Exhibition Building, Melbourne, 1890. 1890. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Edgerton and Moore. Filipová, Marta, ed. 2015. Cultures of International Exhibitions, 1840–​1940: Great Exhibitions in the Margins. Farnham, England: Ashgate. Fox, Paul. 1999. ‘The Intercolonial Exhibition (1866): Representing the Colony of Victoria’. History of Photography 23 (2): 174–​80. The Freeman’s Journal. 1851. ‘The Great Industrial Exhibition of 1851’, January 9. Freestone, Robert, Peter R. Proudfoot, and Roslyn Maguire, eds. 2000. Colonial City, Global City: Sydney’s International Exhibition 1879. Sydney: Crossing Press.

 37

International expositions 37 Galbally, Ann. 2004. ‘Patron of the Arts at the Antipodes’. La Trobe Journal 73 (Autumn): 5–​18. Goldfarb, Brian. 2002. ‘Museum Pedagogy:  The Blockbuster Exhibition as Educational Technology’. In Visual Pedagogy: Media Cultures in and Beyond the Classroom, 143–​62. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Greenhalgh, Paul. 1988. Ephemeral Vistas:  The Expositions Universelles, Great Exhibitions, and World’s Fairs, 1851–​ 1939. Manchester:  Manchester University Press. Greenhalgh, Paul. 2011. Fair World:  A History of World’s Fairs and Expositions from London to Shanghai 1851–​2010. Winterbourne, Berkshire: Papadakis. Ho, Olivia. 2017. ‘Show Me the Monet:  10 Highlights from National Gallery Singapore’s Colours of Impressionism’. Straits Times, November 13. Hoffenberg, Peter H. 2008. ‘“Nothing Very New or Very Showy to Exhibit”?: Australia at the Great Exhibition and After’. In Britain, the Empire, and the World at the Great Exhibition of 1851, edited by Jeffery A. Auerbach and Peter H. Hoffenberg, 93–​120. Aldershot: Ashgate. Intercolonial Exhibition 1866 Official Catalogue. 1866. Melbourne:  Blundell and Ford. Joubert, Jules. 1890. Shavings and Scrapes from Many Parts. Dunedin: J. Wilkie. Kerr, Joan, ed. 1984. Dictionary of Australian Artists. Working Paper 1:  Painters, Photographers and Engravers 1770–​1870 A–​H. Sydney: Power Institute of Fine Arts, University of Sydney. Knight, John George. 1866. Guide to the Intercolonial Exhibition of 1866, Opened at Melbourne October 24. Melbourne: Blundell and Ford. Knight, John George. 1867. ‘Introduction’. In Official Record of the Intercolonial Exhibition of Australia 1866–​67. Melbourne: Blundell. Leader. 1892. ‘The Late Mr. J G Knight’, January 16. Markham, S.F., and H.C. Richards. 1933. A Report on the Museums & Art Galleries of Australia by S.F. Markham, M.A. B.Litt. and Prof. H.C. Richards, D.Sc to The Carnegie Corporation of New  York. London:  The Museums Association. Mather, Patricia, N.H. Agnew, A. Bartholomai, and R. Belcher. 1986. A Time for a Museum:  The History of the Queensland Museum 1862–​ 1986. Brisbane: Queensland Museum. Mendelssohn, Joanna. 1992. ‘The Shock of the Queue’. Bulletin, January 7. Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. 1985. Media Release: Guidelines for Commonwealth Indemnification of International Exhibitions to be Revised. Canberra. February 15. Morrison, Ian. 1995. ‘“The Accompaniments of European Civilization”: Melbourne Exhibitions 1854–​1888’. The La Trobe Journal 56 (Spring): 6–​10. NAGNSW. 1888. Catalogue of the National Art Gallery of New South Wales. Sydney: John Sands. NAGNSW. 1891. Catalogue of the National Art Gallery of New South Wales, (with Illustrations) Drawn by E.L. Montefiore Esq. (President of Trustees) and Others. Sydney: John Sands. NAGNSW. 1893. Catalogue of the National Art Gallery of New South Wales. Sydney: John Sands. The Official Catalogue of the Exhibits: With Introductory Notices of the Countries Exhibiting. 1880. 2 vols. Melbourne: Mason, Firth and M’Cutcheon.

38

38  Laying the foundations Official Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations. 1851. London: W. Clowes and Sons. Official Catalogue of the Melbourne Exhibition 1854, in Connexion with the Paris Exhibition, 1855. 1854. Melbourne: F. Sinnett. Official Record of the Intercolonial Exhibition of Australia 1866–​ 67. 1867. Melbourne: Blundell. Orr, Kirsten. 2006. ‘A Force for Federation: International Exhibitions and the Formation of Australian Ethos (1851–​1901)’. PhD thesis. Sydney: University of NSW. Pearson, Alison. 2015. ‘Monet Makes the Art World Go Around’. Daily Telegraph (London), July 8. Pes, Javier, José da Silva, and Emily Sharpe. 2017. ‘Visitor Figures 2016: Exhibition and Museum Attendance Survey’. Art Newspaper 289 (April): 2–​3, 6–​14. Pont, Graham. 2000. ‘Corroboree Interrupted. Food, Wine and Festivity at the Sydney Exhibition’. In Colonial City, Global City:  Sydney’s International Exhibition 1879, edited by Peter Proudfoot, Roslyn Maguire, and Robert Freestone, 149–​65. Sydney: Crossing Press. ‘Progress of Victoria’. 1867. In Intercolonial Exhibition of Australasia, Melbourne 1866-​ 67. Official Record Containing Introduction Catalogues, Reports and Awards of the Jurors and Essays and Statistics on the Social and Economic Resources of the Australasian Colonies. Melbourne: Blundell. Proudfoot, Ann. 2000. ‘Exhibition as Idea for the Powerhouse Museum’. In Colonial City, Global City:  Sydney’s International Exhibition 1879, edited by Robert Freestone, Peter R. Proudfoot, and Roslyn Maguire, 207–​5. Sydney: Crossing  Press. Queensland Times, Ipswich Herald and General Advertiser. 1880. ‘The National Association’s Exhibition’, July 22. Rasmussen, Carolyn. 2001. A Museum for the People. A History of Museum Victoria and Its Predecessors 1854–​2000. Melbourne: Scribe. Renan, Ernest. 1855. ‘La Poésie de l’Exposition’. Journal des Débats. Politiques et Littéraires, November 27. Report of the Royal Commission for the Australian International Exhibitions to the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty. 1882. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. Rusden, George W. 1857. Gathering Together for the Good of Work and Learning: A Lecture on the Occasion of Opening the Exhibition Building in Melbourne, October 1854. Melbourne: W. Fairfax and Co. Safe, Georgina. 2003. ‘Monet, That’s What We Want’. Australian, December 18. Serle, Geoffrey. 1963. The Golden Age: A History of the Colony of Victoria, 1851–​ 1861. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. South Australian Weekly Chronicle. 1881. ‘General News: Opening of the National Art Gallery’, June 25. Special Instructions for the Guidance of Local Committees and Intending Exhibitors. 1853. Melbourne: Paris Exhibition Commission. Strahan, Ronald. 1979. Rare and Curious Specimens: An Illustrated History of The Australian Museums 1827–​1979. Sydney: Australian Museum. Sydney Daily Telegraph. 1879. ‘International Exhibition’, July 12. Sydney Morning Herald. 1851. ‘Colonial Industry’, February 11. Sydney Morning Herald. 1854a. ‘The Paris Exhibition’, October 30. Sydney Morning Herald. 1854b. ‘New South Wales Branch of the Paris Exhibition’, November 15. Sydney Morning Herald. 1854c. ‘Natural and Industrial Exhibition’, November 16.

 39

International expositions 39 Sydney Morning Herald. 1854d, December 13. Sydney Morning Herald. 1862. ‘Mr. Josephson’s Fine Art Collection at Newtown’, August 4. Sydney Morning Herald. 1879. ‘Sydney International Exhibition of 1879’, September 18. Sydney Morning Herald. 1880. ‘The Art Gallery of New South Wales’, September 23. Underhill, Nancy, ed. 1979. Temporary Exhibition Spaces in Selected Australian Art Museums. Sydney: Australian Gallery Directors Council. West, Shearer. 1995. ‘The Devaluation of “Cultural Capital”:  Post-​ Modern Democracy and the Art Blockbuster’. In Art in Museums, edited by Susan M. Pearce, 74–​93. London; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone Press. Young, Linda. 1983. ‘Let Them See How Like England We Can Be:  An Account of the Sydney International Exhibition 1879’. PhD thesis. Sydney: University of Sydney.

40

2  Private interests Championing temporary exhibitions and setting the standards of taste

We must thank private enterprise for nearly all the opportunities afforded us to study contemporary art from abroad … Our educational establishments, art societies, and galleries have not done much in fostering education in art in this respect. (Herbert 1933, 16) [I]‌n Australia especially the accounts of the crowds flocking from all parts to see the picture afforded ample evidence of a taste that only requires material to satisfy its needs. (Booth 1918, 28)

In 1901, the Australian colonies came together as a Commonwealth. The Melbourne Exhibition Building, built for the 1880 Melbourne International Exhibition, hosted the first parliament of the newly federated nation; twelve thousand dignitaries gathered under its dome to hear the opening address, made by the Duke of Cornwall and York. The Melbourne Argus described the event as ‘marked by the splendor and solemn impressiveness which befitted its historic importance … The picture was magnificent’ (Argus 1901, 4). The Exhibition Building was the natural home for this ceremony, being the largest space available in Australia; with this event, it was redefined as space symbolic of the new nation (Fig. 2.1).1 This symbolism was strengthened when the building hosted the first Australian Federal International Exhibition (1902–​3) in celebration of the newly federated nation. This private venture, backed by exhibition manager and promoter Jules Joubert, bore all the hallmarks of earlier international expositions, including a dedicated musical program, a range of refreshment options, and extended opening hours (Sunday Times 1902, 3). Importantly, it demonstrated a shift in approach that would become significant in the development of exhibitions in Australia: the project was realised by a syndication of private investors, not via the support of government (Sunday Times 1902, 3). A lack of government support for contributions to international expositions outside Australia was also evident at this time (Daily Telegraph 1906a, 9). One Sydney newspaper suggested several reasons for this:

 41

Private interests 41

Figure 2.1 Invitation to a Conversazione in the Exhibition Building on the Evening of Tuesday 7th May 1901, at 8 p.m. for Australian Commonwealth Celebrations, G. B. H. Austin lithographer, Sands & McDougall Limited. Courtesy of State Library of Victoria (www.slv.vic.gov.au).

[A]‌series of untoward circumstances, amongst the chief of which may be mentioned the outbreak of hostilities with the Boers, has so far interfered … The unfortunate visitation of the Plague also operated in the same direction, and quite recently we have been too much absorbed with the proceedings immediately incidental to the inauguration of the Commonwealth to be able to devote consideration to the question of an Exhibition. (Sunday Times 1901, 6) So, while the nineteenth century interest in exhibitions resulted in infrastructure and a receptive audience, in the early twentieth century government had limited capacity to invest. Exhibitions continued to be staged in existing infrastructure, but were not necessarily government backed. Parallel to this, public cultural institutions were becoming more established, though many lacked professional staff, adequate funding and professional standards of display (Markham and Richards 1933). The emphasis on developing public cultural facilities also resulted in a significant shift that influenced the nature of blockbuster exhibitions seen

42

42  Laying the foundations across Australia. As institutions became more firmly established, and differentiated, they approached collection development, public engagement and exhibitions in ways that reflected their own content areas. This influenced the way that museums involved the public. For example, art galleries, founded as educational institutions in which opportunities to see works were central (Bennett 2006), gave great prominence to exhibitions. In contrast, natural history museums focused their efforts on research and collecting specimens, with less emphasis on touring exhibitions (Rader and Cain 2014). The lack of government capacity and the limitations of the emergent cultural institutions left ample opportunity for private investors to capitalise on the enthusiasm of audiences, who continued to support exhibitions. We argue that this period was therefore characterised by a mixture of approaches to exhibitions:  private commercial ventures exhibited outside formal cultural institutions; privately developed commercial shows staged in public institutions; commercial (selling) exhibitions devised by public institutions; and loans-​based shows in public institutions that conform to our more recent understanding of blockbuster exhibitions. Moreover, there was a fluidity of movement among exhibition managers, supporters and backers, who worked across these areas.

Federation and the development of the cultural sector At the end of the nineteenth century, the Australian continent remained divided as six British colonies that were largely autonomous, both in terms of administration and identity. As Louise Douglas has noted, before Federation in 1901, ‘the only real sense of connection between colonies came from occupation of the same continent and their derivation from the same Anglo-​Celtic stock’ (2008, 19). In the first half of the twentieth century, those colonies (now states) underwent a great change  –​politically, socially and culturally  –​because of their unification in 1901 to form the Commonwealth of Australia. This administrative shift precipitated more profound reflections on nationalism, unification and Australian identity (McDonald 2000). Australia’s involvement in the Boer War demonstrated this evolving national identity: while the first contingents were derived from ‘men in the militia of the colonial forces’ as well as ‘bushmen’ backed by public subscription or ‘military philanthropy’ (Australian War Memorial 2017a), later in the conflict Australia sent the ‘Australian Commonwealth Horse contingents’ backed by the new federal government (Australian War Memorial 2017a). This highlights the shifting nature of identity at the time. Although Australia was now politically unified, the legacy of the colonies’ autonomy was consistently felt, and at the political level there was generally a lack of coordination across state lines (Douglas 2008, 19). This changing identity and the redistribution of administrative functions affected the still-​developing museum and gallery sector. Institutions conceived

 43

Private interests 43 as ‘national’ facilities, representing individual colonies, had to revise their remit to reflect their new status and function as state-​based institutions  –​ even if some kept their ‘national’ titles.2 Federation also brought the opportunity to create truly national institutions, which were proposed at this time but mostly did not eventuate until much later,3 partly because of the federal government’s lack of immediate involvement in the cultural sector (Gardiner-​Garden  1994). The lack of coordination between states  –​and the resulting variations in cultural facilities and their public offerings –​was noted in a comprehensive review of Australian museums and galleries undertaken by the Carnegie Corporation of New  York, published in 1933 (Markham and Richards 1933). This snapshot of Australia’s museum and gallery sector emphasised the fundamental lack of national funding for cultural institutions, despite Federation, and further criticised the ad hoc basis upon which the states apportioned funding, which itself was minimal and diminishing, with cuts to budgets and little philanthropic support to compensate (Markham and Richards 1933). This perilous financial situation, coupled with geographic isolation, resulted in little coordination, wide variation in standards, and scant professional support. The average Australian curator had ‘few opportunities for seeing new developments, he has no local association to support him or assist him in any way, whether technically or politically, and finally he has no pension to look forward to after years of service’ (Markham and Richards 1933, 21). Overall, the report was damning of the conditions at some Australian museums, lamenting the lack of government investment and limited opportunities for professional development. This critique is reflected in the Australian Museum’s annual reports, which regularly noted the constraints of its tight fiscal position. The 1901 report, for example, stated that the museum’s income, which had remained stagnant, was ‘an amount far from sufficient to enable the Trustees to keep the Australian Museum in a proper state of efficiency, and maintain it in its proper place in the first rank of the scientific institutions of the Commonwealth’ (AM 1902, 5). This situation had serious ramifications for the museum. The 1914–​15 annual report observed that, as the museum had no private source of income, and was subjected to additional funding cuts, it was compelled to cut services, thus diminishing the ‘usefulness of the Museum’ (AM 1915, 2). The Australian Museum’s position was echoed across other organisations, such as Melbourne’s Public Library, which at the time shared premises and trustees with Victoria’s Industrial and Technological Museum, National Museum, and National Gallery (Armstrong 1906). The library regularly noted that a lack of funds prevented it from carrying out basic functions. Nor could it undertake more involved projects, such as completing facilities that were still under construction early in the twentieth century (Armstrong 1906, 92–​3). The diversity of collections and range of institutions on the one site added an extra level of complication. This was somewhat alleviated in

44

44  Laying the foundations 1904 by an unusually large financial gift, the Felton Bequest, which changed the history of the art gallery: This munificent bequest will practically relieve the Government from the responsibility of providing funds for the purchase of pictures and other works of art, and it is hoped that it will soon enable the Trustees to place the National Gallery of Victoria amongst modern Galleries of the first rank in the world of art. (Armstrong 1906, 88) Other Victorian cultural institutions were not so blessed, struggling on with modest government funding and support (Rasmussen 2001, 120–​1). The Carnegie report also remarked on the generally poor quality of museum buildings, displays, lighting and labelling across Australia, and observed significant differences between museum types and individual states (Markham and Richards 1933, 31–​46). Markham and Richards celebrated the educational potential of museums of science, technology, ethnography and natural history, recommending financial support to further develop this sector (1933, 36–​46). On the whole, these museums remained primarily focused on research and collecting, though signs of outreach included the gradual introduction of dioramas and the redesign of permanent exhibition spaces, frequently combined with a more concerted effort at public education, particularly for children (Mather et al. 1986; O’Reilly 2013). In the wake of its report, the Carnegie Corporation provided support for the sector, which helped bring museum professionals from other countries to Australia, fostered professional groups such as the Association of Art Galleries and Museums, and funded grants for educational programs (AM 1938, 4; Rasmussen 2001, 208–​9). The Australian Museum, for example, noted a Carnegie grant in 1936–​ 7 to develop educational resources in cooperation with the Department of Education (AM 1938, 4), while in other years there was support for staff exchange to facilitate training in display techniques, resulting in new dioramas in many Australian museums (O’Reilly 2013). Although such collaborations demonstrate an emphasis on education and displays throughout this period, it seems that science and natural history institutions do not appear to have been exchanging specimens or collections for the specific purpose of temporary popular display.4 Indeed, the Carnegie report noted, for example that several natural history museums they surveyed ‘lack the flair for exhibition’ (Markham and Richards 1933, 36). The Carnegie report’s discussion of art galleries, by contrast, is especially important to understanding the history of temporary exhibitions in Australia; its authors identified the fundamental significance of loan exhibitions in compensating for the inadequacies of permanent collections. It observed that Australian art galleries’ collections were a real weakness, due to their comparatively short history and limited collecting opportunities

 45

Private interests 45 (Markham and Richards 1933, 31–​ 3). To help remedy this, the report strongly recommended ‘providing more loan exhibitions from overseas sources’ (Markham and Richards 1933, 34). It praised the establishment in 1932 of the Empire Art Loan Society, a group funded by a regular payment from participating institutions in Australia and New Zealand to support a London-​based staff to arrange ‘representative loans of art and craft work to Empire galleries and Art Societies, and to assist in the removal of restrictions on lending British national works of art to overseas institutions’ (Markham and Richards 1933, 35). Institutional membership fees were to cover the initial set-​up costs, with freight and packing expenses shared between host galleries. The Carnegie report praised this as a strong plan for collaboration, but noted sadly that it was hindered by budget cuts and fluctuating currency rates (Markham and Richards 1933, 35). Nevertheless, thanks to the support of this group, from the 1930s onwards a large number of art exhibitions toured to Australia and New Zealand (Lindsay 1936, 71–​7; Ure Smith 1934, 13). But Australia’s capacity to organise international loan exhibitions was inhibited by legislation. Firstly, an Australian import duty on paintings inflated the costs of touring exhibitions. This was much debated; Art in Australia magazine campaigned to change the law (Art in Australia 1924, [55–​59]). National Art Gallery of NSW trustee and philanthropist Charles Lloyd Jones stated that: art is international and should have no barriers, and it is particularly necessary that in a young country like this art and culture of the older worlds should come to us, trammelled with as little restriction as possible, so that it may add to and improve our culture, our art and our literature. (C. Lloyd Jones cited in Art in Australia 1924, [59]) Secondly, Britain had restrictions on lending works from the public collections of London’s Tate Gallery and National Gallery. As Ure Smith noted, ‘A law is in existence in England which prevents National works leaving the country’, meaning that exhibitions relied on ‘loan works from private collectors’ to represent British art in particular (Ure Smith 1934, 12). Removal of this restriction was one of the aims of the Empire Art Loan Society (Empire Art Loan Exhibitions Society 1946, [1]‌ ). Relationships with artist-​led organisations, like the Royal Academy in London, helped to circumvent these restrictions until the law was incrementally changed. The National Gallery Overseas Loan Act 1935 enabled the work of British artists to tour outside the UK. The National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 lifted restrictions on non-​British works and allowed any objects to be toured with some conditions.5 The British National Loan Exhibition (1937) was one of the first exhibitions to take advantage of the change in law, but still the idea of sending precious collection items across the globe brought trepidation:

46

46  Laying the foundations The present exhibition must be regarded rather as a beginning and some allowances must be made for the possible and understandable reluctance of trustees and directors to see the finest masterpieces in their collections go out of their possession for a year or so while they make an adventurous and hazardous tour of the Empire. (Burdett 1937a, 16) Such comments show the sense of risk involved in lending to the colonies. The exhibition, described as ‘solid rather than brilliant’, began the process of establishing a record of exhibitions that would, it was hoped, build the confidence of lenders, and thus secure better exhibitions in the future (Burdett 1937a, 16). Art galleries throughout this period continued to use loans to supplement their small collections, and these exhibits were an important feature of their public activities (Art in Australia 1939, 60). Temporary exhibitions were, however, limited by the physical constraints of institutions that lacked dedicated temporary exhibition spaces and thus had to remove collection works to host these events. The Queensland Art Gallery in 1935, for example, had to pack away ‘one half of the paintings in the Randall Art Gallery, City Hall … in [anticipation of] the Empire Art Loan Collection’ (Telegraph 1935, 13). Overall, the Carnegie report described a sector that was under-​funded and lacking national support –​partly attributable to the legacy of Australia’s still disparate ex-​colonies. Despite the Commonwealth’s slowness in supporting cultural activities, Federation did result in some immediate administrative changes that provided more favourable circumstances for generating exhibitions. In particular, one of the most significant impetuses for the Federation of the colonies had been a push to establish a free-​trade zone across the country (Deakin 1963; Hirst 2003). Previously, each colony had levied duties on goods crossing its borders, making it difficult to trade between the colonies. Federation ended this, allowing for the free movement of goods –​ and by extension exhibition objects  –​across Australia (Sydney Morning Herald 1901, 6). This removal of financial barriers was an important factor in enabling exhibitions to tour, but significant physical barriers remained. For instance, a 1912 inquiry into the benefits of nationalising the rail network, and the state of rail transport generally, described Australia’s railways as being in a ‘deplorable condition of muddle and confusion’ (Pratt 1912, 1). The complicated, poorly linked network had been developed by individual colonies using different gauges (J. A. Mills 2006; J. Mills 2010). If a person wanted to cross the continent from Perth to Brisbane, ‘he might have to change carriages at least five times owing to the differences of gauge in the various States through which he passed; and all luggage, mails, and merchandise would have to undergo similar transfers from one train to another’ (Pratt 1912, 69). This was inconvenient for a person, but the ramifications for freight were even worse. Transport is a crucial but often under-​ acknowledged element of travelling exhibitions. The geographical

 47

Private interests 47 limits on travel in Australia were daunting, and remain so, due to its scale and isolation (Blainey 1966). For cultural organisations, transport was  –​ and remains –​a fundamental logistical difficulty and costly concern, which also limited opportunities to build professional networks. Exhibition cargo often moved between state capitals by ship (Advertiser 1939a, 22; Ferguson 1953, 2), later making use of other forms of transport (Edwards 1991, 165). Given these limitations, the geographical reach of touring exhibitions at the time is remarkable. The 1906 Australian tour of William Holman Hunt’s painting The Light of the World is one example of an extensive national touring exhibition that criss-​crossed the continent.

Touring The Light of the World, 1906 The Light of the World caused a sensation during its Australian tour. It attracted huge crowds of visitors as it moved between urban centres and regional towns, being shown in museums, galleries and civic spaces such as town halls (Maas 1984; Potter 2007). This exhibition has layers of significance for a history of blockbuster exhibitions in Australia and for the movement of cultural goods internationally. These include factors that mark it as an early example of what would become standard blockbuster practice: it appealed to a popular audience, it was heavily marketed by an astute promoter, and it was a loan-​based (non-​selling) exhibition on show for a limited time (Elsen 1984). Other factors, we argue, contributed to its success and indicate something of the nature of cultural life in Australia at the time. Namely, the painting was privately owned, so it was free from some of the legislative constraints preventing British art in public institutions from touring Australia. It was also an exhibition of a single painting, which meant that freight was more manageable, and it could be easily accommodated. The exhibition consisted of a single painting:  The Light of the World (c.1900–​ 4), by the British Pre-​ Raphaelite artist William Holman Hunt (1827–​1910). The painting depicts Jesus Christ and was based on a verse from the Book of Revelation, so its content was familiar to the predominantly Christian Australian audience (Fulford 2007, A3). The tour was part of a larger tour of the British Empire organised by the painting’s owner, social researcher Charles Booth, in collaboration with the London Fine Arts Society (Potter 2007). According to his wife, Booth was motivated by a ‘desire that our fellow-​subjects in those distant regions should have better opportunities of seeing real art’ (Booth 1918, 28; see Fig. 2.2). A pamphlet for the National Art Gallery of NSW’s exhibition described the painting’s broad appeal: ‘It is one of those great pictures that have not been painted for the few. It will appeal to every member of the community by the grandeur of its subject, and the simplicity of its handling’ (‘Light of the World’ by W. Holman Hunt. Now Exhibiting at National Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney 1906, 2). A century later, Robert Fulford argued that Holman Hunt was, at the time, a ‘celebrity’, and that as a result of this

48

48  Laying the foundations

Figure 2.2 ‘The Light of the World’, Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser, 4 April 1906, p. 875. Courtesy of State Library of New South Wales BN336A.

tour the painting marked an important moment in mass communication, becoming ‘the first image that millions of people knew intimately’ (Fulford 2007, A3). So, like blockbuster exhibitions of today, the content of this exhibition reflected popular taste, meaning there was an audience ready to patronise the show. Moreover, like all good blockbusters, it appealed to a broad audience, as it ‘brought large numbers of our citizens to the gallery who had never previously entered its doors, but who will undoubtedly come again: and I anticipate a marked increase in our future daily attendance’ (Du Faur 1906, 5). In addition to the appeal of the subject matter, the success of the exhibition hinged on the acumen of Mack Jost as tour promoter. Before Jost’s involvement, the painting toured Canada, where it did not attain the same level of popularity (Troughton 2006, 57). In Australia, press reporting heightened the exhibition’s popularity. This was clearly orchestrated by Jost, who was often quoted or interviewed in articles, which regularly cited the

 49

Private interests 49 substantial visitor numbers. A typical article recounted how, in its last days at the Western Australian Museum, the painting was inspected by no fewer than 13,644 persons. The officials state that this brings the total visitors for the week the picture was on exhibition up to 104,584. When ‘The Light of the World’ was shown in Sydney it attracted about 304,000 persons in 27 days, in Melbourne the figures were a little over 200,000 for four weeks, and in Adelaide, where it has been exhibited on two occasions, the first for 12  days, the aggregate attendance was over 50,000. During the four days the masterpiece was shown in Broken Hill 50,000 persons viewed it. (West Australian 1906, 6) These numbers are spectacular  –​and underscore how in each venue the painting was seen by a substantial part of the population. Moreover, the fact that this was itself a newsworthy story demonstrates Jost’s acumen in promoting its success to encourage future attendance. An example is Jost’s interview in The West Australian, where he touted the amazing success of the show in world-​record terms: [I]‌t practically means that every man and woman in the places where it was exhibited must have seen the picture twice. The greatest record, in fact a world’s record, was in Sydney, when, on the second Sunday of its being exhibited there, over 32,000 persons went in and out of the Art Gallery to see the famous picture in three hours. No other record of free shows or otherwise, has approached this in any other part of the world. (West Australian 1907, 4) Such hyperbole generated excitement by characterising the experience as a history-​making, must-​see event.6 If visitor numbers alone make a blockbuster, then The Light of the World was indeed a blockbuster phenomenon. The size of the crowds and the excitement at the picture’s journey around Australia made it a constant subject in the local press. As Troughton has noted: ‘News reports and personal correspondence generated publicity, and created a climate of expectation’ (Troughton 2006, 57). The geographic reach and logistical difficulties of the tour were, in many respects, an important part of the event, and as its renown increased, the spectacle was magnified (Morning Bulletin 1906, 4; Troughton 2006; West Australian 1907, 4). Jeremy Maas noted that on its Australian tour the painting attracted entrepreneurs who set up stalls outside exhibition venues –​thus it became much more than a religious or cultural experience: ‘[The exhibition] acquired a status well in excess of a travelling circus, with colourful trappings, eager crowds, mobs of miscellaneous camp followers and an ebullient ring master in Mack Jost, and with a growing reputation preceding it wherever it went’ (1984, 154).

50

50  Laying the foundations Two practical factors contributed to the show’s great success:  the fact that the painting was privately owned, and the exhibition was of a single work. When Booth acquired the painting, he pledged to exhibit it across the British colonies before donating it to a London gallery (‘Light of the World’ by W. Holman Hunt 1906, 1).7 Moreover, he funded the tour and appointed a tour manager, so Australian institutions required little outlay to host the show (Du Faur 1906, 5). In-​kind support was also provided for the tour with, for example, some Australian railways transporting the painting free of charge (Maas 1984, 145). Beyond the lack of financial constraints, part of the practicality of this temporary exhibition was the relative ease with which it, as an individual work, could be slotted into a venue’s permanent display –​as happened at the National Gallery of Victoria and the still unfinished National Art Gallery of NSW (Maas 1984, 153). In other towns the painting was displayed in venues such as the hall of Rockhampton’s School of Arts (Queensland), where it was sent for two days by special request (Morning Bulletin 1906, 4). In its short stay in Launceston it was exhibited in the storeroom of the Tasmanian Woolgrowers Agency Company, because the main entertainment hall was occupied (Examiner 1906, 7; Morning Bulletin 1906, 4). It was also seen in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart and Broken Hill (outback New South Wales), before it crossed the Tasman Sea for New Zealand (Potter 2007, 23). The Light of the World’s Australian tour was an important cultural event for the newly federated colony, as it offered a rare national cultural experience. It inspired some people, just as Booth had hoped, to consider again the possibility of travelling loan collections. Launceston’s Daily Telegraph contended that the picture’s success proved that tours could be a profitable venture for artists, but also that: There are many good pictures in Australia. The Sydney and Melbourne Art Galleries could make up loan collections that would be revelations to those who have not had opportunities for visiting those Australian temples of art. … The attendance of Tasmanians to see ‘The Light of the World’ seems to be fairly interpretable as an indication of an opening for enterprise on the part of those who are interested enough in art to be desirous of promoting it locally. (Daily Telegraph 1906b, 4) Institutions had in fact been working on just these sorts of exchanges (although they rarely included Tasmania). The Light of the World does, however, seem to have increased awareness of travelling exhibits, which grew in scale and complexity throughout this period.

Art in Australia and touring exhibitions The nature and form of exhibitions was debated in newly formed journals such as Art in Australia, founded and co-​edited by Sydney Ure Smith in

 51

Private interests 51 1916 (Paroissien 1988, 524). This influential publication included regular critical discussions of art, exhibitions and cultural ideas, alongside advertisements for private galleries, and is therefore a valuable record of Australia’s exhibition culture in the early twentieth century. Its contribution to discourse on exhibitions was significant. For example, in 1921 the editors published a call to arms urging the government to take responsibility for arranging exhibitions of international works of art, to provide exemplars for local artists and appease the popular appetite for such work: The best course is to arrange for the loan of representative collections of modern European pictures to the Australian people … The Government of the Commonwealth would be the proper body to issue such an invitation, but if it is not alive to any sense of responsibility in the encouragement of the arts, surely there are some public-​spirited citizens who recognise the value of a proposal to diminish the injurious effect of Australia’s isolation! (Ure Smith, Stevens, and Lloyd Jones 1921) This call also highlights the important role that individuals could, and did, play in organising exhibitions, as was seen with Charles Booth. Ure Smith himself took on such a role alongside his publishing activities (Underhill 1991). He was a trained artist, promoter of the arts and of exhibitions, and a member of the arts establishment through his roles as a trustee of the National Art Gallery of NSW and president of the Artists Society, as well as holding many other advisory positions: ‘Until positions like the State cultural directors or the Director of the Visual Arts Board were established, Ure Smith was Australia’s most ambidexterous [sic] arts administrator. At the height of his influence, between 1923 and 1940 … no single individual had exercised so much national influence’ (Underhill 1988, 522). Ure Smith, like many of his contemporaries, keenly believed in the importance of fostering art though education and access –​considered particularly vital in reconstruction efforts after World War II. For example, in a nationally broadcast lecture in 1943, he called for substantial changes to the funding and support of art galleries, stressing their benefit to society. He championed permanent travelling exhibitions that used galleries ‘as distribution centres’ to make art accessible and desirable to all: I do not believe that the people are apathetic to art. Give them the chance to absorb it, see it, understand it. Let it be part of their life. Don’t keep it away in a remote building out of the main thoroughfare and expect them to go there without creating demand for it. If a manufacturer wants to put an article to market, think how he plans to publicise it –​all the money he spends to see that it is brought before the public. Modern methods should be used to make art better known. (Ure Smith 1943, 65–​6)

52

52  Laying the foundations This sentiment is especially important in the history of temporary exhibitions, because it demonstrates an appreciation of the value of promoting exhibitions to the broadest audience. This is precisely what occurred in this period in Australia, through several popular exhibitions. Indeed, the pages of Art in Australia provide a testament to the popularisation of exhibitions, which were found in a growing range of spaces, including several in department stores such as David Jones and Farmers (with its Blaxland Gallery) (Johnson 1997). Other exhibition spaces that emerged at the time included the foyer of the State Education Department in Sydney, the Melbourne Athenæum gallery, town halls and other occasional spaces and private galleries.8 One exhibition that used such spaces to show original artworks during this time was the 1923 European Art Exhibition for Australia. Organised9 by Victorian artist Penleigh Boyd (1890–​1923) as a survey of the contemporary art of Britain, France and Germany, it visited Sydney and Melbourne.10 It relied on a range of funders, including ‘the patronage of the Commonwealth and State Governments and various influential private citizens’ (Boyd 1923, 8). Ure Smith supported it through prominent coverage in Art in Australia (Lambert 1923), demonstrating his ideas on generating demand for exhibitions through publicity. According to Boyd, the exhibition provided an opportunity for Australians, ‘who had suffered on account of the distance from the old world in matters pertaining to art’, to view modern works in their own country (Boyd 1923, 8). It was a large and complicated exhibit of more than 600 contemporary works, selected by Boyd in England or Europe (West Australian 1923, 8). Its very complexity was one of the factors used to generate publicity. One newspaper article, for example, began with logistics: ‘To move a number of pictures … from one end of the world to another, is to enter upon a great adventure’ (M.C.T. 1923, 25). This ‘great adventure’ was further sensationalised through constant reporting of the show’s value and scale. Typical bylines boasted of ‘about 1,000 exhibits, weighing 80 tons, and worth £100,000’ (West Australian 1923, 8). Its uniqueness was also touted, as it was sold as ‘the most comprehensive collection of contemporary art ever brought together under one roof’ (Age 1923a, 8), representing ‘the greatest living masters’ (Age 1923c). Such sensational marketing recalls the campaigns of blockbuster exhibitions throughout the world today.11 Other similarities to our current blockbusters include the format, which was a ticketed exhibition on show for a limited time (Age 1923c, 8). It included a special preview for gallery trustees, followed by a press preview before the official opening and subsequent admission of the general public (Age 1923b, 8). In line with Ure Smith’s ideas on accessibility, it was held outside public state galleries, being shown at the Sydney Town Hall and the Melbourne Athenæum. It was also open for extended hours to maximise the opportunity for visitation (Argus 1923, 32). The benefits of longer opening hours were made clear by Douglas Dundas, a young Sydney artist, who

 53

Private interests 53 recalled the excitement of the exhibit and the fact that ‘when we finished our classes at nine o’clock in the evening, we would duck across to the basement of the Town Hall to have another look’ (1974, 14). The exhibition had strong ambitions to show new art to Australian audiences. One article, wonderfully titled ‘Killed by Shock. New Art Dangers. Russian Constructionists’, warned of its avant garde nature (Sun 1923, 2). Boyd responded that, rather than succumb to the shock of the art, viewers should be open minded: ‘Don’t attempt to criticise until you understand the language in which the new artist is attempting to speak … Be open-​minded even before the Russian constructionists. Have no bias. Don’t scoff. Scoffing is no use’ (Boyd cited in Sun 1923, 2). He conceded that the show might be ‘absolutely incomprehensible’ to average citizens, but that it would nevertheless be ‘good for his honest soul’ (Boyd cited in Sun 1923, 2; see Fig. 2.3). Boyd’s comments underline how touring exhibitions provided opportunities to expose Australian audiences to new art. The exhibition’s educational focus was further supported by a number of decisions. Firstly –​ and unusually for the time –​the catalogue included brief introductory essays and illustrations of many of the works (Argus 1923, 32). Secondly, school groups were encouraged and were admitted free of charge (Sydney Morning Herald 1923b, 15). The exhibit’s mixture of education and entertainment is also evident in Boyd’s creation of a popular competition –​which he termed a ‘plebiscite’ –​for the public to judge ‘the best six and worst six pictures in this splendid collection’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1923a, 5). This could be seen as a further attempt to attract the general public, rather than limiting the show to an art-​literate audience. As one review noted, ‘no other art show had roused public interest to such an acute state of awareness’ (A.C. 1939, 13). The European Art Exhibition for Australia is one example of the many exhibitions from this period that used spaces outside cultural institutions to present contemporary art in a way that presaged many of today’s blockbusters. Other loan-​based exhibitions could be seen at the Blaxland Gallery in Farmers department store in Sydney (opened in 1929) (Johnson 1997), and those organised by artist societies, such as French Pictures from London, staged by the Artists Society in Sydney’s Education Department building in 1925 (Sydney Morning Herald 1935, 5). The ambitions of these exhibitions were varied: there was an element of prestige in bringing such works into Australia, but they often combined commercial imperatives with broader ideas of opening up access to art. Some toured to several cities, such as the 1933 Exhibition of British Contemporary Art, shown in Melbourne at Newspaper House and in Sydney at the Blaxland Gallery, and described at the time as ‘the most important exhibition of contemporary English work that has come to Australia’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1933, 10). These exhibitions also demonstrated the interconnections between public and private arts networks. Charles Lloyd Jones in Sydney, for example, was a close friend of Ure Smith’s, a fellow trustee of the National Art Gallery

54

newgenrtpdf

Figure 2.3 ‘Humour in Ultra-​Modern Art’, Argus, 7 August 1923, p. 7. Courtesy of National Library of Australia.

 55

Private interests 55 of NSW, and instrumental in establishing the David Jones Gallery within the David Jones department store for which he was Director (Thompson 2018). In Melbourne, newspaper owner Keith Murdoch similarly moved between the commercial and public cultural sectors (Serle 2018). The exhibition spaces outside the cultural organisations were run with particularly broad remits that allowed them to host exhibitions of fine art, as well as more popular topics:  the Blaxland Gallery for instance exhibited caged birds, a ‘Camellia’ show and ‘Children’s Hobbies’, as well as historical art (Johnson 1997, 87, 93–​4). The Sydney Town Hall hosted art exhibitions and such popular events as ‘Bush Week’ in 1920 –​a lavish display that included ‘cycloramas’ to promote immigration to rural Australia (‘Bush Week’: First Annual Exhibition & Carnival 1920). The Melbourne Athenæum regularly hosted exhibitions, theatrical entertainments, dances and cinema (‘Melbourne Athenæum Archives’ 2018).

Innovation in art exhibitions Public galleries were also actively establishing their own programs, some of which remain in place to this day. The National Art Gallery of NSW inaugurated the annual Archibald Prize for portraiture in 1921,12 which even today consistently rates among its highest-​attended exhibitions (AGNSW 2011, 12). A  relatively steady stream of international exhibitions was organised by public galleries, some affirming Australia’s English heritage, while others had a more international focus, such as the International Art Exhibition organised by the National Art Gallery of New South Wales and shown there from July to September 1936 (NAGNSW 1936). This exhibit of pictures and applied arts from fourteen countries was organised by the gallery in collaboration with the consulates of each country. It was purely a loan-​based exhibition, with works to be returned to their countries of origin, and it was exclusive to a single venue (Art in Australia 1936). These two factors –​loans and exclusivity –​would become the salient features of international blockbusters in the twenty-​first century and, importantly, the principal attributes by which they are now promoted to the public. The exhibition was well received by the public and press. The Sydney Morning Herald praised the efforts of the gallery and consulates: ‘The general public should certainly not miss such an unusual opportunity of seeing these interesting examples of what is being done abroad in art today. For opportunities like this are rarely enjoyed in Sydney’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1936c, 16). Indeed, the exhibition was boosted by the press coverage. Before the opening, local newspapers noted the arrival of objects in preparation for the show (Sydney Morning Herald 1936a, 10), followed by illustrated mentions in newspapers in anticipation of the opening (Daily Standard 1936, 10; Newcastle Sun 1936, 3; Sun 1936, 10). Coverage in Art in Australia was also crucial in the lead-​up to the show. The journal made a series of references to it, with William Moore describing it as ‘probably the most

56

56  Laying the foundations important of its kind held in Australia for some years’ (Moore 1936b, 51). Moreover, its exclusivity was also reinforced: ‘On completion of the exhibition, the pictures will be packed up and sent to their various countries and the exhibition will not be shown in any other state’ (Art in Australia 1936, 58). The next issue featured a sculpture from the exhibition on the cover, a discussion of the show’s success in the editorial, mention in the regular ‘At Home and Abroad’ feature, and a detailed review  –​including more than thirty illustrations. Importantly, this coverage came mid-​way through the exhibition season, thus serving to sustain interest in the event (Lange 1936; Moore 1936a; Ure Smith and Gellert 1936). A series of accompanying lectures also contributed to the show’s success, and was touted as one of its innovations. The lectures were organised by the first-​ever women’s auxiliary group at the gallery, whose members included many of Sydney society’s most prominent women (Sydney Morning Herald 1936b, 17). The lectures, delivered by art identities, consuls-​general and academics, were well attended and regularly reported (Sydney Morning Herald 1936e, 5). Such events also helped sustain visitation, with extra lectures scheduled on Saturdays to accommodate working people (Sydney Morning Herald 1936d, 11). In its first week the exhibit attracted 3100 visitors, sold out of the 1000 catalogues, and had good visitation from school groups, who were admitted free (Moore 1936a, 23). Such success also encouraged community debate about the gallery itself –​highlighting its poor infrastructure and need to expand. Eminent Australian artist Arthur Streeton commented on this deficiency: Visiting the gallery on Sunday, I found hundreds of citizens peering at the pictures through a depressing gloom. … The place looked hopelessly dull. There is also urgent need for new gallery space on the eastern side. That this extension has not already been accomplished is a positive disgrace to the citizens and the Government of New South Wales. (Sydney Morning Herald 1936f, 10) As Streeton observed, the gallery –​even in the mid-​1930s –​was without electric light and restricted by its small building. Ure Smith quickly responded in a letter to the editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, stating that the trustees had grand ambitions that included an expansion of temporary exhibitions, but that these were being frustrated by a lack of state government support: ‘By the use of new exhibition courts, numerous exhibitions could be held of the greatest value to the public … The Art Gallery should be the centre of all art … But it can only stagnate if it has not adequate housing room’ (Ure Smith 1936, 16). These debates reveal miserably inadequate cultural funding and continuing disparities between the states, with the public galleries in Melbourne and Adelaide enjoying greater financial independence, due to private philanthropy. Streeton imbued this support with a civic imperative, arguing

 57

Private interests 57 that investment in the National Gallery of Victoria  –​in its extensions and installation of electric light  –​was a marker of a civilised society. In 1937 Adelaide opened a large extension funded by solicitor, writer and philanthropist Alexander Melrose, which expanded and improved the permanent collection space (Burdett 1937b, 20). Temporary exhibition spaces however remained a rarity, with Streeton noting that Sydney’s gallery had ‘no space for special exhibitions’, meaning that temporary shows required the ‘removal and storing of the permanent exhibits’ (Sydney Morning Herald 1936g, 16). Similarly, Adelaide and Melbourne lacked dedicated temporary exhibition spaces; this structural constraint, shared by all the large galleries, remained an impediment for mounting large-​scale temporary exhibits.

The 1939 Herald exhibition of French and British modern art Even with its expansion in 1937 (Burdett 1937b, 20), the National Gallery of South Australia still needed to reorganise its collection to accommodate temporary exhibitions such as the Herald Modern Art Exhibition of 1939. Described as ‘Australia’s Most Important Exhibition’ (W.S. 1939, 16) and ‘One of the most outstanding feasts of art’ (Palette 1939b, 6), the 1939 exhibition of modern art, organised by Basil Burdett on behalf of Keith Murdoch, was a high point in the early twentieth century history of exhibitions. Burdett was well placed to develop the exhibit, as he had experience in running a commercial gallery and was well connected, from his time editing Art in Australia and then as art critic for the Melbourne Herald (Haese 2018). Newspaper owner Murdoch was a collector, philanthropist, arts advocate and trustee of the National Gallery of Victoria. The exhibition was significant for a number of reasons, but most relevant for this volume is that it was heavily marketed, using many strategies still common today. The show was initially seen in Adelaide at the National Gallery of South Australia, Melbourne at Lower Town Hall, and Sydney at the David Jones Gallery (Fig. 2.4).13 This was a commercial venture, with many of the artworks for sale, an admission fee, and an additional charge for the catalogue (Advertiser 1939c, 20; Chanin, Miller, and Pugh 2005, 262–​74). Private backing, particularly by a newspaper magnate, allowed far greater resources for publicity. Editorial content was being seeded in the Murdoch-​controlled papers in the lead-​up to the exhibition –​evident in articles mythologising Burdett’s role in securing important artworks. For example, in Adelaide the show was first mentioned around six weeks before its opening (Palette 1939a, 11). This was followed by an in-​depth article by Burdett, describing his encounter with Pablo Picasso while procuring works for the show. With masterful hyperbole, its title proclaimed Picasso as ‘The Greatest Legend in Paris’, but it also painted him as ‘inaccessible’, thus heightening the tension of the narrative  –​would Burdett get to meet him? (Burdett 1939, 22).

58

58  Laying the foundations

Figure 2.4 ‘Fortune in Art Comes to Sydney’, Daily Telegraph, 15 November 1939, p. 7. Courtesy of National Library of Australia MFM NX 209.

This article noted that the works would land in Adelaide on the following Saturday; an article the next day was devoted specifically to the arrival of the shipment (Advertiser 1939a, 22). The installation was then also reported (Advertiser 1939b, 22). Local artists were drawn in to promote the show, with prominent South Australian painter Hans Heysen afforded a preview that was reported in The Advertiser the day before the opening (Advertiser 1939c, 20). That same issue featured a half-​page spread of images from the exhibition, including an installation photograph of the gallery (Advertiser 1939d, 26). Murdoch used similar tactics in Melbourne and Sydney. Indeed, as the Australia National Journal reported of the Melbourne campaign:

 59

Private interests 59 The successful ‘selling’ of Modern Art to the general public by the Herald makes advertising history. For weeks before the pictures actually arrived in Melbourne the man in the street was talking glibly of Gauguin and Picasso. Infants at their mother’s knees lisped the names of Utrillo and Augustus John. Modern Art was in, and on, the air. You just couldn’t give it a miss. (Australia National Journal 1939, 53) The editorial was reinforced by a blanket advertising campaign. On the day of the Melbourne opening, ‘all trams passing the Town Hall were plastered with stickers, with the words “Modern Art Exhibition” in bold type’, resulting in ‘the crowds rolling in from the street like a tidal wave’ (Australia National Journal 1939, 70). During the exhibition, press coverage remained strong and interest was sustained through a program of public lectures (Advertiser 1939e, 22). It also generated its own publicity, due to the then extreme nature of the work on show, with debate on the value of modern art capturing the public imagination (Australia National Journal 1939). The Murdoch publicity was criticised at the time (Chanin, Miller, and Pugh 2005, 205), and it is notable that in Melbourne and Sydney the exhibition was not shown in the state art galleries, due perhaps to inadequate facilities. Burdett had earlier described Adelaide’s as ‘the brightest and most up-​to-​ date gallery of any capital city in the Commonwealth’ (Burdett 1937b, 20). Its director, Louis McCubbin, was amenable to modern art, while his Sydney counterpart, Will Ashton, opposed Post-​Impressionist and contemporary art (Bernard Smith in Smith and Smith 1992, 163). In Sydney the exhibition was officially refused by the gallery, through the minister for public instruction, due to the admission charge. Instead, gallery trustee Charles Lloyd Jones made available the David Jones Gallery (Chanin, Miller, and Pugh 2005, 208). In Melbourne, the exhibition was rejected by the National Gallery of Victoria’s trustees, despite Murdoch’s position and influence, and was instead shown at the Town Hall. This was considered a ‘master stroke’ because it ‘appealed to the imagination of the public, who argued, rightly, that pictures exhibited at such expense in the heart of the city must be very important indeed’ (Australia National Journal 1939, 53). The exhibition was successful in terms of visitor numbers:  it was seen by more than 70,000 people (Chanin, Miller, and Pugh 2005, 197). In Melbourne it attracted around 3000 people per day over its sixteen-​day season. Scholars Chanin and Miller compare this to similar international exhibitions like Cézanne, Gauguin, Seurat and Van Gogh (1929) at the Museum of Modern Art in New  York, which attracted just 1600 visitors daily, highlighting the enthusiasm of Australian audiences for temporary exhibitions (2005, 200). The 1939 Herald exhibition, though a landmark cultural event, was part of a developing tradition of travelling temporary exhibitions based on loans. As this chapter has shown exhibitions were becoming

60

60  Laying the foundations increasingly sophisticated, with a stronger emphasis on the selection and refinement of content indicating a greater interaction with the international cultural community. Together with developments in marketing, partnerships and private support, and experimentation in public programming, these trends became an increasingly frequent means of attracting and educating audiences. The large-​scale exhibits discussed above represent an expansion of cultural life, which included exhibitions staged outside institutions, a growing art market and more writing about art. This was further enabled by the increasing mobility of individuals who developed global cultural networks. Alongside the prominent loan exhibitions from private collectors, artists, galleries and museums were increasingly trying to reach audiences outside the urban centres. In Victoria, this was relatively straightforward, as pictures could be loaned to long-​established regional galleries, but in states like New South Wales the infrastructure was not as strong. Bernard Smith, working at the National Art Gallery of NSW, organised travelling exhibitions of works from the gallery, private individuals and collectors to regional centres across the state. Often staged in council chambers and halls, with support from the state education department, these exhibitions were ‘achieving success through the goodwill and cooperation of far-​sighted people in many quarters’ by ‘stimulating a greater interest in art’ (Smith 1944, 6). The history of this period outlined here also exposes the structural and geographical difficulties faced by cultural institutions:  funding, professional networks, buildings and collections were all inadequate. Individuals such as Ure Smith, Lloyd Jones and Murdoch were crucial in fostering new ways to support and broaden access to art, and despite the distance from European centres there was a regular traffic of works and ideas between Australia and the world beyond, even during times of world war and financial collapse. Australians wanted to be informed about global art trends, and temporary loan exhibits were central in meeting this need. During the twentieth century, institutions became more ambitious and expanded their offerings, helped by the growing interest of governments, who were beginning to value the educational, social and political potential of exhibits (Gardiner-​Garden 1994).

Notes 1 Indeed, the continuing use of the building, and its very flexibility as a space for spectacle, ceremony, entertainment and education, mark it as a key site for ideas of display and culture in Melbourne, and has been central to its preservation. See Dunstan (1996). 2 For example, the National Gallery of Victoria has never dropped ‘National’ from its name. The National Art Gallery of New South Wales, however, dropped ‘National’ in 1958 (Malony 1958, 2568). The Australian Museum in Sydney, despite its name, has a state remit.

 61

Private interests 61 3 An exception was the Australian War Memorial museum, conceived in World War I, and opening in 1922 with a temporary exhibition as the ‘Australian War Museum’ in Melbourne’s Exhibition Building (1922–​5), before moving to another temporary home in Sydney’s Town Hall basement (1925–​35). The institution finally opened at its permanent home in the nation’s capital, Canberra, as part of the War Memorial in 1959 (Australian War Memorial 2017b). 4 This is born out in international discussions of natural history museums. For example, see Rader and Cain (2014). 5 The 1935 Act enabled the gallery to lend pictures by British artists overseas, provided they had been in the collection for fifteen years, or if subject to special conditions, given or bequeathed to the gallery before 1900. The 1954 Act permitted any work of art to be lent within the UK or abroad, provided it had been in the collection for fifteen years, or twenty-​five years in the case of gifts and bequests subject to particular conditions. Loans of works created before 1700 had to be approved by government (National Gallery 2017). 6 Jost’s claim that every person saw the work twice is probably exaggerated, though his claim for the success of the show in world terms is incontestable. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates the total population of Western Australia in 1906 at 255,173, making the Perth visitation statistics remarkable (2001). 7 It was eventually donated to St Paul’s Cathedral, London (St Paul’s Cathedral  2017). 8 Although most exhibits in these venues were of Australian work, there were regular international exhibits, often including prints or reproductions. For a critical discussion of this history in Sydney, see Johnson (1997). 9 The term ‘curator’ does not seem to have been widely used at this time. 10 Plans to visit other cities, including Adelaide (West Australian 1923, 8) and possibly Brisbane (Sydney Morning Herald 1923c, 8), appear to have fallen through. 11 For example, press coverage for Masterpieces from Paris at the NGA in 2009–​10 often noted the ‘long and difficult journey’ undertaken by the 112 paintings, as well as the fact that it was ‘hugely expensive to transport and indemnify’ (Pryor 2009, 1). 12 The Archibald Prize exhibition is now accompanied by the Wynne Prize for Australian landscape and the Sir John Sulman Prize for a genre or scene painting or mural project. The Wynne Prize was first awarded in 1897, but there was no accompanying exhibition until 1929 (AGNSW 2017a). The Sulman Prize was first awarded in 1936 (AGNSW 2017b). 13 Artworks from this show remained in Australia until 1945 due to the onset of war. Some works may have been on near-​permanent display in art galleries, while others were included in touring exhibitions at state-​run galleries in Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Launceston and Brisbane (Chanin, Miller, and Pugh 2005, 275–​6).

References ABS. 2001. A Century of Population Change in Western Australia. Western Australian Statistical Indicators. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. A.C. 1939. ‘When Art Came to Melbourne’. Age, June 10. Advertiser. 1939a. ‘Exhibition of Loan Pictures. Overseas Collection to Arrive on Saturday’, August 10.

62

62  Laying the foundations Advertiser. 1939b. ‘Modern Paintings Hung Today’, August 16. Advertiser. 1939c. ‘S.A. Artist Sees Modern Art Exhibition’, August 19. Advertiser. 1939d. ‘Modern Art Exhibition Ready for Opening’, August 19. Advertiser. 1939e. ‘The Advertiser Art Exhibition. Lunch Hour Lecture Arranged’, August 23. Age. 1923a. ‘Advertisement: European Art Exhibition’, August 3. Age. 1923b. ‘Advertisement: European Art Exhibition’, August 6. Age. 1923c. ‘Advertisement: European Art Exhibition’, August 8. AGNSW. 2011. Annual Report 2010–​2011. Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales. AGNSW. 2017a. ‘Wynne Prize’. Art Gallery of New South Wales. Accessed October 17. www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/​prizes/​wynne/​. AGNSW. 2017b. ‘Sir John Sulman Prize’. Art Gallery of New South Wales. Accessed October 17. www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/​prizes/​sulman/​. AM. 1902. Australian Museum. (Report of the Trustees for the Year 1901). Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 1915. Australian Museum. (Report of the Trustees for the Year Ended 30 June 1915. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 1938. Australian Museum. (Annual Report of the Trustees for the Year 1936–​ 37). Sydney: Australian Museum. Argus. 1901. ‘Friday May 1 1901’, May 10. Argus. 1923. ‘Athenæum Main Hall –​European Art Exhibition’, August 18. Armstrong, Edmund La Touche. 1906. The Book of the Public Library, Museums, and National Gallery of Victoria: 1856–​1906. Melbourne: Ford and Son. Art in Australia. 1924. ‘We Think the “No’s” Have It! Should There Be an Australian Tariff on Imported Works of Art?’, 8 (June): 55–​9. Art in Australia. 1936. ‘International Exhibition at the N.S.W. Art Gallery’, 63 (May): 58. Art in Australia. 1939. ‘General News’, 76 (August): 60–​1. Australia National Journal. 1939. ‘£200,000 Modern Art Show’, 13 (December–​ February): 52–​3, 70. Australian War Memorial. 2017a. ‘Australia and the Boer War, 1899–​1902’. Accessed October 12. www.awm.gov.au/​articles/​atwar/​boer. Australian War Memorial. 2017b. ‘History of the Australian War Memorial’. Accessed October 13. www.awm.gov.au/​index.php/​about/​organisation/​history. Bennett, Tony. 2006. ‘Civic Seeing: Museums and the Organization of Vision’. In A Companion to Museum Studies, edited by Sharon MacDonald, 263–​81. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Blainey, Geoffrey. 1966. The Tyranny of Distance: How Distance Shaped Australia’s History. Melbourne: Sun Books. Booth, Mary. 1918. Charles Booth. A Memoir. London: Macmillan. Boyd, Penleigh. 1923. ‘European Art Exhibition. To the Editor of The Argus’. Argus, August 15. Burdett, Basil. 1937a. ‘The British National Loan Exhibition’. Art in Australia 67 (May): 16–​18. Burdett, Basil. 1937b. ‘A Visitor Looks at the National Gallery’. Advertiser, August 17. Burdett, Basil. 1939. ‘The Greatest Legend in Paris: Picasso, the Inaccessible, Consents To Be Interviewed’. Advertiser, August 9. ‘Bush Week’: First Annual Exhibition & Carnival. 1920. Sydney.

 63

Private interests 63 Chanin, Eileen, Steven Miller, and Judith Pugh. 2005. Degenerates and Perverts. The 1939 Herald Exhibition of French and British Contemporary Art. Melbourne: Miegunyah Press. Daily Standard. 1936. ‘International Art Exhibition’, June 8. Daily Telegraph. 1906a. ‘International Exhibition’, February 19. Daily Telegraph. 1906b. ‘The Light of the World’, June 8. Deakin, Alfred. 1963. The Federal Story:  The Inner History of the Federal Cause 1880–​1900. Edited by J.A. La Nauze. 2nd ed. Melbourne:  University of Melbourne. Douglas, Louise. 2008. ‘Representing Colonial Australia at British, American and European International Exhibitions’. ReCollections:  Journal of the National Museum of Australia 3 (1): 13–​32. Du Faur, E. 1906. ‘“The Light of the World.” To the Editor of the Herald’. Sydney Morning Herald, April 10. Dundas, Douglas. 1974. Douglas Dundas Remembers ... Edited by Brian Stratton. Sydney: Brian Stratton. Dunstan, David. 1996. Victorian Icon: The Royal Exhibition Building. Melbourne: The Exhibition Trustees in association with Australian Scholarly Publishing. Edwards, Robert. 1991. ‘The Role of the International Cultural Corporation of Australia Limited’. In Australian Museums:  Collecting and Presenting Australia:  Proceedings of the Council of Australian Museum Associations Conference; Canberra ACT Australia, 21–​24 November 1990, edited by Donald F. McMichael, 165–​70. Melbourne: Council of Australian Museum Associations. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. In Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers, 1–​18. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. Empire Art Loan Exhibitions Society. 1946. Constitution. London: Art Exhibitions Bureau. Examiner. 1906. ‘The Light of the World’, June 9. Ferguson, E.M. 1953. ‘Pictures That Escaped Shipwreck’. Courier-​Mail, January 6. Fulford, Robert. 2007. ‘The Light Fantastic; Loved but Neglected Painting of Jesus Became a Touchstone of Mass Culture’. National Post, December 24. Gardiner-​Garden, John. 1994. Arts Policy in Australia: A History of Commonwealth Involvement in the Arts. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. Haese, Richard. 2018. ‘Burdett, Basil (1897–​1942)’. In Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra: National Centre of Biography,Australian National University. Accessed April 24. http://​adb.anu.edu.au/​biography/​burdett-​basil-​5425. Herbert, Harold. 1933. ‘Art’. Australasian, March 18. Hirst, John. 2003. ‘Federation’. In The Oxford Companion to Australian History, edited by Graeme Davison, John Hirst, and Stuart Macintyre. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Accessed May 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y9ehb5ud. Johnson, Heather. 1997. The Sydney Art Patronage System 1890–​ 1940. Sydney: Bungoona Technologies. Lambert, George W. 1923. ‘The European Art Exhibition’. Art in Australia 5 (August): 18–​25. Lange, Eleonore. 1936. ‘The International Art Exhibition at the National Art Gallery of N.S.W.’. Art in Australia 64 (August): 29–​61. ‘Light of the World’ by W. Holman Hunt. Now Exhibiting at National Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney. 1906. Sydney: Smith & Lane.

64

64  Laying the foundations Lindsay, Lionel. 1936. ‘Modern Prints and Drawings. An Exhibition, Organised by the Empire Art Loan Collections Society, at Present Being Shown in Australian Art Galleries’. Art in Australia 64 (August): 71–​4. Maas, Jeremy. 1984. Holman Hunt and ‘The Light of the World’. London: Scolar Press. Malony, The Hon. J.J. 1958. Art Gallery of New South Wales Bill –​Second Reading. Sydney: Parliament of New South Wales. Markham, S.F., and H.C. Richards. 1933. A Report on the Museums & Art Galleries of Australia by S.F. Markham, M.A. B.Litt. and Prof. H.C. Richards, D.Sc to The Carnegie Corporation of New York. London: The Museums Association. Mather, Patricia, N.H. Agnew, A. Bartholomai, and R. Belcher. 1986. A Time for a Museum: The History of the Queensland Museum 1862–​ 1986. Brisbane: Queensland Museum. ‘Melbourne Athenæum Archives’. 2018. The Melbourne Athenæum Incorporated. Accessed April 29. http://​www.mahistory.org.au/​. McDonald, John. 2000. Federation:  Australian Art and Society 1901–​ 2001. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. M.C.T. 1923. ‘Pictures from Europe in Australia’. The Week, July 27. Mills, John. 2010. ‘Australia’s Mixed Gauge Railway System: A Reassessment of Its Origins’. Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society 96 (1): 50–​61. Mills, John Ayres. 2006. ‘The Myth of Standard Gauge:  Rail Gauge Choice in Australia 1850–​1901’. PhD thesis. Logan, Queensland: Griffith University. Moore, William. 1936a. ‘At Home and Abroad’. Art in Australia 64 (August): 23. Moore, William. 1936b. ‘At Home and Abroad’. Art in Australia 63 (May): 59–​61. Morning Bulletin. 1906. ‘The Light of the World’, August 20. NAGNSW. 1936. Catalogue International Art Exhibition Held at the National Art Gallery of N.S.W July–​September, 1936. Sydney: National Art Gallery of NSW. National Gallery. 2017. ‘Archive:  Record NG18’. National Gallery, London. Accessed October 7. www.nationalgallery.org.uk/​archive/​record/​NG18. Newcastle Sun. 1936. ‘International Art Exhibition’, June 6. O’Reilly, Chiara. 2013. ‘Show Windows for Science: The Early Use of Diorama at Sydney’s Australian Museum’. Museum History Journal 6 (2): 147–​65. Palette. 1939a. ‘Art Notes: Adelaide to See the Works of Famous Continental Artists’. News, July 13. Palette. 1939b. ‘Art Notes:  Modern British and French Collection is Fine Feast of Art’. News, August 21. Paroissien, Leon. 1988. ‘Sam Ure Smith Interviewed by Leon Paroissien’. Art and Australia 25 (4): 524–​28. Potter, Matthew C. 2007. ‘British Art and Empire: Holman Hunt’s The Light of the World Reflected in the Mirror of the Colonial Press’. Media History 13 (1): 1–​23. Pratt, Edwin A. 1912. The State Railway Muddle in Australia. London: John Murray. Pryor, Sally. 2009. ‘Greats Glow Under Our Lights Fantastic’. Canberra Times, December 4. Rader, Karen A., and Victoria E.M. Cain. 2014. Life on Display. Revolutionizing U.S. Museums of Science and Natural History in the Twentieth Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rasmussen, Carolyn. 2001. A Museum for the People. A History of Museum Victoria and Its Predecessors 1854–​2000. Melbourne: Scribe.

 65

Private interests 65 Serle, Geoffrey. 2018. ‘Murdoch, Sir Keith Arthur (1885–​ 1952)’. In Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra:  National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Accessed April 24. http://​adb.anu.edu.au/​biography/​ murdoch-​sir-​keith-​arthur-​7693. Smith, Bernard. 1944. ‘Travelling Art Exhibitions in N.S.W.’. In Society of Artists Book 1944, 6. Sydney: Ure Smith. Smith, Bernard, and Terry Smith. 1992. Australian Painting 1788–​1990. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. St Paul’s Cathedral. 2017. ‘The Light of the World’. St Paul’s Cathedral. Accessed October 15. https://​tinyurl.com/​y7279y49. Sun. 1923. ‘Killed by Shock. New Art Dangers. Russian Constructionists’, April 18. Sun. 1936. ‘International Art Exhibition’, June 5. Sunday Times. 1901. ‘An International Exhibition’, June 9. Sunday Times. 1902. ‘International Exhibition in Melbourne’, May 25. Sydney Morning Herald. 1901. ‘The Constitution. The New Government’, January 1. Sydney Morning Herald. 1923a. ‘European Art’, July 12. Sydney Morning Herald. 1923b. ‘European Art Exhibition’, July 14. Sydney Morning Herald. 1923c. ‘European Art Exhibition’, July 21. Sydney Morning Herald. 1933. ‘British Art: A Splendid Exhibition’, April 19. Sydney Morning Herald. 1935. ‘Society of Artists. Annual Exhibition Opened. French Pictures Praised’, September 9. Sydney Morning Herald. 1936a. ‘International Art’, May 23. Sydney Morning Herald. 1936b. ‘Art and Music. Women’s Interest’, June 18. Sydney Morning Herald. 1936c. ‘International Art’, July 4. Sydney Morning Herald. 1936d. ‘International Art. Show Draws Large Crowds’, July 13. Sydney Morning Herald. 1936e. ‘Lectures Continue at International Exhibition’, July 21. Sydney Morning Herald. 1936f. ‘Mr. Streeton. Criticises National Gallery “Positive Disgrace”’, October 20. Sydney Morning Herald. 1936g. ‘The Inartistic Gallery’, October 24. Telegraph. 1935. ‘Empire Art Loan Exhibition’, March 13. Thompson, Ruth. 2018. ‘Jones, Sir Charles Lloyd (1878–​ 1958)’. In Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra:  National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Accessed April 24. http://​adb.anu.edu.au/​biography/​ jones-​sir-​charles-​lloyd-​6869. Troughton, Geoffrey. 2006. ‘Light at the End of the World:  Holman Hunt’s The Light of the World in New Zealand, 1906’. Australian Historical Studies 37 (128): 55–​71. Underhill, Nancy. 1988. ‘The World of Sydney Ure Smith’. Art and Australia 25 (4 Winter): 516–​23. Underhill, Nancy. 1991. Making Australian Art 1916–​ 1949:  Sydney Ure Smith, Patron and Publisher. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Ure Smith, Sydney. 1934. ‘Loan Exhibition of British Art of the Last Seventy Years (1862–​ 1932) to be Held this Year in Australia’. Art in Australia 54 (February): 9–​12. Ure Smith, Sydney. 1936. ‘The Art Gallery. To the Editor of the Herald’. Sydney Morning Herald, October 24.

66

66  Laying the foundations Ure Smith, Sydney. 1943. ‘Bringing Art to the Australian People’. In Society of Artists Book 1943, 65–​7. Sydney: Ure Smith. Ure Smith, Sydney, and Leon Gellert. 1936. ‘Editorial’. Art in Australia 64 (August): 17. Ure Smith, Sydney, Bertram Stevens, and Charles Lloyd Jones. 1921. ‘Introduction’. Art in Australia, no. 8. West Australian. 1906. ‘News and Notes’, July 18. West Australian. 1907. ‘“The Light of the World.” Mr Mack Jost in Fremantle. Interesting Interview’, June 19. West Australian. 1923. ‘European Art Exhibition Worth £100,000’, April 6. W.S. 1939. ‘Australia’s Most Important Exhibition’. Art in Australia 77 (November): 16–​18,  25.

 67

Part II

The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–​1990s

68

 69

3  In the national interest The growing role of government support

The outbreak of World War II left the works from the 1939 Herald exhibition stranded in Australia until 1945. At first, the exhibition was described as ‘one of the best antidotes for war worry’ (Vox 1939, 21), but by the early 1940s institutions across Australia were severely affected by the war. The National Gallery of South Australia noted a reduced scale of activities, blaming ‘war conditions, transport and manpower difficulties’ (McCubbin 1943, 47). It removed a ‘major portion’ of its permanent display for security reasons, ceased its program of lectures for schoolchildren, and did not receive international loan collections (McCubbin 1943, 48).1 Other support for cultural development was also reduced. For instance, there were no Carnegie grants from 1942 until 1946 (West Australian 1946, 11). Journals that had promoted exhibitions were also affected:  Art in Australia ceased production in 1942  ‘due to the effects of the war’ (Paroissien 1988, 525, 527). After the Herald exhibition, resources and opportunities to develop international exhibitions were limited, and sentiment was low. A gap in large-​ scale, popular exhibitions during these years is not surprising. It was not until 1953, with French Painting Today:  Peintres Vivants de l’École de Paris, that the wartime cultural deficit was overcome. Art historian Bernard Smith, then organising regional travelling exhibitions for the National Art Gallery of NSW, later described French Painting Today as ‘the most important exhibition held in the country since the Murdoch exhibition’ of 1939 (B. Smith and Smith 1992, 304). Richard Haese argued that it ‘broke the long cultural drought’ as the ‘first major exhibition of European art in Australia since the Herald Exhibition’ (2011, 10). In addition to being a large-​scale, popular, international, loan-​based exhibition  –​thus meeting the criteria of a current-​day blockbuster  –​we argue that French Painting Today demonstrated Australia’s changing cultural landscape, exemplifying a growing and more coordinated investment in exhibitions by state and national governments. As this chapter will show it also revealed the emergence of a professional museum sector, in which institutions shared expertise, resources and exhibitions. Taking French Painting Today as a starting point, the 1950s to 1980s was a period in which most cultural institutions were comparatively well

70

70  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s established, but continued to struggle for funding, staffing and buildings (Pigott 1975). Although the format of large-​scale touring exhibitions had emerged earlier in the century, funding and development models remained inconsistent. But in the second half of the twentieth century, administrative models for exhibitions became firmly established. Moreover, the benefits –​ beyond facilitating access to culture –​become clear, particularly blockbusters’ economic and diplomatic potential, as evidenced by advances in federal cultural support mechanisms, state-​ based initiatives, professional sector-​ based organisations, infrastructure development and corporate involvement (AGDC 1978, 11–​ 18; Berryman 2013; Gardiner-​ Garden 1994a). Combined, we argue these parallel developments enabled public museums to stage blockbusters of increasing complexity and frequency. State-​based institutions became the principal sites for such exhibitions, in the absence of national counterparts, and due to their limited capacity collaborations were necessary (AGMA 1950). Various groups were formed to develop and stage exhibitions in partnership with public institutions: the Art Gallery Directors Council (AGDC), Visual Arts Board (VAB) and Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation (AAEC). As a consequence, this chapter shows that regular programs of temporary exhibitions became part of the Australian cultural landscape, offering audiences a variety of exhibitions that were beyond the scope of local collections. Indeed, by the 1970s ‘An estimated 1,468,000 people (equivalent to more than 10% of the population of Australia) saw exhibitions co-​ordinated by the Australian Gallery Directors’ Council during 1979’ (Visual Arts Board 1980, 2). This was a time of relative economic prosperity, in which the ‘privations of war were swept aside’, leading the way for a wave of consumerism through which ‘mass-​produced cars and household appliances came within reach of average Australian families’ (McDonald 2000, 14). Australia was also becoming more globally connected. Post-​war advances in civil aviation made international travel more affordable, and news of the world was beamed into Australian homes at a great rate, with 81 per cent of households owning a television by the 1960s (Lee 2003). International attention turned towards Australia when the 1956 Olympic Games were held in Melbourne and the Sydney Opera House opened in 1973. This was a period characterised by optimism.

French Painting Today: Peintres Vivants de l’École de Paris The exhibition French Painting Today was a collaborative venture supported by private individuals, governments and institutions. The exhibition itself was the idea of National Art Gallery of NSW trustee Charles Lloyd Jones, who brokered an agreement in principle between the French and Australian governments, which included a sharing of costs (French Painting Today:  Peintres Vivants de l’École de Paris 1953, 3). The French government paid for ‘the assembly, packing and transport of the exhibition

 71

In the national interest 71 to Australia, insurance during the whole of the tour from the moment it left France until its return’ and the cost of a courier to accompany the exhibition. The Australian government paid for ‘all internal travel and organising expenses, the printing of the catalogues … and the return transport of the exhibition to France’ (French Painting Today 1953, 3). The mechanics of organising the exhibition were then handed to the newly appointed director of the National Art Gallery of NSW, Hal Missingham (Fig. 3.1). He sought the assistance of individuals in the British Council and UNESCO to source the artworks (Missingham 1973, 54). The show was envisaged as travelling to the Australian capital cities, hosted by public galleries. However, as noted in the catalogue, the state galleries had ‘insufficient funds for projects of such magnitude’ (French Painting Today 1953, 3). In order to secure this important exhibition, and others in future, the state galleries banded together under the auspices of the Conference of Interstate Directors2 to lobby the prime minister for financial support (AGMA 1950, 6). Their appeal was successful: this was the first exhibition to take advantage of the funding ‘scheme’ which saw the Commonwealth government contribute up to £1500 per annum from 1950 for international travelling exhibitions to be exhibited at state galleries (AGMA 1950, 6; Mail 1953b, 59).

Figure 3.1 Hal Missingham, Director of the Art Gallery of New South Wales, pictured at work on 3 December 1945, the year of his appointment. Courtesy of Fairfax Syndication.

72

72  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s When the show arrived, after four years of planning, it was a great, if somewhat controversial, success (Age 1953, 14; Courier-​Mail 1953, 6; Kaplan 1953). Many of its characteristics mirrored those of today’s global blockbuster. Press coverage included the now standard discussions, with article after article trumpeting the significance and monetary value of the paintings, the risks in bringing them to Australia, the insurance costs, the crowds, and the importance of this rare opportunity to see such art (Age 1953, 14; Courier-​Mail 1953). Yet unlike the ‘safe’ topics of today’s blockbusters (Berryman 2013, 169; Rentschler, Bridson, and Evans 2014; Zarobell 2017), French Painting Today featured more than one hundred works by contemporary artists largely unknown to the general public. The Age described it as ‘[t]‌he provocative event of the art season’ (Age 1953, 14). The director of the National Gallery of South Australia encouraged visitors to ‘look at these pictures with an open mind’ (Campbell cited in Mail 1953a, 38) for, if they didn’t, ‘they would get nothing but annoyance from most of the pictures’ (Mail 1953a, 38). The sense of excitement and anticipation was helped by the story of the exhibition’s adventure in reaching Australia. The paintings travelled to Australia on the MV Merino, which ran aground for eight days on a sandbar off the coast of Tasmania, before being safely re-​floated (Ferguson 1953, 2). This incident provided endless fodder for the press, all of which helped to promote the show by sensationalising the value of the collection and foregrounding the very real risk entailed in bringing it to Australia (Missingham 1973, 54–​5). This was wonderfully encapsulated in the catchall headline:  ‘Pictures that escaped shipwreck. £100,000 French paintings to be shown in Brisbane’ (Ferguson 1953, 2). Missingham later recalled that this accident ‘ensured that wherever the exhibition was shown there was tremendous public interest’ (1973, 54–​5). The exhibit drew strong crowds to its short showings in the state galleries, with 220,000 people seeing it across Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane before it went to Adelaide and Tasmania (Mail 1953a, 38). French Painting Today also had a broader significance. The French consul-​ general contended that ‘it could help to create better understanding between France and Australia’ and ‘stimulate interest in France’ (Strauss cited in Brisbane Telegraph 1953, 2). This diplomatic aspect was recognised in 1954 when, in honour of their work on the exhibition, both Missingham and Lloyd Jones were awarded a Légion d’honneur by the French ambassador (Sun 1954, 9). The exhibit also highlighted Australian art institutions’ growing awareness of the need to keep abreast of international artistic trends. This was a perspective supported by Missingham who, when he became director of the National Art Gallery of NSW in 1945, made an active choice to show ‘both local and overseas artists’ exhibitions which I was determined to promote as a regular Gallery activity, so that people would be able to participate more fully in the art of their contemporaries in a direct and meaningful way’ (Missingham 1973, 12). French Painting Today achieved this aim by inciting public debate, and its influence was also seen in the local art scene.3 Missingham’s appointment as gallery director reflected a more general

 73

In the national interest 73 changing of the guard in Australian cultural institutions that mirrored a larger international shift towards more professional organisational structures.4

Professionalisation and the creation of a museum ‘sector’ In the years following the Carnegie report, much was done to strengthen museums in Australia.5 This chapter will outline how these improvements fell into three categories:  government investment (financially and at an administrative level), establishment of professional networks (resulting in an awareness of international museum standards), and improved infrastructure. Commonwealth government investment grew in the second half of the twentieth century, although it was initially piecemeal and driven by the enthusiasm of private interest groups (Rowse 1985). Lisanne Gibson has argued that, although art was valued as a tool for reconstruction in the post-​war period, the process of supporting it was far from linear (2001). Small organisations like the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts (established in 1944)  worked at a state level  –​and particularly across the regions –​using exhibitions to support its strong educational focus (Gibson 2001). At a national level, the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, established in 1954, was funded by public subscriptions in honour of the Queen’s first visit to Australia. A Commonwealth government grant further supported this Trust (Rowse 2001, 120–​5), highlighting the opportunistic nature of arts funding at the time. The Trust became the ‘Commonwealth’s chief adviser on the performing arts’, a role later taken over by the Australia Council for the Arts (established in 1968 and becoming the Australia Council in 1975)  (Gardiner-​ Garden 1994a, 5). The Australia Council remains Australia’s main federally supported arts funding and advisory body (Rowse 1985, 6–​14). Importantly, it consolidated funding for the cultural sector by subsuming a number of smaller, discipline-​based organisations, including the Visual Arts Board and the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board (Gardiner-​Garden 1994b, 7). Federal support for cultural institutions also increased with the National Library of Australia, established as an autonomous entity by an act of parliament in 1960 –​the first federally supported cultural institution after the War Memorial.6 The establishment of a national gallery was also prioritised as a result of the National Art Gallery Committee of Inquiry, which was formed in 1965 and led by former director of the National Gallery of Victoria, Sir Daryl Lindsay (Commonwealth of Australia 1975, 1110). Plans for the gallery were debated for years until the Australian National Gallery (now National Gallery of Australia) was enacted in 1975 and opened in its purpose-​built home in 1982. Both the gallery and the library were established as statutory authorities administered by independent councils at arm’s length from government.7 The need for a national museum was the subject of a 1974 inquiry (Commonwealth of Australia 1974, 1348–​50), and was enacted in 1980 and opened to the public in 2001.8

74

74  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s This brief history highlights a greater coordination and recognition, at the federal level, of the value of supporting cultural institutions in the second half of the twentieth century. It also shows, however, that much of this work did not occur until the 1960s. The benefits of coordination for large-​scale blockbusters therefore did not materialise until the 1970s, a period that coincides with the international rise of blockbusters. This emerging coordination of federal funding, and slow development of national institutions, meant that there was still significant need for state funding and institutions; we argue that the latter were, by default, at the centre of cultural vision and experience. They were also undertaking a transformation, seeking to become more open and relevant to the widest possible cross-​section of the population; exhibitions as evidenced in this chapter were crucial here. The Australian Museum encapsulated this new image in a 1969 declaration on the value of exhibitions: In many ways the Museum is an ‘Everyman’s University’. Only 4 per cent of the population enjoy a university education … Perhaps museums should not so much cater for this group, but rather for the other 96 per cent who do not go to a university … They must also, if they are to attract a wider spectrum of the public, change their approaches to display techniques. More emphasis on temporary displays and on experiment with modern display approaches and techniques is long overdue in many Australian museums. (AM 1970, 8) The Australian turn towards visitor experience reflected international trends (Petschek 1968, 5; Vergo 1989; Weil 1999), but small state budgets limited their capacity. As such, it made sense to share resources, as seen in French Painting Today, to support international loan exhibitions. One of the mechanisms to facilitate collaboration across state lines and cope with Australia’s fragmented and geographically vast cultural landscape was the formation of a gallery directors’ professional network.9 This group met formally for the first time in 1948 at the National Gallery of Victoria during a Conference of Interstate Directors. It continued under various names, eventually settling on the Australian Gallery Directors Council (AGDC) in 1976 (AGDC 1978, 16), until it disbanded in 1981 (Australia Council 1980; Hoad 1981, 92).10 This important group’s aims included the ‘reciprocal exchange of exhibitions with other countries’, devising a national program of exhibitions via state collaboration, and lobbying for federal funding and support (Australia Council 1980, 6, 11).11 Its significance for the present study, we assert, is that it demonstrates the shift in exhibition development during this period from opportunistic ventures to a strategic endeavour supported by government, corporate sponsorship and cultural institutions. This is evident in the changing structure of the group itself, which ‘transformed from a small professional forum, comprising public

 75

In the national interest 75 gallery directors, into a fully independent exhibition business, deriving revenue from corporate sponsorship, exhibition admissions, and merchandise sales’ (Berryman 2013, 166). An important early innovation of the AGDC was the splitting of exhibition costs among members, ‘so that the less well-​endowed galleries could participate’ (Missingham 1973, 92). It also lobbied government for supplementary funding, which came in the form of the previously mentioned annual grant for overseas exhibitions. This united approach allowed a ‘co-​ operative rationalisation of touring programs’ that resulted in ‘the sharing of costs for freight, insurance and catalogue printing’ (AGDC 1979, 10). Federal funding continued to grow over the life of the group, as did private sponsorship, which was supplemented by the member galleries’ own contributions (AGDC 1979, 46–​52). The AGDC’s unity and ability to secure government and private funding resulted in an enormously successful group, which brought many important exhibitions to Australia. By 1979, the group had 48 member galleries, a dedicated office with fourteen full-​time staff, and an expanded program supporting 63 exhibitions in 1979 (AGDC 1979, 14). The unity fostered by this group gave the art galleries a distinct advantage over the rest of the cultural sector and helped, in part, to explain the uneven take-​up of travelling exhibitions during this period (Braden 1983, 12). The history of the AGDC coincided with expansions in public galleries that improved facilities. The AGDC’s 1979 report noted that most state galleries met international standards ‘to house permanent collections and present major touring exhibitions’ (AGDC 1979, 5). Many state galleries had undertaken expansion projects that improved facilities and often incorporated climate control. In 1968, for example, the National Gallery of Victoria moved from the site it shared with the public library and the museums of technology and natural history to a purpose-​built, stand-​alone gallery, which Daniel Thomas suggests was ‘palatial’ and ‘triggered a nationwide upgrade of art museum buildings’ (2011, 3). The National Art Gallery of NSW dropped ‘National’ from its name in 1958 (Malony 1958)  and, in 1972, after a long battle for funding, upgraded and expanded its facilities (AGNSW 1989, 7–​8). The South Australian art gallery, occupying its own building since 1899, undertook ‘a small extension, in 1962, which was Australia’s first climate-​controlled art exhibition space’ (Thomas 2011, 2–​ 3).12 The implementation of climate control and upgraded facilities, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, meant that galleries could be ‘entrusted’ with ‘big-​budget overseas exhibitions’ (Thomas 2011, 2–​3).13 Investment in facilities subsequently required an investment in staff. International appointments began, with Eric Westbrook appointed as director of the National Gallery of Victoria in 1956 and Edmund Capon at the Art Gallery of NSW in 1978 –​ both originally from the UK. This signalled a greater internationalisation of the Australian cultural sector. Practical advances also helped exhibitions thrive. For example, the introduction of airfreight, which began replacing sea transport from the 1950s, was acknowledged as a ‘dramatic revolution’

76

76  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s that brought ‘far-​flung countries closer together and provided the means of rapid, safe and secure transport’ (Edwards 1991, 165).

International art in Australia after French Painting Today The AGDC organised exhibitions from diverse locations, in collaboration with foreign governments, thus extending the scope of international exhibitions in Australia and highlights the growing global networks essential to blockbusters and large-​scale loan exhibitions.14 In the 1950s they toured Modern German Paintings:  A Loan Exhibition from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany (1954), Italian Art of the 20th Century (1956), supported by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Public Instruction, and Contemporary Japanese Art (1958–​9) to Australia and New Zealand. These projects highlight the importance of cultural diplomacy in the development of exhibitions. Yet Australian federal involvement still lacked coordination and was influenced by personal predilections. As Missingham recalled, the Italian exhibition was not federally supported because ‘the Prime Minister (Robert Menzies), fervently disliking any form of modern painting, had refused. If the State Galleries wished to bring in such rubbish they could do so’ (1973, 56). Instead Daryl Lindsay, director of the National Gallery of Victoria, ‘personally raised £3000 from the Australian newspapers’ to support the exhibition, which travelled to all the major state capitals (Lindsay 1965, 154). Missingham and Lindsay were personally recognised for their work, with awards from the Italian government (Missingham 1973, 56). The AGDC collaborated with cultural institutions also, such as with the British Council for Aspects of British Art (1967), which toured Australia and New Zealand. By the late 1960s, as we argue, temporary exhibitions reliant on overseas content were well established in Australia as important components of state art gallery programming (AGDC 1972). Importantly, while the art galleries, via the AGDC, were the most active protagonists in international touring exhibitions, AGDC projects were not limited to fine art. In 1968, for example, it toured Design in Scandinavia: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden. However, as an applied arts show it was considered ‘a trade show and not art’ by customs officials and as such an import duty was applied (Missingham 1973, 62).15 The design of this exhibition was also significant, in that the display furniture was specifically designed so that it could be rearranged in every venue (Missingham 1973, 61), demonstrating a growing understanding of the need to design touring exhibitions for flexibility. The AGDC continued to develop exhibitions that were enthusiastically attended (AGDC 1978). But by the 1970s those involved began expressing serious concerns about the sustainability of travelling exhibitions (AGDC 1972, 21–​22). Directors observed that the exhibits brought benefits –​development of staff expertise, possibilities for networking, and drawing in audiences  –​ but had reservations about the growing costs and risks in depending on

 77

In the national interest 77 them (AGDC 1972, 2, 21–​2). The extent of the program, and the strain of organising it, were illustrated by the listing of ‘seventy three exhibition items’ in 1972 (AGDC 1972, 2). The group debated the problems of balancing in-​ house exhibition development with hosting touring exhibitions, difficulties in obtaining insurance, and the issue of covering costs –​questions at the heart of managing temporary exhibits today (AGDC 1972, 22; AGDC 1978, 13). Despite these reservations, the AGDC went from strength to strength. The 1970s saw an ever-​expanding touring program of larger and increasingly valuable exhibits. This decade is the period most often associated with the advent of the modern blockbuster; in Australia, as internationally, art led the way (Art in America 1986; Elsen 1984; Freedberg, Jackson-​Stops, and Spear 1987; Spear 1986). As AGDC chairman Eric B. Rowlinson argued: Art museums are no longer regarded by the greater part of their public as dull places to be visited on rainy afternoons … They are now buildings outside which queues may be seen when major exhibitions are held, place-​names which taxi drivers can readily identify, and centres of visual experience which members of ordinary families may have revisited two or three times in the last few years. (AGDC 1978, 5) The AGDC expanded by developing its own staff and establishing a permanent administrative office in Sydney (1976) where there was a centralised exhibitions officer position and a traineeship role (AGDC 1978, 16). This was supported by a grant from the federal Visual Arts Board (Visual Arts Board 1980, 4).16 In 1977 the AGDC became a limited-​liability company, enabling it to accept tax-​deductible donations, thus making it attractive for corporate investment (Australia Council 1980, 10). This move demonstrates the AGDC’s innovative economic model, which was further supported by tax concessions.

Expanding ambitions and support: the Visual Arts Board The establishment in 1973 of the VAB as a division of the interim Australia Council was itself an important development (Gardiner-​Garden 1994a, 7–​9). The VAB also supported exhibitions, and the expertise of its staff was especially important as exhibitions became increasingly complex and onerous –​ in terms of costs, negotiations and facilitation (Visual Arts Board 1980). Working collaboratively, the VAB and the AGDC developed an impressive series of international art exhibitions, many of which toured Australia and New Zealand. Among these were Some Recent American Art (1974),17 John Constable, the Natural Painter (1973–​4),18 The Graphic Art of German Expressionism (1973–​5),19 and Cartier Bresson’s France (1974)20 (AGDC 1979, 12). All were part of a global recognition of the political, diplomatic and cultural value of exchanging exhibitions, particularly after World War II (Balfe 1987; Luke 2002).

78

78  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s In Australia, the expansion of exhibitions during this period closely reflected the growth in federal financial support for the arts that was an important part of the renewal agenda of Gough Whitlam’s short-​lived progressive government (1972–​5) (Berryman 2013, 163; Lieberman 1975, 10). Whitlam saw the arts as an important area for active government involvement; in his 1972 election speech he identified objectives that would subsequently help to support touring exhibitions:  ‘to promote a standard of excellence in the arts; to widen access to, and the understanding and application of, the arts in the community generally’ (1972, 28). Whitlam’s importance in the history of Australia’s cultural policy has long been recognised. As Berryman noted, his government established a ‘new dialogue between art and national government’ (Berryman 2013, 163), while at the practical level a number of decisions improved the conditions for art exhibitions. One of the most important was, we argue, the provision of government indemnity. Federal indemnity was obtained for the VAB and the Australia Council for the Arts in 1974 for Paul Klee and in 1975 for Modern Masters: Manet to Matisse. The Modern Masters catalogue acknowledged its importance stating that without Commonwealth indemnity ‘the exhibition could never have been undertaken’ (Lieberman 1975, 10). It added that ‘such indemnity agreements are among the most significant means by which governments can assist museums in organizing important international loan exhibitions’ (Lieberman 1975, 10).21 These early examples resulted in the establishment in 1979 of a formal federal scheme for art indemnity (Marsden cited in Commonwealth of Australia 2000, CTA2). Significantly, this scheme supported exhibitions if they were ‘of cultural, national, or diplomatic significance’ and required that they must ‘appear in at least two states’ (Dempster 1991, 172). Thus the benefit of exhibitions as opportunities for diplomatic advancement was enshrined, as was the idea that exhibitions should be accessible to a broad public. Modern Masters: Manet to Matisse is often hailed as the arrival of the modern blockbuster in Australia; it has been deemed ‘the first great “populist blockbuster” ’ to be seen here, due to the scale of the exhibition and its impressive attendance figures (Thomas 2011, 4). The exhibit was organised by the Museum of Modern Art under the auspices of its International Council touring program, which had already sent exhibitions to Australia, but this was the largest, with more than 100 works from American museums, London’s Tate Gallery, the Musée National d’Art Moderne (Paris) and private collectors (Lieberman 1975; MoMA 1975). The exhibit was helped by the AGDC, the VAB and the Australia Council for the Arts, and sponsored by the Alcoa Foundation of America. The foreword to the catalogue describes how requests for such an exhibition in Australia had long been made, and how ‘It is a tribute to the current status of the arts in Australia that what for so long seemed a visionary project can now be realised’ (Lieberman 1975, 100).

 79

In the national interest 79 Modern Masters was the most valuable exhibition that had come to Australia, so valuable that it even caused a temporary spike in Australian trade figures. The Sydney Morning Herald wrote:  ‘Valued by some sources at $50  million and others at $100  million, it has been counted as a $44  million import in April trade figures by the Australian Bureau of Statistics’, resulting in a ‘temporary setback’ to the national accounts (Sydney Morning Herald 1975, 22). Because the exhibit occurred at the end of the Vietnam War, it caused debate among the broader arts community on ‘American cultural imperialism’ and disregard for Australian art, which developed into protests and a series of counter-​exhibitions and forums led by academic art historian Terry Smith (Lynn 1975; T. Smith 1976). In spite of this, the exhibition set attendance records in its two venues:  177,378 visitors in Sydney and 171,961 in Melbourne (Visual Arts Board 1980, 3; see Fig. 3.2).

Figure 3.2  Queue for Modern Masters: Manet to Matisse, National Gallery of Victoria, 1975. Courtesy of National Archives of Australia A6180, 12/​6/​75/​16.

80

80  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s A core reason for the appeal of this, and so many other art exhibitions that have come to Australia, is that they allow access to works not available in Australian collections. Elwyn Lynn noted that ‘Australia has hardly any of the artists on show in its public museums and this is the first Beckmann to be seen in Australia … We have one Picasso –​in Brisbane, but Ensor, Kupka, Munch, Redon and Seurat are reproductions in history books to the few initiated’ (1975, 78). The same point was made by Prime Minister Whitlam when opening the exhibit in Sydney: This is probably the most important art exhibition ever to come to Australia. Australians fortunate enough to travel have perhaps seen some of the works, or their like, in the great galleries of North America and Europe; others may have seen them reproduced in art books; but this is the first opportunity that the large proportion of Australians has had to enjoy and savour the real thing. (1975, 1) Whitlam went on to outline the new reality for art exhibitions as international events, describing how they demanded sponsorship, and celebrated the new government’s role in supporting and promoting the arts –​with the VAB and the Australia Council for the Arts.22 Furthermore, he highlighted the educational investment, with the VAB awarding special grants to allow students from other states to visit Sydney and Melbourne to see the exhibit (Whitlam 1975, 6). Whitlam’s speech makes obvious the substantial value the government placed on exhibits as a way of shaping national identity and cultural experience.

An entrepreneurial model Although the AGDC and the VAB remained major players, responsible for many travelling exhibits, new groups were emerging, including private ones such as the Peter Stuyvesant Cultural Foundation, which toured significant exhibitions to Australian galleries (Hawkes 1979). But a more substantial change came from the growth of federal organisations that recognised the value of exhibitions as political and diplomatic –​as well as cultural –​ endeavours (Berryman 2013). This perspective is clear in The Chinese Exhibition:  A Selection of Recent Archaeological Finds of the People’s Republic of China (1977), which expanded on the political ambitions of Modern Masters. The Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation (AAEC)23 was established specifically to manage this project, with support from the Australia Council and sponsorship from Mobil Oil Australia (AAEC 1976). Its original tour to Sydney and Melbourne was extended to Adelaide (AAEC 1977, 6). Politically, it was one of several exhibitions that marked various nations’ attempts during this period to expand cultural relations with China, and is an important marker of Australia’s investment in cultural

 81

In the national interest 81 diplomacy (Dinosaurs from China 1982; Naquin 2004). Opening the exhibition in Melbourne, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser praised this political cooperation, hailing The Chinese Exhibition as more important than Modern Masters. He noted that the exhibit marked ‘a further stage of contact between Australians and the art of other societies … made possible by the co-​operation between Governments and people’ (1977, 3; see Fig. 3.3). The catalogue credits extensive government support, listing from China the Ministry of Culture, the Bureau of Museums and Archaeological Data, a Chinese Committee, and several provincial museums. On the Australian side there are the cultural organisations, the Australia Council, the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Prime Minister and Cabinet and Administrative Services, the Royal Australian Air Force (which transported the works) and the Commonwealth Police (AAEC 1976).

Figure 3.3 Opening of The Chinese Exhibition: a selection of recent archaeological finds of the People’s Republic of China, National Gallery of Victoria, 18 January 1977. Courtesy of National Gallery of Victoria.

82

82  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s The Chinese Exhibition was an impressive success, with spectacular visitation at every venue.24 It raised substantial revenue for the AAEC from admission fees ($796,402) and merchandise sales ($783,070), but final profits were more modest: once ‘exhibition expenses were deducted, the net profit was $516,271’. Of this, $154,881 was distributed to the galleries, the remainder retained to support future exhibitions (AAEC 1977, 3). The fact that this archaeological show was hosted by art galleries, rather than by museums of history, archaeology or anthropology, we argue, highlights the dominance of art galleries as initiators of temporary exhibitions. The AAEC represented a new emphasis on the relationship between exhibitions, government funding and commercial opportunity, with Prime Minister Fraser explaining that the organisation was formed ‘specifically to undertake an entrepreneurial role’ (AAEC 1976, 4). This entrepreneurial model, we argue, reflected several important aspects of touring exhibitions at that point. Firstly, it recognised touring exhibitions’ potential to generate revenue, underlining a growing government reluctance to simply fund exhibitions, in favour of forcing increasing economic independence. This was made clear in the board that was appointed, led by Andrew Grimwade, a prominent philanthropist, supporter of the arts and business figure, and comprising a mix of arts administrators, government figures and corporate leaders.25 The need for an entrepreneurial model also highlights the scale of costs and logistics of touring exhibits. The 1977 annual report described sponsorship, marketing, merchandise and opening events that served both diplomatic and public engagement purposes. AAEC’s success with The Chinese Exhibition led to ambitions plans for future projects: They would incorporate famous material of such high artistic merit that it is unlikely to be seen in Australia except without the occurrence of a block-​buster type exhibition. … Lenders are understandably interested in maximum exposure and prefer to exhibit not only at the most sophisticated and senior museums and galleries but also in major population centres. … forward planning will be needed if a sustainable policy of one major exhibition in Australia each year is to be achieved. (1977, 7) But the entrepreneurial model’s fragility was revealed by the AAEC’s very next exhibition. El Dorado:  Columbian Gold (1978) highlighted the risks of depending on touring exhibitions for revenue, attracting only 324,297 visitors across five Australian venues (Visual Arts Board 1980, 3). This was a financial disaster for the AAEC, which suffered a loss and was forced to use its reserve revenue, as well as seek an additional loan from the Australia Council to cover expenses (AAEC 1978, 12). The press reported on the exhibition’s failings, suggesting that it was hastily developed in an attempt to capitalise on the momentum generated by The Chinese Exhibition (McCarthy 1978, 43–​4). Fundamentally, El Dorado failed due

 83

In the national interest 83 to poor attendances, which led to disappointing merchandise sales, in turn diminishing overall revenue (AAEC 1978, 12). In addition, the decision to tour to a number of venues was crippling: ‘It cost us $16,000 just to ship the [display] cases from Melbourne across to Perth … But we had only 30,000 visitors in Perth, so we did not even take in our freight costs’ (Patricia Sabine cited in Commonwealth of Australia 2000, 36). John Cameron, manager of the Australia Council (AAEC’s sole shareholder), admitted that there was a general ‘miscalculation of the market’ for El Dorado’s subject matter, suggesting an overselling of what was essentially an exhibition of jewellery ‘brought into the country in two suitcases’ (McCarthy 1978, 44). His comments also highlighted the unrealistic expectations placed on the AAEC; although El Dorado’s attendances were down, they still compared well with other touring exhibits. He claimed optimistically: ‘You can’t describe this in any way as a disaster. You can’t expect every exhibition to be a Chinese exhibition’ (McCarthy 1978, 44). But these expectations had shaped the reception of the event and all measures of its success. The AGDC report stated delicately: ‘As a result, the Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation has not been invited to manage subsequent major exhibitions’ (Visual Arts Board 1980, 35). The AAEC was shelved and the AGDC assumed responsibility for its outstanding projects. El Dorado’s failure forced the AGDC to take on a greater role as organising body of USSR:  Old Master Paintings (1979–​ 80), with the National Gallery of Victoria as curatorial lead (AGDC 1980, 5). USSR was a diplomatically driven cultural exchange, where state institutions took on a federal political role, thanks to the signing of a cultural agreement that included exchanging ‘exhibitions of mutual interest’ (Prime Minister’s Office 1975). The exhibit had sixty European Old Master paintings from four Russian museums, including the Hermitage and the Pushkin. The project was part of a reciprocal deal –​at the same time a group of sixty paintings from the Art Gallery of NSW and the National Gallery of Victoria was sent to Moscow and St Petersburg (AGDC 1980). These exhibitions marked the inauguration of a ‘four-​phase cultural exchange programme with the Soviet Union, involving eight exhibitions in all –​the most complex series of exhibition exchanges Australia has ever entered into with another country’ (AGNSW 1979, [2]‌). Unlike El Dorado, this show toured to only two venues  –​Melbourne and Sydney  –​attracting 253,960 visitors (AGDC 1980, 18).26 The exhibit was a success –​a close collaboration between two state galleries, who pooled resources in conservation and merchandising, and transferred $102,982 to the AGDC ‘to assist in funding future exhibitions’ (AGDC 1980, 2). As this history has demonstrated, art galleries and art organisations dominated access to the funding, support and political and organisational capital needed to meet the costs and infrastructure of touring exhibitions. The network of sector groups, opportunities for sponsorship and the investment that was coming in –​particularly from the federal level –​helped to

84

84  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s support the importation of cultural artefacts. This exposed audiences to art not represented in Australian permanent collections. We argue that through these exhibitions, and organisations such as the AGDC and the VAB, Australian staff not only developed the skills and expertise required to manage large-​scale exhibitions, but also helped foster Australian audiences’ expectations for temporary exhibitions.27 They nurtured in the private sector an awareness of the potential for philanthropy, which allowed for a growing independence from government funding through corporate sponsorship.

Travelling exhibitions in other institutions Although these projects expanded the range of feasible topics for large-​scale exhibits by featuring archaeology, design, decorative arts and non-​Western arts, there remained a significant gap in applying the blockbuster format to institutions other than art galleries. This is a gap clearly evident in the names ‘Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation’ and ‘Art Gallery Directors Council’. Possible reasons include natural history museums’ traditional focus on permanent exhibits (Markham and Richards 1933, 36; Rader and Cain 2014). They had invested in collection development and storage and research laboratories rather than temporary exhibition galleries that met international standards. Indeed, in the Australian Museum’s 1972 annual report the deputy director Elizabeth Pope noted that ‘parts of the public galleries are still not lit!’ (AM 1973, 11). Instead, their core outreach activities, like those of their international counterparts, included strong education programs emphasising school groups.28 The Australian Museum and its ilk did undertake outreach exercises, and maintained a program of lectures and school education, but these took on a very different form from those of the art galleries. Examples of outreach included the ‘Museum in a Box’ program, which began in 1965 and consisted of small-​scale thematic collections and interpretation literally boxed up and sent to schools or community groups (AM 1966, 8, 17). In an extension of this idea, in 1978 the Australian Museum launched an exhibition train that visited regional centres (AM 1979, 7–​9). The Queensland Museum also had a more formal educational focus, having long been involved with the state education department for the provision of school and school holiday programs, appointing its first education officer in 1967 (Mather et al. 1986, 111–​14). Similarly the National Museum of Victoria worked closely with that state’s education department, the Public Library of Victoria and the Council of Adult Education on its outreach programs (Rasmussen 2001, 229). These museums continued to concentrate on creating permanent displays linked to their research specialisations. Annual reports emphasised staff fieldwork and research, with only brief mention of minor exhibit changes. The Australian Museum’s 1953 report, for example, notes only small additions to the permanent displays: ‘One new exhibit, a section illustrating Prawns and Prawning, was completed in the Invertebrate Gallery’, and ‘Preparations

 85

In the national interest 85 were made for a series of murals of aboriginal subjects to be installed in the Anthropology Gallery’ (AM 1953, 4). The Australian Museum did develop temporary ‘exhibitions’ beyond its walls, but these were reported under the auspices of ‘publicity’. It regularly loaned specimens for display in shop windows and ‘Picture theatres in association with films including natural history features’, in exchange for publicity (AM 1953, 4). It contributed displays to the Royal Agricultural Show, which were widely praised. Preparations staff developed specimens and displays for many organisations, including the ‘UNESCO Exhibit of Aboriginal Culture’, Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Bathurst Teachers College, St Luke’s Hospital, and Broken Hill Technical College (AM 1953, 7). The museum was developing exhibition techniques and exploring new ideas for content, but on a smaller scale. By the 1970s the Australian Museum was beginning to experiment with larger-​scale, internationally sourced temporary exhibitions. A  significant venture was Cook, Banks and Australia (1970), celebrating the bicentenary of the two men’s exploration of Australia. It drew on local Australian collections and international lenders including the British Museum, British Museum of Natural History, Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew) and National Maritime Museum Greenwich (AM 1970, 8). It was a significant success in Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, supported by funding from ‘the Australian Prime Minister’, the British Council and The Australian newspaper, and in-​kind support (AM 1970, 8). Its success at the Australian Museum, where it attracted 100,000 visitors, forced a consideration of the institution’s capacity to serve audiences into the future. Patricia M.  McDonald, education officer-​ in-​ charge, wrote an essay questioning whether the museum could continue to respond to the predicted growth in visitor numbers, while still offering them an educational experience (Macdonald 1971, 10–​11). McDonald wanted to preserve the educational fidelity of the institution, but it became apparent that the large-​scale exhibitions, and accompanying crowds, were indeed a foretaste of what would become essential for these institutions in the entrepreneurial exhibition landscape. The Australian Museum is worthy of examination here, as its director from 1976 to 1998, Des Griffin, was the only non–​art gallery member of the AGDC in 1980 (Australia Council 1980, 12). Under his directorship, the Australian Museum hosted the AGDC exhibition Lion Rugs from Fars in 1979–​80.29 Griffin overhauled the museum’s structure, noting in his corporate plan that ‘Much of the future viability of the Museum rests with the effectiveness of the exhibitions it presents to the public. Support from Government, corporations and Museum revenue generation can only be maintained and expanded from a base of successful visitation’ (Corporate Plan –​Policy 17, Exhibits cited in AM 1981, 24). Clearly, museums such as the Australian Museum were beginning to feel the stress of meeting quantitative performance measures. Non–​art museums had been relatively slow to take up the opportunities and risks of large-​scale exhibits, but they were tempted. The

86

86  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s allure of exhibitions as a tool to increase audiences was strong, and would be exploited in coming years.

Notes 1 It was actively involved in the war effort, assuming responsibility ‘for the camouflage activities of the State’ (McCubbin 1943, 48). 2 This group would become the Art Gallery Directors Council. 3 Australian artist John Coburn, for example, pinpointed the exhibition as the catalyst for his turn towards abstraction. Fifty years later, he still recalled its enduring influence (Coburn cited in Fortescue 2003, 73). 4 Daryl Lindsay was appointed director of the NGV in 1941 (B. Smith 2017). Robert Campbell was appointed to the National Gallery of South Australia in 1951 (AGMA 1952, 4). 5 This correlates with the development of international associations, such as the International Council of Museums, established in 1946 as part of UNESCO, established 1945. 6 It had its roots as the Parliamentary Library, but did not become its own institution until later (Gardiner-​Garden 1994b, 5). 7 Many national institutions were formalised in this period, including the National Archives of Australia and the National Film and Sound Archive, both enacted in 1984, though both had roots going back to the 1940s (Craik 2007, 75). 8 See Condé (2011). 9 Other professional networks were established, but they lacked the seniority, and thus the capacity to negotiate with government, that enabled this body to become a major exhibition development forum. See Marginson (1993). 10 For the sake of clarity, this group will henceforth be referred to as the AGDC. 11 It also sought to promote Australian culture overseas via state gallery–​ devised exhibitions, further highlighting the significant role taken on by state organisations in the absence of federal involvement. 12 Also noteworthy is the fact that the Adelaide Festival of Arts began in 1960, based on the Edinburgh Festival, and drawing international attention (Stevenson 2000, 87). 13 AGWA moved into an autonomous space in 1979 and QAG did the same in 1982, the same year as the NGA opened (Thomas 2011, 2–​3). 14 Other organisations, like the Empire Art Loan Exhibition Society, continued to tour exhibitions in the 1950s but retained a focus on British art, for example, British Watercolours: 1914–​1954 (1954), Exhibition of Drawings by Augustus John and Sir Muirhead Bone (1958–​9) and Paintings by Ivon Hitchens from the Howard Bliss Collection (1961). 15 The issue was not resolved until 1971, when it was agreed that if such exhibits were to be shown in state-​owned galleries they would ‘be free of duty and sales tax’ (Missingham 1973, 62). 16 The AGDC had advocated for the creation of these federally supported roles at its 1972 conference (AGDC 1972, 2) 17 From the Museum of Modern Art in New York. 18 From the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. 19 From the Institute of Foreign Cultural Relations, Stuttgart.

 87

In the national interest 87 0 From the French Ministry of Cultural Affairs. 2 21 The foreword to the exhibition catalogue noted that the United Kingdom had ‘pioneered’ the establishment of indemnity schemes for exhibition loans (Lieberman 1975, 10). 22 Whitlam made special mention of how the Australia Council was also supporting international tours of Australian art (Whitlam 1975, 4). 23 The AAEC was incorporated on 3 September 1976, although the Australia Council supported it as sole shareholder (AAEC 1977; McCarthy 1978, 43). 24 In Sydney it attracted 227,163 visitors, in Melbourne 242,475 and Adelaide 125,287 (AAEC 1977, 3). 25 The board also included James Leslie (chairman of Mobil Australia) and entertainment promoter and media agent Harry M. Miller, who was involved with the fine arts, particularly as a trustee of the AGNSW (AAEC 1977, 1). 26 The wider cultural agreement was terminated when Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 (Hoad 1980, 36). 27 The growth of touring exhibitions had a wider benefit. The AGDC ran a program of smaller touring exhibitions –​often of local content –​specifically designed for regional galleries and centres, and occasionally taking in venues other than art galleries. In 1979 for instance, audiences for these totalled 474,000 (AGDC 1979, 29). Regional galleries featured impressively in these exhibits, as did venues such as the Australian Centre for Photography, university galleries, and other museums such as Sydney’s MAAS and Australian Museum, and there was a clear plan for these exhibits to offer a range of subject matter (AGDC 1979, 29). The AGDC also played an important role in touring Australian art internationally. 28 News bulletins of the Art Galleries and Museums Association of Australia and New Zealand (1947–​57) reveal these differences. For a wider history, see Rader and Cain (2014). 29 The AM’s first association with the ADGC was in 1971, when it hosted a Pierre Bonnard exhibition for the AGNSW, which was unable to host the show due to a lack of temporary exhibition space that was only resolved in 1972.

References AAEC. 1976. Chinese Exhibition: A Selection of Recent Archaeological Finds of The People’s Republic of China. Melbourne: Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation. AAEC. 1977. Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation Limited:  Annual Report. Melbourne: Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation. AAEC. 1978. Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation Limited. Annual Report. Melbourne: Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation. AGDC. 1972. Twenty Fifth Conference of Australian Gallery Directors Held at the Western Australian Art Gallery from 23rd to 27th October, 1972. Minutes. Sydney: Australian Gallery Directors Council. AGDC. 1978. Report and Review. Sydney: Australian Gallery Directors Council. AGDC. 1979. Report and Review. Sydney: Australian Gallery Directors Council. AGDC. 1980. USSR:  Old Master Paintings:  Report. Sydney:  Australian Gallery Directors Council. Age. 1953. ‘A Provocative Event of the Art Season’, February 28.

88

88  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s AGMA. 1950. News Bulletin of the Art Galleries and Museums Association of Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: The Association. AGMA. 1952. News Bulletin of the Art Galleries and Museums Association of Australia and New Zealand. Sydney: The Association. AGNSW. 1979. Media Release: USSR Old Master Paintings. Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales. December 3. AGNSW. 1989. Annual Report 1988–​89. Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales. AM. 1953. Report of the Trustees of the Australian Museum for the Year Ended 30th June 1953. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 1966. Report of the Trustees of the Australian Museum for the Year Ended 30th June 1965. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 1970. Report of the Trustees of the Australian Museum for the Year Ended 30 June 1969. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 1973. Report of the Trustees of the Australian Museum for the Year Ended 30 June, 1972. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 1979. Report of the Australian Museum Trust for the Year Ended 30 June 1978. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 1981. The Australian Museum, Sydney Annual Report 1980–​ 1981. Sydney: Australian Museum. Art in America. 1986. ‘Special Section: Museum Blockbusters’, June: 18–​37. Australia Council. 1980. Visual Arts Board: Australian Gallery Directors’ Council. Program Review Series. Sydney: Arts Informational Program, Australia Council. Balfe, Judith Huggins. 1987. ‘Artworks as Symbols in International Politics’. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 1 (2): 5–​27. Berryman, Jim. 2013. ‘Art and National Interest:  The Diplomatic Origins of the “Blockbuster Exhibition” in Australia’. Journal of Australian Studies 37 (2): 159–​73. Braden, Virginia. 1983. A Report of a Feasibility Study on Australia’s Requirements for Touring Exhibitions. Commissioned by the Visual Arts Board of the Australia Council. Sydney: Virginia Braden Arts Management. Brisbane Telegraph. 1953. ‘French Art Exhibition is Already a Big Draw’, April 11. Commonwealth of Australia. 1974. Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives Official Hansard No. 15. April 10, 1974, Twenty-​Eighth Parliament, Second Session –​First Period. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia. 1975. Parliamentary Debates: Senate Official Hansard No. 16. April 17, 1975, Twenty-​Ninth Parliament, First Session –​Second Period. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia. 2000. Proof Committee Hansard. House of Representatives. Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts. Reference: Art Indemnity. July 25, 2000. Melbourne. Condé, Anne-​Marie. 2011. ‘“The Orphans of Government”:  The Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections (The Pigott Report), 1974–​75’. In Understanding Museums:  Australian Museums and Museology, edited by Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien. Canberra:  National Museum of Australia. Accessed August 11, 2017. http://​nma.gov.au/​research/​understanding-​museums/​ AMConde_​2011.html. Courier-​Mail. 1953. ‘900 Say Adieu to French Art’, May 9. Craik, Jennifer. 2007. Re-​Visioning Arts and Cultural Policy. Current Impasses and Future Directions. Canberra: ANU E Press.

 89

In the national interest 89 Dempster, Graeme. 1991. ‘The Commonwealth Indemnification Scheme for Touring Exhibitions’. In Australian Museums  –​Collecting and Presenting Australia: Proceedings of the Council of Australian Museum Associations Conference; Canberra ACT Australia, 21–​24 November 1990, edited by Donald F. McMichael, 171–​74. Melbourne: Council of Australian Museum Associations. Dinosaurs from China. 1982. Melbourne: National Museum of Victoria. Edwards, Robert. 1991. ‘The Role of the International Cultural Corporation of Australia Limited’. In Australian Museums –​Collecting and Presenting Australia: Proceedings of the Council of Australian Museum Associations Conference; Canberra ACT Australia, 2–​24 November 1990, edited by Donald F. McMichael, 165–​70. Melbourne: Council of Australian Museum Associations. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. In Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers, 1–​18. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. Ferguson, E.M. 1953. ‘Pictures That Escaped Shipwreck’. Courier-​Mail, January 6. Fortescue, Elizabeth. 2003. ‘Abstract Shape of a Nation’. Daily Telegraph, November 29. Fraser, Malcolm. 1977. Media Release: Prime Minister’s Address on the Occasion of the Opening of the Chinese Exhibition, Melbourne 18/​1/​77. January 18. Freedberg, S.J., Gervase Jackson-​Stops, and Richard E. Spear. 1987. ‘On “Art History and the ‘Blockbuster’ Exhibition”’. The Art Bulletin 69 (2): 295–​8. French Painting Today: Peintres Vivants de l’École de Paris. 1953. Sydney: Edwards & Shaw. Gardiner-​Garden, John. 1994a. Arts Policy in Australia: A History of Commonwealth Involvement in the Arts. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. Gardiner-​ Garden, John. 1994b. Current Issues Brief:  The Coalition’s and Government’s Cultural Policy Statements –​Background and Analysis. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Gibson, Lisanne. 2001. The Uses of Art:  Constructing Australian Identities. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press. Haese, Richard. 2011. Permanent Revolution:  Mike Brown and the Australian Avant-​Garde 1953–​1997. Melbourne: Miegunyah Press. Hawkes, George H., ed. 1979. The Cultures: A New Era is Born. History of the Peter Stuyvesant Cultural Foundation 1964–​1979. Sydney: The Foundation. Hoad, Brian. 1980. ‘Politics Prevent Exchanges’. Bulletin, February 19. Hoad, Brian. 1981. ‘How They Scuttled the AGDC’. Bulletin, January 12. Kaplan, John. 1953. ‘French Exhibition is Study in Modern Art’. Sydney Morning Herald, February 26. Lee, Robert. 2003. Linking a Nation:  Australia’s Transport and Communications 1788–​1970. Australia:  Our National Stories, Australian Heritage Commission. Accessed November 3, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​ydhp8eph. Lieberman, William S., ed. 1975. Modern Masters:  Manet to Matisse. New  York: Museum of Modern Art. Lindsay, Daryl. 1965. The Leafy Tree: My Family. Melbourne: F.W. Cheshire. Luke, Timothy. 2002. Museum Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lynn, Elwyn. 1975. ‘Modern Masters or Modern Politics?’ Quadrant 19 (3): 75–​80. Macdonald, Patricia M. 1971. ‘The Future Paths of Museum Education: An Opinion’. In Report of the Trustees of the Australian Museum for the Year Ended 30 June 1971, 10–​11. Sydney: Australian Museum.

90

90  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s Mail. 1953a. ‘See French Art with Open Mind’, July 4. Mail. 1953b. ‘90,000 Art for Display’, December 6. Malony, The Hon. J.J. 1958. Art Gallery of New South Wales Bill –​Second Reading. Sydney: Parliament of New South Wales. Marginson, Greg. 1993. Unity & Diversity: The Path Towards a United Museums Association for Australia. Melbourne: Council of Australian Museum Associations. Markham, S.F., and H.C. Richards. 1933. A Report on the Museums & Art Galleries of Australia by S.F. Markham, M.A. B.Litt. and Prof. H.C. Richards, D.Sc to The Carnegie Corporation of New York. London: The Museums Association. Mather, Patricia, N.H. Agnew, A. Bartholomai, and R. Belcher. 1986. A Time for a Museum:  The History of the Queensland Museum 1862–​ 1986. Brisbane: Queensland Museum. McCarthy, Phillip. 1978. ‘The Golden Dud’. National Times, July 15. McCubbin, Louis. 1943. ‘Art Gallery Activities for 1943 (3)  South Australia’. In Society of Artists Book 1943, 47–​8. Sydney: Ure Smith. McDonald, John. 2000. Federation:  Australian Art and Society 1901–​ 2001. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. Missingham, Hal. 1973. They Kill You in the End. Sydney: Angus & Robertson. MoMA. 1975. Modern Masters:  Manet to Matisse. Manual for Australian Tour 1975. New York: Museum of Modern Art. Naquin, Susan. 2004. ‘The Forbidden City Goes Abroad:  Qing History and the Foreign Exhibitions of The Palace Museum, 1974–​2004’. T’Oung Pao 90 (4–​5): 341–​97. Paroissien, Leon. 1988. ‘Sam Ure Smith Interviewed by Leon Paroissien’. Art and Australia 25 (4): 524–​28. Petschek, Willa. 1968. ‘It’s Happening with Hoving’. Guardian, January 1. Pigott, P.H. 1975. Museums in Australia 1975. Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections Including the Report of the Planning Committee on the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. Canberra:  Australian Government. Prime Minister’s Office. 1975. Press Statement No. 432. Australia/​USSR Cultural Co-​Operation. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Rader, Karen A., and Victoria E.M. Cain. 2014. Life on Display. Revolutionizing U.S. Museums of Science and Natural History in the Twentieth Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rasmussen, Carolyn. 2001. A Museum for the People. A History of Museum Victoria and Its Predecessors 1854–​2000. Melbourne: Scribe. Rentschler, Ruth, Kerrie Bridson, and Jody Evans. 2014. ‘Exhibitions as Sub-​ Brands:  An Exploratory Study’. Arts Marketing:  An International Journal 4 (1–​2): 45–​66. Rowse, Tim. 1985. Arguing the Arts: The Funding of the Arts in Australia. Melbourne: Penguin Books. Rowse, Tim. 2001. ‘The Art Advocacy of H.C. Coombes’. In Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics, and Programs, edited by Tony Bennett and David Carter, 114–​ 34. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Bernard. 2017. ‘Lindsay, Sir Ernest Daryl (1889–​ 1976)’. In Australian Dictionary of Biography. Canberra:  National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Accessed October 30. http://​adb.anu.edu.au/​biography/​ lindsay-​sir-​ernest-​daryl-​7759.

 91

In the national interest 91 Smith, Bernard, and Terry Smith. 1992. Australian Painting 1788–​1990. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Smith, Terry. 1976. Art & Language: Australia 1975. Sydney: Art & Language Press. Spear, Richard E. 1986. ‘Art History and the “Blockbuster” Exhibition’. The Art Bulletin 68 (3): 358–​59. Stevenson, Deborah. 2000. Art and Organisation:  Making Australian Cultural Policy. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press. Sun. 1954. ‘A Kiss and a Medal for Art Supporters’, January 12. Sydney Morning Herald. 1975. ‘Trade Figures Are Upset by Art: Modern Masters Trim $44m from April Surplus’, May 8. Thomas, Daniel. 2011. ‘Art Museums in Australia: A Personal Retrospect’. Journal of Art Historiography 4 (June): 1–​14. Vergo, Peter, ed. 1989. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books. Visual Arts Board. 1980. Australia Council Occasional Papers. Australian Gallery Directors’ Council. Sydney: Australia Council. Vox. 1939. ‘Out Among the People’. Advertiser, September 4. West Australian. 1946. ‘Carnegie Corporation. Australian Activities’, February 20. Weil, Stephen E. 1999. ‘From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum’. Daedalus 128 (3): 229–​58. Whitlam, Gough. 1972. ‘It’s Time for Leadership’. Policy speech presented at the Blacktown Civic Centre, November 13, Sydney. Whitlam, Gough. 1975. ‘Notes for the Prime Minister for the Opening of the Exhibition, Modern Masters: Manet to Matisse, at the Art Gallery of New South Wales’. Speech, April 9, 1975. PM Transcripts, Transcript ID:  3691. Accessed February 22, 2018. https://​pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/​release/​transcript-​3691. Zarobell, John. 2017. Art and the Global Economy. Oakland, CA:  University of California Press.

92

4  Building capacity and professionalism Confident cultural leadership fortifies the blockbuster

So many great travelling art exhibitions were racing around the countryside it was a miracle they didn’t collide. (Prerauer 1988, 8) No gallery has a collection large and diverse enough to cover the full gamut of art history; it is the loan exhibition that can lay otherwise unavailable options before an eager audience, whether for study or pure enjoyment. (Churcher 2003, 165)

In Australia, the economic prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s and the cultural nationalism of the 1970s made way for excess in the 1980s, a decade that ‘attracted such journalistic labels as the “me decade” [and] the “greed decade” ’ (Smith 1996, 257). The pinnacle of this excess was the marking in 1988 of the 200-​ year anniversary of British settlement in Australia. In true 1980s style, this event was epic. It was couched in the rhetoric of blockbusters as ‘a unique, once-​in-​a-​lifetime opportunity for us to celebrate Australia’ (David Armstrong cited in O’Brien 1991, 38). A year-​long program of events was devised: ‘a massive undertaking … a national festival on a grand scale that exhibited the nation to the rest of the world, created spectacle and entertainment, assisted tourism and commerce’ (Macintyre and Clark 2003, 96). Along with this international outlook, and a desire to increase tourism and commercial opportunities, came investment (Commonwealth of Australia 1986). The bicentenary created a perfect storm: public interest in attending cultural events, a government desire to back such events, and money for institutions to build their capacity through infrastructure and project development (Spearritt 1988). The year was promoted as ‘The most exciting year of Gallery and Museum events in 200 years’ (Fig. 4.1). As a result, we argue that international blockbusters during this period also expanded: in scope, in the venues that hosted them, and in the audiences that viewed them. The largest of these exhibitions harkened back to the nineteenth century, with the staging of World Expo ’88 in Brisbane in 1988, the first international exposition in Australia for nearly a century. It was first mooted in

 93

Figure 4.1 1988: The most exciting year of Gallery and Museum events in 200 years, poster, Australian Bicentennial Authority, State Library of South Australia. Courtesy of Art Exhibitions Australia (formerly The International Cultural Corporation of Australia).

94

94  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s 1973 as an appropriate way to mark the anniversary of settlement (O’Brien 1991, 23). A proposal was presented in 1978 to the international governing body for expositions, allowing for a ten-​year development phase (O’Brien 1991, 25).1 The national body responsible for devising the program of events and allocating funding for the bicentennial celebrations more broadly  –​the Australian Bicentennial Authority  –​was established in the late 1970s (O’Brien 1991). Thus, from the very outset of the 1980s, as this chapter will show, the cultural sector was awash with ideas about how to mark the occasion (Lynch 1987, 2). Blockbuster exhibitions would be central. Facilities in which to display those exhibitions –​that met international standards –​were essential. Throughout the twentieth century, Australian art galleries had been incrementally working towards international standards, with building upgrades and new developments (AGDC 1978, 5; Thomas 2011; Underhill 1979). The state art galleries in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth all now had climate-​controlled temporary exhibition spaces and onsite conservation facilities. The extent of this achievement was recognised in a 1979 publication by the AGDC, Temporary Exhibition Spaces in Selected Australian Art Museums, funded by the Visual Arts Board of the Australia Council (Underhill 1979). Essentially a precursor to today’s facility reports, it detailed gallery size, hanging systems, frames and display cases, alongside information on access, storage, security, loading docks, fire protection and so on. The report also included region-​specific information on freight handling and transportation networks, to aid in devising touring schedules. Moreover, there is clear evidence of increased staff capacity, with the main state institutions identifying curatorial and administrative staff along with more specialised appointments such as education officers, conservators, registrars and some dedicated travelling exhibition officers (Underhill 1979). This publication is a testament to the consolidated approach of the AGDC and its member galleries, with the support of government, to assess their facilities against international standards, enabling them to demonstrate their competence and argue for international loans. Their focus on building capacity resulted in significant practical efficiencies. For example, when the new Queensland Art Gallery opened in 1982 this was ‘the first time in its history’ that it was ‘able to present the State collection simultaneously with large international exhibitions’ (QAG 1983, 22). Beyond art galleries, other museums were not yet meeting the same display standards, as the Museums in Australia report of 1975, also known as the Pigott report, demonstrated (Pigott 1975). Climate control was negligible or absent from the display spaces of the Australian Museum, Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, Museum Victoria, Queensland Museum, South Australian Museum, and Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (Pigott 1975, 120). Professional expertise in areas such as conservation was also limited, with MAAS, Museum Victoria, Queensland Museum and South Australian

 95

Building capacity and professionalism 95 Museum having no space or staff dedicated to this area of museum work (Pigott 1975, 121). This disparity between the facilities of museums and art galleries helps explain the prominence of art galleries in staging temporary exhibitions. With the help of AGDC coordination, we argue that the galleries achieved far higher standards, which in turn facilitated international loan exhibitions with greater frequency. In the lead-​up to the bicentenary, museums were keen to rectify this disparity by improving their facilities, making them more competitive venues for exhibitions. The Australian Museum, for example, formed a Museum Bicentenary Committee in the early 1980s to ensure that it was prominently positioned to attract audiences in the bicentennial year. Its planning included a building upgrade aimed at allowing ‘more efficient public viewing of exhibits’ (AM 1981, 7). At the federal level, a new cultural confidence was symbolised with the opening of several national institutions in the last two decades of the twentieth century:  the Australian National Gallery in 1982,2 the Australian National Maritime Museum in 19913 and the National Portrait Gallery in 1994. The National Museum of Australia was enacted by parliament in 1980 but did not open until 2001, marking the centenary of Australian Federation. These new institutions were evidence of significant federal government support. They also marked an important shift for blockbuster exhibitions, as the Australian National Gallery took on a leading role in developing blockbusters as part of its national remit –​the results to be seen fully in the 1990s (Churcher 1994; Dodge 1997). With the advent of national institutions, state museums and galleries arguably became less important as vehicles for federal objectives such as international diplomacy. The last two decades of the twentieth century were a period of boom and bust globally. In Australia, the excesses of the 1980s were tempered by the economic recession of the 1990s following the 1987 stock market crash. Investment in the arts and culture was necessarily affected by this economic cycle. The sector was also affected by a shift in the philosophical approach to arts funding shaped by the governments of the day. The period was dominated by Labor governments remembered for their strong support of the cultural sector. Prime Ministers Bob Hawke (1983–​91) and in particular Paul Keating (1991–​6) are both remembered in this regard, building on the work of their predecessor Gough Whitlam (1972–​5), who in 1975 established the Australia Council and significantly increased arts funding (Gardiner-​Garden 1994, 8–​10). Although the subsequent Liberal Party government (1975–​83)4 was less supportive of the cultural sector, under its leadership significant improvements were made to infrastructure, collections and access. In 1979 Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser committed to establishing a National Museum of Australia, and it was during his tenure that the Taxation Incentives for the Arts Scheme (1981) and the Touring and Access Fund (1983) were established –​all important programs that supported institutions (Gardiner-​Garden 1994, 15). These shifts in

96

96  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s emphasis and funding gained further ground with government efforts to change the support base for the arts –​specifically by encouraging private and corporate sponsorship. Ian North encapsulated this shift when he observed:  ‘Art museums in Australia are shifting in orientation from the British model of being publicly funded and free, to the American of greater reliance on private wealth, commercial activities and the user-​pays principle’ (North 1984, 5). This is the backdrop to the 1980s. The potential of exhibitions was recognised, and funding and enthusiasm, under the auspices of the bicentenary, were forthcoming (Commonwealth of Australia 1986). Many cultural institutions had made great advances, while those lagging behind were keen to catch up (AM 1981, 7). In a climate of economic prosperity, as this chapter will show, there was experimentation with blockbuster business arrangements and a consolidation of other government support mechanisms, such as art indemnity, that had been developing over earlier decades. This brought an even greater commercial imperative, with marketing campaigns and corporate sponsorship becoming indispensable. The commercialisation of blockbusters, and the increased capacity of a range of institutions, as discussed in this chapter, resulted in a competitive landscape in which an increasing variety of exhibitions were presented. These were diverse in subject matter and location, as natural history museums began their foray into blockbusters (Kerr 1988). Competition also resulted in the emergence of entrepreneurial museum directors who used creative tactics –​including temporary exhibitions –​to advance the goals of increasingly market-​oriented institutions (Gilmore and Rentschler 2002, 757). Underpinning all this was a move towards greater accountability in institutions and the need to demonstrate value to government funders (van Barneveld 2009). Indeed, this period saw a move towards the privatisation of the arts as a commercial industry (Mendelssohn 1988a, 109).

The collapse of the AGDC and the rise of new models for exhibitions In line with the growing use of blockbuster exhibitions internationally (Barker 1999; Elsen 1984; Spear 1986), from the 1980s onwards, there was a clear trend of increasingly valuable and high-​profile exhibitions coming to Australia, drawing on international contacts and collections to bring ‘once-​ in-​a-​lifetime’ exhibitions to Australian audiences (AEA 2001, 8–​9). The systems that helped sustain exhibitions, as this discussion will show, changed substantially during this period. One of the most fundamental changes was the fall of the Australian Gallery Directors Council in 1981, thus ending its domination of international exhibitions in Australia (Braden 1983). The collapse of the AGDC was a spectacular failure for an organisation that had, for decades, successfully ensured collaboration and cost-​sharing between regional and state galleries to support travelling exhibitions

 97

Building capacity and professionalism 97 (Braden 1983). Brian Hoad has suggested several reasons leading to its declaration of bankruptcy in 1981, three of which are important for this book. Firstly, the AGDC was in financial peril because of a lack of concern for scheduling and audience expectations: ‘too many of the big international exhibitions were pushed on to the Australian circuit too quickly’ (Hoad 1981, 92). There were not the audiences to sustain this investment. Secondly, the collaborative model was perhaps reaching its limit. In an attempt to cover its debts, the AGDC sought a bailout from the Australia Council, but the terms offered required member galleries to raise a significant contribution. The smaller galleries were willing to raise the capital but the major state galleries, ‘who had profited most from the AGDC’s big international exhibitions, refused’ (Hoad 1981, 92). We argue that this refusal demonstrated the growing autonomy of the larger galleries; their physical and professional development meant that they were better positioned to generate their own exhibitions. This fissure would lead to the extreme competition that emerged at the end of the twentieth century as discussed in Chapter  5. Finally, the federal government established a similar organisation, the International Cultural Corporation of Australia (ICCA), ‘designed to take over the AGDC’s pioneering role’ in a move that hastened its demise (Hoad 1981, 92). That the government saw fit to support a rival organisation arguably signalled a move towards greater competition, with the economic potential of exhibitions, alongside ancillary benefits for international relations, recognised at the national level (Fraser 1977; Mendelssohn 1988a). In the wake of the AGDC collapse, which left thirteen exhibitions ‘stranded … around the country’ (Hoad 1981, 92) and a significant gap in the programming of many art institutions, the Visual Arts Board (VAB) of the Australia Council commissioned a report to identify the requirements of touring exhibitions and investigate possible support mechanisms for the future. The report argued that ‘the whole of the visual arts world was indirectly affected by the trauma of the collapse … The extent of suffering tended to be related to available resources, especially funds and professional expertise’ (Braden 1983, 5). The report’s author, Virginia Braden, surveyed 180 sector professionals to identify the strengths of the AGDC and gauge interest in a new touring exhibitions agency. She found that nearly 70 per cent of respondents supported the idea of a new body to facilitate international touring exhibitions. Moreover, of that group, ‘the majority believed it should be one national body’ (Braden 1983, 28–​9). Importantly, despite this general support for a new touring agency, many leaders of the major state institutions did not favour the proposal.5 Again, we argue that this signalled a move away from the collaboration championed by the AGDC, as state institutions built their internal confidence. This disparity between state galleries and smaller institutions also highlighted the difficulties of one body representing a geographically and physically diverse membership with a broad spectrum of resources, goals and audiences. This division between regional and

98

98  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s metropolitan galleries would become even more pronounced in the twenty-​ first century, as competition increased (Turner 1991). The report revealed several areas of concern for international touring exhibitions in Australia. Financial risk was one of these. To mitigate this risk it recommended that institutions actively build audiences by offering ‘package travel/​accommodation deals, systematically and extensively … to increase audiences.’ She also argued that institutions should develop ‘to a much higher degree the use of media as a promotional/​educational tool’ (Braden 1983, 21). Both recommendations were taken up with great enthusiasm in the subsequent history of blockbusters, and are now essential elements of these exhibitions in any venue (Rentschler, Bridson, and Evans 2014). Finally, Braden revealed a disparity in support for large-​scale exhibitions in art galleries as opposed to other museums: ‘Museums particularly regret the fact that they have no access to federal funding for mounting exhibitions and would like to see the balance redressed’ (1983, 12). Braden’s cautions about the financial viability of exhibitions, her evidence that competition was emerging between state institutions, and her acknowledgement that the arena favoured art exhibitions were all beginning to be addressed via the federal government’s next foray into exhibition management through the creation of the International Cultural Corporation of Australia (ICCA). ICCA was established after the demise of the Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation (AAEC) following its loss on El Dorado: Columbian Gold. Like the AAEC, ICCA was meant to be a self-​ sustaining commercial entity after receiving a one-​off seeding grant from the Australian government in 1980 (Edwards 1991, 167). Beyond this initial grant, it had ‘no formal ties to Government’ (Edwards 1991, 167). Its objectives included ‘to promote, arrange and conduct in Australia exhibitions and displays of art, antiquities and any other items whatsoever of cultural or historical interest’ (AEA 1980, 1). In the post-​AGDC period, ICCA took on a preeminent role throughout the 1980s (Berryman 2013, 169; Ingram 1986). Its first executive director, Robert Edwards,6 passionately championed the value of touring exhibitions: In an ever shrinking world touring exhibitions have become an essential means of sharing the rich artistic and cultural legacy left over past centuries … There is no substitute for the magnified and indeed, intensified experiences that exhibitions can provide as they are the most visible and highly attended activities at any museum. They make possible direct personal experiences with works of art, objects and artefacts. (Edwards 1991, 165) Despite Edwards’ personal faith in the value of individual encounters with objects, ICCA’s commercial structure meant that its exhibitions were selected, to a far greater extent than previously, on their financial potential. This, Berryman suggests, resulted in a more conservative approach to choosing

 99

Building capacity and professionalism 99 exhibition subjects (2013, 169). Joanna Mendelssohn described this more forcefully as concentrating on a ‘ “bums on seat” box office mentality’ that reflected the ‘Fraser government’s efforts to privatise the arts’ (1988a, 109). She further noted that, although not directly tied to government, ICCA did receive substantial government support, with ‘direct and indirect government funding through Australia Council exhibition grants, tax-​exempt status and  –​significantly  –​no-​cost insurance because of the federal government indemnifying all major exhibitions up to a value of $250 million’ (Mendelssohn 1988a, 109). In 1982 ICCA received more than $250,000 in federal funding via the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, and Australia Council grants (Commonwealth of Australia 1982, 2010–​11). This government support alongside access to the federal indemnity scheme gave ICCA a distinct advantage over other exhibition managers. In the wake of the AGDC collapse, it became the only managing organisation granted direct access to the scheme (Braden 1983, 15). Indeed, individual galleries wanted to develop their own exhibitions but were constrained by their lack of access to federal indemnity, as commercial insurance for high-​value artworks and artefacts was prohibitively expensive (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 9; Martin 2005, 15). Braden recommended the development of state-​based indemnity schemes to cover less valuable exhibitions outside the ICCA program (1983, 15). Again, this suggestion that the states take on some of the responsibilities of staging international exhibitions arguably foreshadowed the state-​based competitive environment that would emerge in the late 1990s. The national indemnity scheme grew over this period, from $100 million in 1979 to $2 billion in 2001  –​a level of art cover beyond the reach of most states (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 5). The Australian National Gallery was later granted direct access to the scheme, so it too took on the role of organising and managing international touring exhibitions with government support (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 2). The expectation was that the gallery and ICCA, as ‘national organisations’, would ‘operate a nation-​ wide program of exhibitions’ (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 2). This aim was mandated in the scheme’s policy, which required that an indemnified exhibition travel to at least two states or territories (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 3). Because of the Australian National Gallery–​ICCA duopoly, most blockbuster exhibitions in this period were developed in association with one or other of these organisations, to obtain federal indemnity and limit the financial risk. Betty Churcher later described the arrangements:  ‘AEA [previously ICCA] pays for all of the fees’ and in return the host gallery ‘gets an exhibition complete, it gets to sell the catalogues, the merchandise, all the benefits of all those people through the galleries’ and a share of ticket sales (Churcher cited in Martin 2005, 15). To help cover its costs, ICCA could seek sponsorship for exhibitions, in addition to being eligible to receive donations to support its activities (Mendelssohn 1988a,

100

100  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s 109). Many of these sponsorship arrangements were long-​term, such as ICCA’s association with Singapore Airlines, thus allowing for the forward planning needed for major exhibitions (AEA 1997, 5). In 1991 ICCA changed its name to Art Exhibitions Australia (AEA) to better reflect its scope of work (AEA 2016, 4). The name change may also have been motivated by hard economic times; the new AEA halved its staff and focused on institutions developing their own shows with AEA’s financial backing (Cochrane 1992, 30). This resulted in a shift from ‘generalist project-​based staffing’ to a ‘structure comprising experts in the fields of registration, design, public relations, finance and administration’ (Edwards 1991, 170). The significant financial risk entailed in managing exhibitions in Australia was revealed in a 2001 parliamentary report on art indemnity which noted that: The AEA has raised $35 million from sponsors, had 15 million visitors to exhibitions and had a total turnover of $120 million. Of 48 exhibitions managed by AEA up to July 2000, 31 ran at a loss and 17 resulted in a profit. According to AEA, the successful exhibitions cross-​subsidised the less popular exhibitions. (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 2) AEA continues to function as a major exhibition manager, involved in eighty-​three exhibitions to July 2015 (Fairley 2015), drawing on prominent international collections. These have included shows sourced from the Guggenheim, Windsor Castle, Louvre, Courtauld Institute, Museum of Modern Art, British Museum, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Phillips Collection, and the Hermitage (AEA 2001, 9–​ 10). ICCA/​ AEA has also backed exhibitions developed by Australian institutions focusing on local content, such as Golden Summers (1985–​6) in partnership with the National Gallery of Victoria, which exceeded audience expectations across its four venues (Mendelssohn 2013) and was notable for its scholarly foundation. The Queensland Art Gallery’s Matisse (1994), was another ICCA/​ AEA exhibition that was praised for its scholarly foundation. It represented ten years of research and planning by Caroline Turner and Roger Benjamin, resulting in both a popular and scholarly show which demonstrated that ‘a “blockbuster” can –​and must –​have a serious scholarly underpinning’ (Inglis 1995, 21). Other exhibitions might be classed as more accessible, motivated by commercial imperatives: Renoir to Picasso: Masterpieces from the Musée de l’Orangerie, Paris (2002) or Gold of the Pharaohs (1988) the latter of which remained, until recently, the best-​attended exhibition in Australian history, attracting 845,803 visitors across its tour (AEA 2001, 8). Although ICCA/​AEA has made a significant contribution to exhibitions in Australia, its commercial underpinning led to criticism of its ability to present shows to a geographically diverse audience. This was highlighted by Turner, in her role as deputy director of the Queensland Art Gallery,

 101

Building capacity and professionalism 101 who noted that in around 1985–​6 ICCA priorities shifted, so that Sydney or Melbourne venues were privileged over the less populous states, including Queensland (Turner 1991, 186). This forced her gallery to initiate its own relationships with international museums, and risk its own financial reserves, in order to develop blockbusters in house. She lists its successes from this period as Twentieth Century Masters from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (1986, in partnership with the Australian National Gallery) and Masterpieces from the Louvre:  French Bronzes and Paintings from the Renaissance to Rodin (1988), which was directly negotiated with the French government for the bicentennial program. Turner noted that, by the late 1980s, state galleries could ‘do it all  –​initiate, organise, manage and tour major exhibitions interstate and overseas, but at a tremendous cost’ (Turner 1991, 186). This cost was to other professional functions, including collections-​based work; thus, in the post-​bicentenary period, director Doug Hall chose to pull back from international exhibitions and instead focus the gallery’s attention internally (Turner 1991, 186). Turner’s discussion highlights that professional capacity within institutions was at a high point and the role of third-​party managers was being questioned, especially in light of exhibitions’ potentially significant economic returns. Institutions manoeuvred in order to capture market share such that by 1990 Turner contended that ‘dramatic competition now exists between the State Art Galleries’ (Turner 1991, 187).

Emergence of the natural history blockbuster This competition also drew in other museum types, under the belief that blockbusters could be financially valuable and demonstrate quantifiable benefits to government funders (AM 1981). Natural history museums, though slower to embrace large-​scale travelling exhibitions, had made some attempts to be more visitor focused. The Australian Museum was an exemplar here; in 1980–​1 it implemented a new corporate plan, reviewed its exhibition development process and began researching visitors’ preferences. It also placed greater emphasis on generating revenue through merchandising and seeking corporate funding, which was considered essential to continue the work of the museum (AM 1981, 8–​9). These efforts culminated in the highly successful Dinosaurs from China (1982–​3), organised by the National Museum of Victoria and the Australian Museum, with major sponsorship from Esso Australia (Fig.  4.2). The show was formulated around two complete, fossilised dinosaur skeletons borrowed from Beijing’s prestigious Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology. For the Australian organising museums, Dinosaurs from China was a landmark event that demonstrated the power of natural history ‘to attract people out of their homes and away from their television bondage’ (AM 1984, 9). In Melbourne, it was seen by more than 250,000 visitors and in Sydney it attracted 244,000 (AM 1984, 39; Chomiak 1983).

102

102  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s

Figure 4.2 Queue for Dinosaurs from China, Australian Museum, 1983. Courtesy of National Archives of Australia A6180, 6/​9/​83/​31.

For both institutions, this was a phenomenal success  –​one that revealed the public’s appetite for science exhibitions but made apparent the two museums’ lack of visitor services skills and facilities to stage blockbuster exhibitions (AM 1984, 39; Chomiak 1983, iv). To overcome some of those shortcomings, the National Museum of Victoria employed a marketing consultant and a ticketing company to manage those aspects (Chomiak 1983, iv). Inadequacies in facilities included the museums’ struggle to deal with the large numbers of visitors (Chomiak 1983, i). A  National Museum of Victoria evaluation report acknowledged the show’s success, but noted that it had stretched resources: It was the first time an exhibition was mounted on such a scale and utilized such a proportion of the N.M.V.’s scarce resources. The preparations took almost two years of effort from staff of different divisions, and were climaxed by the official opening … If the number of people coming to see the Dinosaurs was to be the only criterion, then this display would have to be judged successful. (Chomiak 1983, 1) The report’s focus on visitor experience also sought to understand what visitors had learnt and, in doing so, reflects the organisation’s concern for

 103

Building capacity and professionalism 103 the more traditional museum functions of education over experience. It ultimately provided advice for how the museum could learn from the show for future projects (Chomiak 1983, 1). That the museum invested in such a report perhaps demonstrates its caution in entering the blockbuster market. Dinosaurs from China was the National Museum of Victoria’s first paid exhibition, and it generated considerable revenue (NMV 1983, 3). This financial success helped shift public and government perceptions of natural history museums. For the Australian Museum the exhibition generated $266,579 and this was used to elicit a commitment from the state premier ‘to provide a new wing to the Museum to house its collections, provide public access to those collections and relieve congestion’ (AM 1984, 60, 10). Director Des Griffin noted that the Australian Museum had ‘no exhibition space suitable for major temporary exhibitions’ and would therefore be unable to play a significant part in the upcoming bicentenary celebrations (AM 1984, 10). To be competitive, natural history museums needed to evolve. Griffin further noted: Large exhibitions, or ‘blockbusters’, have become a feature of the museum scene over the past decade. In Australia they have been staged almost entirely in art museums. Whilst these exhibitions appear to overrun all other museum activities they also do two other things. They bring the museum much publicity, drawing large crowds of people, many of whom have not previously visited the museum. Secondly, they bring substantial money, which is used to fund the museum’s seasonal activities. (AM 1984, 38) Dinosaurs from China was the first of a wave of blockbusters hosted outside art galleries in Australia, including Gold of the Pharaohs (1988–​9), which was seen in both art galleries and museums, including Museum Victoria,7 and Civilization:  Ancient Treasures from the British Museum (1990, Museum Victoria and the Australian National Gallery). Central to the continuation of blockbusters at Museum Victoria was the fact that Robert Edwards, former executive director (and continuing board member) of ICCA, became director of the museum in 1984, where he served until he returned to ICCA as executive director in 1990 (Edwards 1991, 165; ICCA 1986). ICCA collaborated with Museum Victoria on ICCA’s first ‘scientific’ exhibition, Devils, Drugs and Doctors:  A Wellcome History of Medicine (1986), exhibited in museums only. ICCA chairman James Leslie outlined the significance of this show as the ‘first scientific exhibition, and the first of a continuing program of exhibitions conducted with Australian museums’ (ICCA 1986, 8). The uptake of blockbusters beyond art galleries is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that in 1980 Pompeii A.D. 79: Treasures from the National Archaeological Museum, Naples, and the Pompeii Antiquarium,

104

104  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s Italy was hosted by art galleries throughout the country, yet by 1994 Rediscovering Pompeii was mounted by the Australian Museum as a single-​ venue event. This shows both museum uptake and the competitive turn towards exclusivity to capture market share. As we show, the intervening years, including the bicentennial, provided ample opportunity for museums to hone their competitive skills.

Gallery and museum exhibitions in 1988 The bicentenary serves as a case study of Australia’s changing exhibition scene during the 1980s. The year was planned as an important celebration of the European settlement of Australia. But it was vexed by the complexity of defining Australian identity (Spearritt 1988). The celebrations provoked questions on Indigenous relations and cultural identity, as Aboriginal people launched a year of protest against this celebration of their dispossession (Harris 1988). Bicentennial exhibitions occurred across a wide spectrum of subjects, scales and locations, ranging from immense surveys and international blockbusters to more intimate and esoteric shows (Kerr 1988; Lynch 1987, 2). They played an important role in questioning the overarching celebratory narrative, but most of the more nuanced debates happened outside the blockbuster arena (Lawrenson 2007, 95–​100).8 ICCA took centre stage in steering exhibition content for the bicentenary, having won the contract, in 1983, to manage large-​scale federally sponsored shows presented as part of the official program (Mendelssohn 1988a, 108; O’Brien 1991, 247). The exhibitions were developed by institutions and supported by ICCA for negotiations, touring, sponsorship and logistics (Edwards 1991). The range of large-​scale exhibits indicates the diversity of the overall celebrations. Some, like Shipwreck! Discoveries from our Earliest Shipwrecks 1622–​1797, First Impressions: The British Discovery of Australia and Terra Australis: The Furthest Shore, explored the history of European encounters with Australia. Others, like Gold of the Pharaohs and Ancient Macedonia, celebrated ancient cultures in more familiar blockbuster formats. Another group included The Great Australian Art Exhibition and Masterpieces from the Hermitage, Leningrad, which conformed to the artistic treasures, or quintessential ‘masterpieces’, blockbuster template. This diversity means that the exhibitions are not easily comparable in terms of audience numbers. In many respects the multiplicity of subjects benefited ICCA, which could use the success of some projects to cover losses incurred by others (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 2). Gold of the Pharaohs in particular helped to ‘bail out the ICCA with its problem-​plagued Terra Australis exhibition … and other shows, like Shipwreck! and First Impressions which have received a checkered public response’ (Ingram 1988d, 10). The bicentennial exhibits reflect the cultural sector’s growing use of large-​ scale touring exhibitions across a range of different venues. First Impressions

 105

Building capacity and professionalism 105 and Shipwreck! were both predominantly exhibited in museums, whereas Terra Australis, which featured similar content and historical narratives, eventually found its sole home at its organising venue, the Art Gallery of NSW (Mendelssohn 1988a). Ancient Macedonia was shown exclusively in state museums in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, while Gold of the Pharaohs moved between the state art galleries in Brisbane, Perth and Sydney, before arriving at Museum Victoria, which had played a major role in its development alongside the Art Gallery of NSW (Hope 1988; Hypourgeio Politismou 1988). This was the stand-​ out bicentennial exhibition, setting a record for Australian audiences (AEA 2001, 8). The two major art exhibitions of the bicentenary, Masterpieces from the Hermitage and The Great Australian Art Exhibition, were shown exclusively in state art galleries, the Hermitage in only Sydney and Melbourne. The Great Australian Art Exhibition, generated by the Art Gallery of South Australia, also visited Brisbane, Perth, Sydney, Hobart and Melbourne, with total audiences of 237,755 (ICCA 1989, [2]‌). As a group, the exhibits illustrated the variety of topics possible in the blockbuster format, with several having a distinct scholarly focus  –​an aspect often overlooked when considering blockbusters. For example, Terra Australis grew out of the work of art historian Bernard Smith, while The Great Australian Art Exhibition was built on the scholarship of art historians across the country; its comprehensive catalogue, Creating Australia: 200 Years of Art, 1788–​1988, quickly became an indispensable source (Mendelssohn 1988b, np). Exhibitions also served as diplomatic vehicles; several were presented as ‘gifts’ to the Australian nation. For example, Ancient Macedonia showcased scholarship and new archaeological finds and was conceived as ‘a gesture of goodwill to Australia for its Bicentenary by the Government of Greece’ (Hypourgeio Politismou 1988, 11). It was opened in Victoria, which has a large Greek immigrant population, by both the prime minister of Australia and the president of Greece (Hypourgeio Politismou 1988, 11; MV 1989, 6). Gold of the Pharaohs was offered as ‘a message of friendship’ from the people of Egypt (Nabil Mohammed Badr cited in Hope 1988, 5)  and was based on an exhibition that had successfully toured in France and the UK (Ingram 1988b, 42; Fig.  4.3). Although it was promoted as a gift, the exhibition agreement included a rental fee, reported in the Australian press as $1 million (Ingram 1988a, 36), or as comprising ‘a flat fee of $903,000 for the exhibition plus 75 per cent of all merchandising income’ (Portus 1988, 9). This fee was promoted by Edwards (then the director of Museum Victoria and an ICCA board member) as ‘Australia’s contribution to the world wide effort of preserving Egyptian antiquities’ (Edwards cited in Portus 1988, 9). Trade negotiations were also an important part of Gold of the Pharaohs: the Australian Wheat Board was a major sponsor at a time when it was seeking greater access to the Egyptian market.9 This complex nexus of negotiations was stressed by journalist Martin Portus in his observation that, despite Australia’s extensive exhibition management skills, ‘without the Bicentenary

106

106  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s

Figure 4.3 Stakeholder launch of Gold of the Pharaohs, National Museum of Victoria, March 1989. Featuring Dr Colin Hope showing displays to Prime Minister Bob Hawke and other dignitaries. Photo: Frank Coffa. Copyright Museums Victoria 1989.

and without allying blockbusters with trade and political concerns, Australia’s negotiating position is relatively limited’ (1988, 9). The ICCA bicentenary exhibits are a testament to the Australian museum and gallery sector’s depth of experience in hosting and developing large-​ scale exhibitions. They ensured that, in its year of celebration, Australia was awash with exhibitions. Journalist Terry Ingram observed that investment in exhibitions was so great that it caused growth in related service industries, with Australian Airlines setting up a specialised group to handle exhibition movements, and conservators and framers enjoying a boom in work: in 1988 a ‘total of 1,003 artworks and museum objects are travelling Australia under the auspices of the International Cultural Corporation alone’ (1988c, 42). The exhibitions highlighted the growth of temporary exhibition spaces in institutions that were increasingly designed to cater to large audiences. In 1988 the Art Gallery of NSW opened its new wing, which included a significant temporary exhibition gallery (AGNSW 1989, 7–​8), while First Impressions was among the first international shows held at the Queensland Museum, which opened on Brisbane’s South Bank in 1986. Museum Victoria contended that the success of its 1988 exhibits not only raised the institution’s profile but also resulted in the state government committing funding to install

 107

Building capacity and professionalism 107 air-​conditioning in its Swinburne Gallery, to provide the ‘climate-​controlled environment essential for future touring exhibitions’ (MV 1989, 20). The scale of the bicentenary forced new thinking on how to promote exhibits in a hectic cultural marketplace. Gold of the Pharaohs exemplified a shift in the marketing of exhibitions, to open them up to the broadest possible audience. This exhibition had the largest marketing budget at the time (Shoebridge 1990, 78), and its innovative campaign broke traditions: Critics sniffed that the sassy campaign, which included a yellow bus plastered with the slogan ‘Egyptian Heavy Metal Tour’, was disrespectful and inappropriate, better suited to selling aspirin than art. Art buffs hated the campaign. Consumers and art-​gallery executives loved it. … Every time an ad for ‘Gold’ appeared, attendance figures jumped. (Shoebridge 1990, 78) ICCA contracted the marketing campaign to the Australian arm of UK advertising firm Saatchi and Saatchi. On the strength of its campaign, Saatchi established a dedicated arts division, which saw it advertise many subsequent exhibitions (Boylen 1989, 40; Shoebridge 1990, 78). The campaign’s uniqueness hinged on Saatchi’s decision to market the exhibition ‘as an entertainment event appealing to both regular exhibition-​goers and people who had never set foot in an art gallery’ (Shoebridge 1990, 78). This is now standard for blockbusters internationally, which are widely appreciated as a tool to break down barriers to visiting institutions and thus expand audiences (Barker 1999; Elsen 1984; West 1995). In 1990 John Larchet, head of Saatchi’s arts unit, explained that his company’s innovation was its focus on the audience’s desires, suggesting that its campaign reflected a wider trend in museums: ‘In the past, gallery and museum curators put together exhibitions with little thought for what consumers wanted. Now, they are learning how to popularise art galleries’ (Larchet cited in Shoebridge 1990, 78). This was a prescient insight into the changing relationship between institutions and their audiences, witnessed in Australia and internationally as part of a wider paradigm shift in museology (Vergo 1989; Weil 1999).

The legacy of 1988 The bicentennial celebrations placed cultural institutions and the arts on Australia’s national stage –​and exhibitions were just one part of an extensive cultural program (O’Brien 1991). Parallel to this we can chart the emergence of institutional directors as important players, exerting considerable influence on the public offerings of museums and the way they communicated with their audiences. In Australia, art galleries were again the leaders, with several directors playing a crucial role in pushing for audience development via large-​scale touring exhibitions.

108

108  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s James Mollison at the Australian National Gallery, for example, exerted influence because his institution had direct access to the federal indemnity scheme. Under his leadership the gallery managed several important touring exhibitions drawn from international collections. These included the first-​ ever loan from London’s Courtauld Collection, while that institution was undergoing renovations: The Great Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Courtauld Collection, which travelled to Canberra and Japan in 1984 (Lloyd 1984, 8). The gallery also played a central role in Twentieth Century Masters from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (1986, with Queensland Art Gallery), Old Masters  –​New Visions:  El Greco to Rothko from the Phillips Collection, Washington DC (1987, Canberra, Sydney and Perth) and Civilization:  Ancient Treasures from the British Museum (Australian National Gallery and Museum of Victoria, 1990). An even greater shift at the Australian National Gallery came with the appointment of Betty Churcher as director in 1990. Churcher quickly earned the nickname ‘Betty Blockbuster’ as she transformed both the reputation of the gallery and the very idea of the blockbuster (Dodge 1997; Pryor 2015). During her tenure, blockbusters were founded on popular appeal underpinned by scholarship; she argued that her first blockbuster, Rubens and the Italian Renaissance, ‘sets out to put into context works that are already in Australia’ (Commonwealth of Australia 1992). Perhaps one of Churcher’s most significant innovations was to recognise the blockbuster’s alignment with, and value to, broader sectors of employment and economic activity. For example, during her directorship the National Gallery of Australia positioned itself as central to the economy of Canberra. As Alan Dodge, her deputy director, recalled: Betty and her staff took an active role in the business community to make sure that every opportunity to work together was taken and exploited for the benefit of all. The gallery’s decision in 1992 to increase the number of major exhibitions from one every eighteen months to two per year profited Canberra’s tourism and hospitality community: as the gallery brought hundreds of thousands of people through its doors, the hotels and restaurants in Canberra were filled. (Dodge 1997, 196) Churcher’s ability to convince potential supporters of the value of cultural investment was an important legacy of her tenure. This direct association between temporary exhibitions and the tourism industry, along with quantifying the ancillary benefits to local economies, would constitute the next crucial phase of competitive blockbuster bidding and is reflective of international trends (Getz 2008; Kotler and Kotler 2000). In the Australian context, we argue that this would see the blockbuster aligned with state government priorities in order to attract funding (Usher 2011, 15).

 109

Building capacity and professionalism 109 Outside Canberra, the Art Gallery of NSW appointed its first scholarly director, Edmund Capon in 1979. His arrival heralded a wave of changes (Capon and Meeks 1984, 23) that positioned the gallery in direct competition with its Canberra counterpart (Bennie 1994). Doug Hall was credited with a similar transformation at the Queensland Art Gallery:  he ‘brought the city of Brisbane in from the cultural cold’ (Harford 1995, 11). Robert Edwards features repeatedly in any history of this period. He was particularly important because he was involved in so much of the cultural sector through his various roles at this crucial time of development (NMA 2011). The scope and influence of his work were recognised in a tribute held at the National Museum of Australia in 2011. Many speakers acknowledged his role in shaping exhibitions for Australian audiences, among other achievements (NMA 2011). These tributes also signalled another important quality of arts leaders at the time:  their ability as consummate negotiators, able to deal with and exert influence on many different parties. Doug Hall observed that it was this skill that equipped Edwards to bargain at the extremes of international diplomacy. To illustrate this he noted that Edwards could go from ‘being mugged in Moscow while negotiating an exhibition of Russian gold and silver’ to drawing on his ‘unerring attention to detail and fastidious memory’ to ensure that ‘when we went to America, he travelled with Grange Hermitage because we were going to see Patrick McCaughey to haggle for loan of a Van Gogh self-​portrait. It was secured and the wine was drunk’ (Hall 2011). Many of these changes in museum leadership and operation resulted from new business models developing across the globe that made museums and galleries increasingly responsible for finding new funding sources, and forced them to be more competitive (Gilmore and Rentschler 2002). In part, this arose from the shifting understanding of the role of cultural organisations in society (Cameron 1971; Vergo 1989; Weil 1999). Australia’s first-​ever national cultural policy, Creative Nation, was developed during this time –​under Paul Keating’s Labor government, in 1994 (Department of Communications and the Arts (Australia) 1994). Creative Nation was an important symbolic demonstration of support for Australia’s cultural sector, but in practical ways it also expanded the budget and ambition for cultural organisations (Johanson and Glow 2008, 44). Importantly, it was under the influence of Keating –​initially as Bob Hawke’s treasurer and then as prime minister –​that the cultural sector became more accountable for the funding it received. That is, an emphasis on the economics of the arts emerged: [T]‌he language of subsidy came to be replaced by the language of economics with new emphasis being placed on nurturing ‘demand’ (i.e. consumption and audience development), rather than subsidising ‘supply’ (performance and creative development). … the arts came to be regarded as an industry and not a part of the welfare state. (Stevenson 2000, 34)

110

110  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s This shift had significance for blockbuster exhibitions, as it reshaped the way that success and access were measured and valued by organisations, and by governments (van Barneveld and Chiu 2017, 8). As internationally, the arts in Australia were increasingly expected to pay their own way. All these factors helped fortify the blockbuster as central to Australian cultural programming. This new vision of institutions and their leaders no doubt led to rivalries. But the new breed of director helped build the professionalism of institutions and subsequently shape their brand. As their most public offerings, large-​scale temporary exhibitions were essential to this brand positioning (Rentschler, Bridson, and Evans 2014). By the end of the twentieth century, Australian museums and art galleries were confident enough to go it alone on blockbuster exhibitions, recognising their value, financially and in terms of reputation. The competition had begun.

Notes 1 Although World Expo ’88 was a significant exhibition of 1988, the format had now moved on; other exhibitions were explicitly presented as blockbusters. For this reason it is not examined here in detail. For a discussion of it see Bennett (1992), Brien (2009), Craik (1992) or O’Brien (1991). 2 Renamed National Gallery of Australia in 1992. 3 Located in Sydney, it is the only national cultural institution outside the nation’s capital, Canberra. 4 In Australia, the Liberal Party is in fact the more conservative party. 5 Edmund Capon, director of the AGNSW, Patrick McCaughey of the NGV, Ron Radford, curator and future director of the AGSA, and Raoul Mellish of the QAG all voted against a national touring body. 6 Edwards held this role twice: 1980–​4 and 1990–​2000. 7 The National Museum of Victoria and the Science Museum of Victoria amalgamated in 1983 to form the Museum of Victoria (today called Museums Victoria). 8 Alongside the extensive touring exhibition program, individual institutions devised their own exhibitions or showcased their collections in ways that are beyond the scope of this book. 9 The show attracted more than $2 million in sponsorship (AEA 2001, 8).

References AEA. 1980. ‘Memorandum and Articles of Association of Art Exhibitions Australia Limited (Formerly International Cultural Corporation of Australia Limited)’. Australian Capital Territory. Accessed December 22, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​ ycr77kjb. AEA. 1997. Annual Report. Sydney: Art Exhibitions Australia. AEA. 2001. Annual Financial Report. Sydney: Art Exhibitions Australia. AEA. 2016. Annual Financial Report. Sydney: Art Exhibitions Australia. AGDC. 1978. Report and Review. Sydney: Australian Gallery Directors Council. AGNSW. 1989. Annual Report 1988–​89. Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales.

 111

Building capacity and professionalism 111 AM. 1981. The Australian Museum, Sydney Annual Report 1980–​1981. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 1984. Australian Museum Annual Report 1983/​ 84. Sydney:  Australian Museum. Barker, Emma. 1999. ‘Exhibiting the Canon: The Blockbuster Show’. In Contemporary Cultures of Display, edited by Emma Barker, 127–​46. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press. Bennett, Tony. 1992. ‘The Shaping of Things to Come: Expo 88’. In Celebrating the Nation: A Critical Study of Australia’s Bicentenary, edited by Tony Bennett, Pat Buckridge, David Carter, and Colin Mercer, 123–​41. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Bennie, Angela. 1994. ‘Art Wars’. Sydney Morning Herald, May 14. Berryman, Jim. 2013. ‘Art and National Interest:  The Diplomatic Origins of the “Blockbuster Exhibition” in Australia’. Journal of Australian Studies 37 (2): 159–​73. Boylen, Louise. 1989. ‘Around the Traps’. Australian Financial Review, July 25. Braden, Virginia. 1983. A Report of a Feasibility Study on Australia’s Requirements for Touring Exhibitions. Sydney: Virginia Braden Arts Management, Commissioned by the Visual Arts Board of the Australia Council. Brien, Donna Lee. 2009. ‘Celebration or Manufacturing Nostalgia?:  Constructing Histories of World Expo ’88’. Queensland Review 16 (2): 73–​87. Cameron, Duncan F. 1971. ‘The Museum, a Temple or the Forum’. The Journal of World History XIV (1): 11–​24. Capon, Edmund, and Jan Meeks, eds. 1984. Portrait of a Gallery. Sydney: Trustees of the Art Gallery of New South Wales. Chomiak, George. 1983. Evaluation:  Chinese Dinosaur Display, October 1982  –​ January 1983. Melbourne: National Museum of Victoria. Churcher, Betty. 1994. ‘Art Museums and Tourism: The Impact of the Blockbuster’. In Creating Culture:  The New Growth Industries:  Conference Papers, 11–​12 August 1994, 85–​9. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Communications and the Arts. Churcher, Betty. 2003. ‘The Years 1990 to 1997’. In Building the Collection, edited by Pauline Green. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. Cochrane, Peter. 1990. ‘Major Exhibitions Will Soon Quench Our Thirst for Art’. Sydney Morning Herald, February 10. Cochrane, Peter. 1992. ‘Raiders of the Lost Art Treasures’. Sydney Morning Herald, January 11. Commonwealth of Australia. 1982. Parliamentary Debates: House of Representatives Official Hansard No.129. October 13, 1982, Thirty-​Second Parliament, First Session –​Fifth Period. Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia. 1986. Cabinet Submission 3637  –​Australian Bicentennial Authority  –​Revised Program  –​Decision 7244. NAA:  A14039, 3637. Canberra: National Archives of Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. 1992. Estimates Committee D.  Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories. April 2, 1992, Program 1 Cultural Development. Subprogram 1.10 Australian National Gallery. Canberra. Accessed December 22, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​ybmsuf2r. Commonwealth of Australia. 2001. Covering Your Arts: Art Indemnity in Australia. Canberra:  House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts.

112

112  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s Craik, Jennifer. 1992. ‘Expo 88: Fashions of Sight and Politics of Site’. In Celebrating the Nation: A Critical Study of Australia’s Bicentenary, edited by Tony Bennett, Pat Buckridge, David Carter, and Colin Mercer, 142–​59. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Department of Communications and the Arts (Australia). 1994. Creative Nation: Commonwealth Cultural Policy, 30 October 1994. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Accessed September 14, 2017. http://​apo.org.au/​node/​29704. Dodge, Alan R. 1997. ‘An Era Ends, Another Begins’. Art and Australia 35 (2): 196–​7. Edwards, Robert. 1991. ‘The Role of the International Cultural Corporation of Australia Limited’. In Australian Museums  –​Collecting and Presenting Australia:  Proceedings of the Council of Australian Museum Associations Conference; Canberra ACT Australia, 21–​24 November 1990, edited by Donald F. McMichael, 165–​70. Melbourne: Council of Australian Museum Associations. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. In Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers, 1–​18. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. Fairley, Gina. 2015. ‘Art’s Multi-​Million Dollar Mile High Club’. ArtsHub Australia, August 4. Accessed August 11, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​y6v5mxqd. Fraser, Malcolm. 1977. Media Release: Prime Minister’s Address on the Occasion of the Opening of The Chinese Exhibition, Melbourne 18/​1/​77. January 18. Gardiner-​Garden, John. 1994. Arts Policy in Australia: A History of Commonwealth Involvement in the Arts. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. Getz, Donald. 2008. ‘Event Tourism: Definition, Evolution, and Research’. Tourism Management 29 (3): 403–​28. Gilmore, Audrey, and Ruth Rentschler. 2002. ‘Changes in Museum Management: A Custodial or Marketing Emphasis?’ Journal of Management Development 21 (10): 745–​60. Hall, Doug. 2011. ‘A Portrait of Bob Edwards’. Presented at Bob Edwards: A Tribute. National Museum of Australia, Canberra, March 22. Accessed October 5, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​ybdndlbb. Harford, Sonia. 1995. ‘Northern Star’. Age, April 29. Harris, Alana. 1988. Australia’s Too Old to Celebrate Birthdays:  Galarrwuy Yunupingu, 1988. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Hoad, Brian. 1981. ‘How They Scuttled the AGDC’. Bulletin, January 12. Hope, Colin. 1988. Gold of the Pharaohs. Melbourne: Museum Victoria. Hypourgeio Politismou. 1988. Archaia Makedonia  =  Ancient Macedonia. Athens: Ministry of Culture/​National Hellenic Committee –​ ICOM. ICCA. 1986. Devils, Drugs and Doctors:  A Wellcome History of Medicine. Sydney: International Cultural Corporation of Australia. ICCA. 1989. The Great Australian Art Exhibition –​Presentation Binder. International Cultural Corporation of Australia, Cat. AG1988. Edmund and Joanna Capon Research Library, Art Gallery of NSW. Inglis, Alison. 1995. ‘Scholarship and the Blockbuster:  The Matisse Exhibition’. Museum National 4 (1): 20–​1. Ingram, Terry. 1986. ‘Arts & Showbiz:  Why 3 Million People Line up for the Art Circus’. Canberra Times, March 2. Ingram, Terry. 1988a. ‘Pharaohs’ $1M Bill’. Australian Financial Review, April 28. Ingram, Terry. 1988b. ‘Egyptian Covenant Opens a Bag of Tricks’. Australian Financial Review, June 23.

 113

Building capacity and professionalism 113 Ingram, Terry. 1988c. ‘Art Boom a Fillip for Service Industries’. Australian Financial Review, August 11. Ingram, Terry. 1988d. ‘The Pharaohs Yield Gold’. Australian Financial Review, August 19. Johanson, Katya, and Hilary Glow. 2008. ‘Culture and Political Party Ideology in Australia’. Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 38 (1): 37–​50. Kerr, Joan. 1988. ‘The Bicentenary and the BLOCKbuster’. Artlink 8 (3): 18–​23. Kotler, Neil, and Philip Kotler. 2000. ‘Can Museums Be All Things to All People?:  Missions, Goals, and Marketing’s Role’. Museum Management and Curatorship 18 (3): 271–​87. Lawrenson, Anna. 2007. ‘Flesh + Blood: Appropriation and the Critique of Australian Colonial History in Recent Art Practice’. PhD thesis. Canberra:  Australian National University. Lloyd, Michael. 1984. ‘The Great Impressionists: First Tour for Courtauld Collection’. Canberra Times, June 1. Lynch, Mandy. 1987. ‘A Bicentennial Feast of History and Art. Saturday Magazine’. Canberra Times, August 1. Macintyre, Stuart, and Anna Clark. 2003. The History Wars. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Martin, Lauren. 2005. ‘A Case for Passing on the Buck’. Sydney Morning Herald, November 8. Mendelssohn, Joanna. 1988a. ‘The Art of ICCA’. Bulletin, August 23. Mendelssohn, Joanna. 1988b. ‘Pictures from Bicentennial Exhibitions’. Sydney Morning Herald, September 10. Mendelssohn, Joanna. 2013. ‘Golden Summers, and a Golden Age of Australian Art Exhibitions’. Presented at How Museums Work:  People, Industry and Nation, Museums Australia National Conference, Canberra, May 20. MV. 1989. Annual Report 1988–​89. Melbourne: Museum of Victoria. NMA. 2011. ‘Bob Edwards:  A Tribute’. National Museum of Australia. Accessed October 13, 2017. www.nma.gov.au/​audio/​series/​bob-​edwards-​a-​tribute. NMV. 1983. Annual Report 1982–​83. Melbourne: National Museum of Victoria. North, Ian, ed. 1984. Art Museums and Big Business. Canberra:  Art Museum Association of Australia. O’Brien, Denis. 1991. The Bicentennial Affair:  The Inside Story of Australia’s ‘Birthday Bash’. Sydney: ABC Enterprises. Pigott, P.H. 1975. Museums in Australia 1975. Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections Including the Report of the Planning Committee on the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. Canberra: Australian Government. Portus, Martin. 1988. ‘The Diplomacy of Blockbuster Shows’. Sydney Morning Herald, November 12. Prerauer, Maria. 1988. ‘A Vast Nation Came of Age on Centre Stage’. Australian, December 28. Pryor, Sally. 2015. ‘Hundreds Farewell “Betty Blockbuster”, Icon and Pioneer’. Canberra Times, April 29. QAG. 1983. Queensland Art Gallery Annual Report 1982–​83. Brisbane: Queensland Art Gallery. Rentschler, Ruth, Kerrie Bridson, and Jody Evans. 2014. ‘Exhibitions as Sub-​Brands: An Exploratory Study’. Arts Marketing: An International Journal 4 (1–​2): 45–​66.

114

114  The rise of the blockbuster, 1950s–1990s Shoebridge, Neil. 1990. ‘With Exhibitions, It’s Art for Art’s Sake’. BRW, March 16. Smith, Terry. 1996. ‘Generation X:  The Impacts of the 1980s’. In What Is Appropriation? An Anthology of Critical Writings on Australian Art in the ’80s and ’90s, edited by Rex Butler, 249–​59. Brisbane; Sydney:  IMA; Power Publications. Spear, Richard E. 1986. ‘Art History and the “Blockbuster” Exhibition’. The Art Bulletin 68 (3): 358–​9. Spearritt, Peter. 1988. ‘Celebration of a Nation: The Triumph of Spectacle’. Australian Historical Studies 23 (91): 3–​20. Stevenson, Deborah. 2000. Art and Organisation:  Making Australian Cultural Policy. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press. Thomas, Daniel. 2011. ‘Art Museums in Australia: A Personal Retrospect’. Journal of Art Historiography 4 (June): 1–​14. Turner, Caroline. 1991. ‘Gold, Gold, Gold! The ICCA from a State Gallery Perspective’. In Australian Museums  –​Collecting and Presenting Australia: Proceedings of the Council of Australian Museum Associations Conference; Canberra ACT Australia, 21–​ 24 November 1990, edited by Donald F. McMichael, 185–​8. Melbourne: Council of Australian Museum Associations. Underhill, Nancy, ed. 1979. Temporary Exhibition Spaces in Selected Australian Art Museums. Sydney: Australian Gallery Directors Council. Usher, Robin. 2011. ‘Battle for the Arts’. Age, July 20. van Barneveld, Kristin. 2009. ‘Australia’s Cultural Institutions and the Efficiency Dividend:  Not a Pretty Picture’. Public Space:  The Journal of Law and Social Justice 3: 1–​28. van Barneveld, Kristin, and Osmond Chiu. 2017. ‘A Portrait of Failure:  Ongoing Funding Cuts to Australia’s Cultural Institutions’. Australian Journal of Public Administration,  1–​16. Vergo, Peter, ed. 1989. The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books. Weil, Stephen E. 1999. ‘From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum’. Daedalus 128 (3): 229–​58. West, Shearer. 1995. ‘The Devaluation of “Cultural Capital”:  Post-​ Modern Democracy and the Art Blockbuster’. In Art in Museums, edited by Susan M. Pearce, 74–​93. London; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone Press.

 115

Part III

Blockbuster or bust The necessity of the blockbuster in the twenty-​first century

116

 117

5  Relinquishing the national State support and competition

Staging cultural events in Melbourne has become an extreme sport, an endurance test for both the organisers and the eager participants, who tolerate snaking queues for the chance to see big, often imported and extravagantly marketed shows. (Coslovich 2011, 11)

In the blockbuster’s competitive arena, Victoria emerged as the major player, setting the precedent for other states to follow. Queensland and New South Wales took up the challenge with enthusiasm as the economic potential of exhibitions was realised. As art gallery director Gerard Vaughan described, ‘It has become very competitive. During the visiting season, Australian directors have been known to run into each other in the foyers of the world’s great institutions’ (cited in Usher 2011, 15). As the most populous states, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland constituted the largest potential markets. Others, such as Western Australia and South Australia, tried to keep pace, but were often hampered by their smaller populations and relative geographic isolation. The national capital, Canberra, also vied for a place at the ‘blockbuster poker’ table (Usher 2011, 15) but, being situated in a territory rather than a state, Canberra was competing on a national scale with only a regional government as its backer.1 Exhibitions morphed into major events both in Australia and internationally (Getz 2008; Kotler and Kotler 2000; Lord and Silberberg 2015). They were positioned in line with state government objectives for tourism, and so the game became one of numbers  –​attendance figures, and subsequent economic contributions to state economies, became the benchmarks for reporting success (Usher 2011, 15). The battle was twofold: secure the most exciting exhibitions, and attract the largest audiences. As with earlier times, the press was central to spreading the hype, and rivalries between states provided extra grist to the press-​cycle mill (Canberra Times 2008, 4). State politicians boasting about how many visitors had been attracted to their latest cultural programs became standard media fodder.2 Doug Hall, ex-​ director of Queensland Art Gallery, recognised exhibitions’ ‘enduring

118

118  Blockbuster or bust political appeal’, which enabled ‘parochial political spruiking to flourish. Melbourne or Sydney or Canberra only! Depending on who you talk to, each one is Australia’s cultural capital’ (2010, 15). Exhibitions, as catalysts for cultural tourism, were also thrust into the broader tourism and leisure market, where they had to compete with a diverse array of other events. This reflected international trends in the leisure sector (Balloffet, Courvoisier, and Lagier 2014; Falk and Dierking 2012). All were vying for a share of the audience. The myth of Australian audiences is that they are sporting mad. Yet blockbuster exhibitions are at a scale that allows them to compete with major sporting events such as football grand finals and international showdowns (Smith 2004, 7). Cultural and sporting audiences are frequently played off against one another in the press as a way of further demonstrating the significant visitor numbers drawn by cultural events. Bridie Smith, writing in The Age, encapsulated this juxtaposition:  ‘Melbourne may claim to be Australia’s sporting capital, but a more genteel pursuit has also been pulling in the spectators  –​the National Gallery of Victoria yesterday welcomed the 100,000th visitor to its blockbuster Impressionist exhibition’ (2004, 7). Smith quoted Steve Bracks, premier of Victoria and a ‘Van Gogh fan’, who furthered the association between sport and art. Bracks suggested that the success of the National Gallery of Victoria show was ‘better than sport’, noting that its audience constituted ‘more people than you have at the MCG [Melbourne Cricket Ground]’ (Bracks cited in Smith 2004, 7). The article pitted quotes from the MCG chairman against the National Gallery of Victoria director in an attempt to further the argument that sport and culture were in direct competition for audiences. This was ultimately illustrated by a tally comparing attendance figures at major exhibitions with those at sporting events (Smith 2004, 7). The articulation of cultural events as a significant challenge to the dominance of sporting events can be dismissed as press hyperbole aimed at drumming up interest. However, we argue it signals a more subversive shift: towards the competitive staging of cultural events. This scenario of competition has superseded the collaborative relationships between institutions that were central to the success of earlier large-​scale touring exhibitions, each hosted by several venues across Australia. Today, individual states bid for cultural events (Usher 2011, 15). State-​based tourism initiatives underpin the competitive staging of blockbuster exhibitions (Pearson 2007). Our research has identified a trend away from touring blockbusters in favour of single-​ venue exhibitions that enable one state to reap the entire economic return. This has been precipitated, at least in part, by changes in the way cultural institutions are funded in the twenty-​first century (van Barneveld and Chiu 2017). Moreover, increasingly affordable travel, especially cheaper domestic flights within Australia, has made targeting domestic tourism a viable goal to bring tangible benefits to state economies (AGNSW 2011; Boland 2013a, 22; TEQ 2013). All these factors have coalesced in what we identify as today’s competitive turn.

 119

Relinquishing the national 119

Funding for the arts Australian cultural circles have long lamented their poor government funding, which, as this book has shown, determines much of how culture is experienced. The inadequacy of funding was documented in both the 1933 Carnegie report and the 1975 Pigott report, and any temporary gains made during the bicentenary, or under the Whitlam and Keating governments, were rare instances in a long-​term downward trajectory (van Barneveld and Chiu 2017). This pattern is echoed internationally and reflects the global movement towards more entrepreneurial business models for cultural institutions (Ellis 2002; Rentschler 2001), resulting in efforts to increase the proportion of self-​generated revenue (Bradburne 2004; Cray, Inglis, and Freeman 2007; Tobelem 1997; Woodward 2012; Zan 2006). In the Australian cultural sector, the downward funding trend is clearly evidenced by the continuing implementation of the so-​called efficiency dividend, defined as ‘an annual funding reduction in real terms for government agencies [resulting in] less money given for their overall running costs’ (Marsden 2016). These small but regular cuts, which have been applied at both state and national levels, have had a significant cumulative effect on overall operating budgets. At the federal level, for example, the cuts were first introduced in 1987–​8, forcing some cultural institutions to limit services  –​including touring exhibitions, research and publications  –​and to reduce their physical footprint (Marsden 2016). Kristin van Barneveld and Osmond Chiu have suggested that the rise of non-​government sources of funding to counter the cuts brings risks (in terms of brand, resource allocation and sustainability), and has ultimately failed to cover the deficit (van Barneveld and Chiu 2017, 8–​ 10). State institutions have been similarly forced to prioritise their decisions as a result of state government cuts. The National Gallery of Victoria was forced to close for one day a week to reduce operational costs (NGV 2006, 10) and in New South Wales a parliamentary inquiry was launched in 2016 to ascertain the repercussions of that state’s efficiency dividend (NSW Parliament 2016). The cumulative effect of these cuts has been that blockbusters are conceived as important opportunities to raise revenue. The director of the National Gallery of Australia stated:  ‘We certainly want to keep the major blockbusters in place, because they generate income. We … use the profits from those big summer blockbusters to pay for all the other smaller exhibitions that we do through the year’ (Vaughan cited in Official Committee Hansard. Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 2016, 122). In addition to being used to compensate for funding shortfalls caused by declining government investment, these blockbuster exhibitions are attractive because they enable clear and quantifiable success measures to be identified (ACMI 2016; MAAS 2009, 33). That is, they attract high volumes of visitors. This success can be quoted when arguing for government funding

120

120  Blockbuster or bust and private sponsorship (Power 2016, 9), and used to build institutional brand awareness generally. As Caust has argued, such quantifiable measures have been a strong focus of government approaches to evaluating the success of arts organisations (2010, 31). Although institutions might make claims for the public benefit and educational potential of exhibitions, such goals are nebulous and more difficult to measure, and thus more difficult to align with government targets and ‘key performance indicators’ that are simplistically measured by the number of tickets sold (NSW Auditor-​General 2011, 38–​9). For institutions, there is also the further potential to develop alternative revenues streams by forming sponsorship agreements and partnerships in association with blockbusters (Barker 1999; Elsen 1984; North 1984). At a deeper level, the recognition and success of exhibits, in terms of media profile and visitor identification, mean that they can represent a chance to market a dynamic institutional brand (Rentschler, Bridson, and Evans 2014). These are all important points when arguing for the diverse benefits of blockbusters. The focus on quantifiable returns and ancillary benefits for institutions reflects an international shift towards a managerial style whereby corporate governance structures are applied to the non-​profit cultural sector (Lord and Silberberg 2015). Internationally, museums are making similar use of blockbusters as a core part of their business (Bradburne 2004; Ellis 2002; Skinner 2006). In addition to hosting touring shows developed externally, collection-​rich institutions are developing saleable exhibition packages as an alternative revenue stream (a topic explored in later chapters).3 The circumstances that have brought about the current competitive turn in Australia relate to this funding context and the corporatisation of cultural institutions but, we argue more particularly, they reflect Australia’s division into states and the way that funding and support mechanisms have been constituted along those state borders. Throsby has identified the shift towards state funding of cultural institutions in Australia (2001). In 1988–​9, Commonwealth investment in cultural institutions equated to 51 per cent of funding, with state investment accounting for only 36 per cent. However, by 1998–​9, state investment had increased to 50 per cent, leaving the federal government covering only 35 per cent of funding (Throsby 2001). In addition to this shift in funding sources, this chapter will show that there was a shift in support mechanisms, such as indemnity, that created an attractive context for state-​ based exclusive exhibitions. As discussed previously, federal indemnity has played an important role in supporting touring exhibitions in Australia since the late 1970s. This scheme remains instrumental but, with the growing capacity of state-​based institutions and the move towards greater competition, it is now complemented by state-​ based indemnity schemes. Edmund Capon, as director of the Art Gallery of NSW, was an instrumental advocate for the development of a scheme in that state. He argued that his gallery had no need for federal indemnity, administered by Art Exhibitions Australia, because it was ‘grown up now’

 121

Relinquishing the national 121 (Capon cited in Martin 2005, 15). He was openly critical of Art Exhibitions Australia, which, he argued, added an extra layer of management and costs that institutions such as his no longer needed (Capon cited in Martin 2005, 15). By 2001, all states and territories, except Tasmania and the Northern Territory, had some form of state-​based indemnity specifically for cultural exhibitions (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 31–​ 2). This meant that institutions could sidestep the Commonwealth scheme in order to stage their own exhibitions under their own brand. Also, importantly, state schemes enabled institutions to mount single-​venue exhibitions, circumventing the preference for Commonwealth-​indemnified exhibitions to tour to at least two venues (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 3), thus making exclusive single-​venue exhibitions more feasible. A further move in support of single-​venue exhibitions occurred when the Commonwealth scheme was relaunched in 2010 with new guidelines that explicitly allowed for single-​venue exhibitions to be covered (Australian Government International Exhibitions Insurance (AGIEI) Program  –​ Guidelines 2013). Moreover, the reformulation enabled a broader range of institutions –​namely any non-​profit cultural institution or organisation devoted to touring cultural material –​to apply for indemnity (Department of Communications and the Arts 2017, 1). It required that state schemes be used, if they existed, but the federal scheme could be used to supplement limitations in state cover (AGIEI Program –​Guidelines 2013, 2). This shift recognised the growth of blockbusters as core to the major institutions, and the difficulties of borrowing high-​value exhibitions and obtaining insurance (Martin 2005, 15). Alongside these structural changes, the move towards single-​venue shows also responded to a push from lenders to shorten the time for which artworks could be out on loan (Edwards 1991, 170). Together, all these changes have created a favourable environment for single-​venue exhibits in many Australian institutions. The importance of access to reliable indemnity to stage blockbuster exhibitions is illustrated by the consequences when indemnity is not assured. For example, a 2013 four-​exhibition agreement between the Art Gallery of Western Australia and the Museum of Modern Art (New York) failed, due to a combination of insurance costs and poor ticket sales (Moorhouse 2015). As the monetary value of the exhibitions increased, the state government balked at taking on the indemnity risk. It decided, after the third exhibition, to refuse indemnity and instead offered the gallery ‘funds to source commercial insurance’ (Moorhouse 2015). As gallery director Stefano Carboni explained, this ultimately meant that the agreement was financially unsustainable and it was terminated (Carboni cited in Moorhouse 2015). The Art Gallery of Western Australia’s experience gives a rare insight into the difficulties of managing international touring exhibitions that are reliant on several funding sources to cover costs and risks. The federal government’s support for indemnity, and the growth in state government support, have been fundamental to Australia’s ability to develop an impressive history of touring

122

122  Blockbuster or bust exhibitions (Commonwealth of Australia 2001). This support is, however, largely uncredited in public discussions. Occasional industry-​based articles and government documents provide glimpses into the machinations of managing such exhibitions, but there remains an air of secrecy (Commonwealth of Australia 2001; Fairley 2015a; Gordon 2007; Minister for the Arts and Sport 2002; Moorhouse 2015; Pearson 2007). The secrecy surrounding contractual costs, which Maria Piacente (2014) has suggested ranged in 2014 from US$100,000 to $1,000,000 for these types of exhibits, complicates the conception of the blockbuster as a ‘guaranteed cash cow’ (Grishin 2009, 29) and goes some way to explaining the need to ensure high visitation by investing in extensive tourism and marketing campaigns.

Non–​museum goers: visitors and tourism The economic factors favouring the single-​venue exhibition also fostered an emphasis on attracting external visitation to maximise return on investment. Remembering that Elsen’s definition of blockbusters from 1984 hinged on their ability to attract new audiences (1984, 1), it is no surprise that exhibitions and tourism have become intimately entwined.4 Taking advantage of existing cultural infrastructure, in Australia they are marketed on a national scale to tap into cultural tourism potential (Arts Victoria 2003; TEQ 2013). Hall and Zeppel have outlined the relationship between tourism and the arts, suggesting that, for ‘tourism, the arts bring style, culture, beauty … [they] improve the product and strengthen the appeal, making tourism saleable’ (1990, 86). This relationship is mutually beneficial, with cultural institutions benefiting from new audiences, new sources of funding, opportunities for partnerships and a fresh way to market their services (Hall and Zeppel 1990, 86). Cultural tourism has expanded in recent decades, due to a combination of the growing middle class and declining travel costs (Falk 2009, 41–​5). At the heart of cultural tourism is a desire for experiential ‘authenticity’, something central to museums and the experience of cultural artefacts in exhibitions (Prentice 2001). Despite this seemingly natural affinity, Jennifer Craik has suggested that Australia’s cultural sector hesitated to embrace the possibilities of tourism, contending that their eventual uptake was caused by ‘new funding arrangements, pressures of accountability, and the push towards audience development strategies’ (2001, 105). At the policy level, Creative Nation (1994) connected tourism with culture: ‘cultural tourism [was] singled out as one of the sunrise industries of the new millennium’ (Craik 2001, 94). The initial reluctance on the part of cultural institutions to work with tourism organisations has diminished dramatically; today cultural institutions cooperate closely with tourism bodies to market their shows and realise their tourism potential (Boland 2013a, 22). As time-​limited offerings, blockbusters often fall under the marketing umbrella of events-​based tourism. Getz has argued that events are marketable experiences because ‘they are never the same, and you have to “be

 123

Relinquishing the national 123 there” to enjoy the unique experience fully; if you miss it, it’s a lost opportunity’ (2008, 404). Importantly, exclusive single-​venue exhibitions are also linked to a particular destination and can be used to increase visitation during traditionally low tourist periods (Getz 2008, 418). Cultural tourism has been found to be central to determining destination selection and the period of stay (Foo and Rossetto 1998, 8; Hall and Zeppel 1990). Thus, we argue exhibitions are now marketed as major events and used as drawcards for destination tourism campaigns that are managed by devoted government and non-​government agencies.

Competition: bidding for events The blatant use of single-​venue exhibitions as tourist attractions was wittily characterised in one newspaper article: ‘ “There’s a blockbuster art show on and it’s exclusive to our city,” gloats Melbourne, crows Canberra, trumpets Sydney and, more recently, bellows newcomer Brisbane. The days of blockbuster shows touring to several Australian cities are over’ (Canberra Times 2008, 4). State and territory governments’ use of exhibitions to sustain tourism can be seen as part of the global emergence of event-​based tourism (Getz 2008; Getz and Page 2016; Gorchakova 2017). Victoria has been a leader in this field since the establishment of the Victorian Major Events Company (VMEC) in 1991.5 Events are central to the branding of the state (Boston Consulting Group 2017), with the head of VMEC suggesting that events ‘are as important to Victoria and Melbourne, as the Barrier Reef is to Queensland and the Opera House is to Sydney. Major events are Victoria’s competitive advantage’ (CEO of VMEC cited in Pearson 2007, 5). Since the 1990s, VMEC has bid aggressively for large-​scale events, initially favouring sporting events (Tourism Victoria 2011). VMEC’s success has been demonstrated by continuing government investment and ambitious expectations for returns. In 2003, for example, the government anticipated a tenfold return on its three-​year $160 million investment (Ferguson 2004, 23). Since 2004, VMEC has embraced the blockbuster exhibition as a marketable tourist drawcard via the establishment of Melbourne Winter Masterpieces  –​the first state-​ supported series of large-​scale cultural blockbusters to be presented under a unified brand (Ferguson 2004, 23). It was established in response to the government’s request that VMEC explore securing ‘appropriate cultural events, most particularly in the quieter time during winter when fewer special sporting events are on’ (NGV 2004, 22). With government backing, the scale of marketing made possible by presenting exhibitions under the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces brand is far beyond anything individual institutions could ordinarily achieve (Perkin 2009, 22). Between 2004 and 2016 there have been twenty-​one blockbuster exhibitions, promoted across a range of cultural institutions, attracting around 5 million visitors (Creative Victoria 2016). As can be seen their success, at a basic level, is demonstrated in quantifiable terms.

124

124  Blockbuster or bust A strength of Melbourne Winter Masterpieces is its integration into the state’s cultural policy Creative Capacity+: Arts for All Victorians, launched in 2003 (Arts Victoria 2003). This policy sought to harness the arts to strengthen economic growth, founded on participation, economic innovation and dynamism (Arts Victoria 2003, 3). The policy’s shift towards event-​based tourism and destination-​marketing highlighted opportunities for the arts sector to work with businesses and the tourism industry to foster innovation. Cultural institutions were fundamental to this plan; many in Melbourne had benefited from physical expansion projects, which meant they could be used as ‘cultural hubs’ with ‘the capacity to become national and international tourist attractions’ (Arts Victoria 2003, 2). From the outset, exclusivity and single-​venue exhibitions of prestigious content were central to the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces program. Its objectives were to secure ‘exclusive art exhibitions of the highest international standards’ in order to attract interstate and international tourists to Melbourne during winter (Creative Victoria 2015). These objectives were couched in terms of their potential to generate ‘positive media coverage about Melbourne’ and ‘destinational marketing opportunities’ that would, it was hoped, deliver ‘economic benefits to Victoria’ (Creative Victoria 2015). Melbourne Winter Masterpieces was conceived, according to Georgina Safe in The Australian, ‘to make Melbourne the nation’s cultural epicentre’ (Safe 2003, 14). The program was launched as a package of five exhibitions, but subsequently expanded on the back of their success (NGV 2013; Safe 2003, 14). It has a partnership with AEA, which supported the first exhibits at the National Gallery of Victoria and continues to be involved with some events in the series (Pearson 2007, 31). The first Melbourne Winter Masterpieces exhibit, The Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musée d’Orsay (2004; Fig.  5.1), was held at NGV International; its 380,000 visitors set a national record for exhibition attendance (NGV 2005, 13). The Impressionists surpassed previous Australian records, including that set by Gold of the Pharaohs in Sydney (1988) and the National Gallery of Victoria’s own record for Chinese Archaeology (1977) (Wordley 2004). Even by international standards, The Impressionists was a resounding success. The gallery boasted:  ‘The Impressionists was one of the world’s most visited exhibitions; only one exhibition in New  York, and two in London, had more visitors in 2004’ (NGV 2005, 13). In true blockbuster style, The Impressionists drew a new audience to the gallery, with a record number of visitors coming from regional Victoria (NGV 2005, 23). According to the National Gallery of Victoria’s annual report, the marketing for the exhibition reached not just a state but national and international audience, contributing an estimated $26.5 million to the Victorian economy (NGV 2005, 25, 31). Carol Henry, head of organising partner AEA, recognised that the success of this first exhibit provided an opportunity to stage even more ambitious projects in the future: ‘Museums

 125

Relinquishing the national 125

Figure 5.1 Street banner for The Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musée d’Orsay, Melbourne, 2004. Photo: Christian Markel. Courtesy of National Gallery of Victoria.

all over the world are interested in sending their exhibitions here’ (Henry cited in Crisp 2004, 25). True to its original plan, Melbourne Winter Masterpieces has brought out collections not previously seen in Australia  –​from great museums such as Madrid’s Museo Nacional del Prado (2014) and Frankfurt’s Städel Museum (2010)  –​and from institutions that have long been involved with blockbusters in Australia, such as the Musée d’Orsay (2004) and the Guggenheim (2010) (Creative Victoria 2016). The success of the concept has seen Melbourne Winter Masterpieces extended to other Melbourne institutions. The Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI) for

126

126  Blockbuster or bust example launched its first Melbourne Winter Masterpieces exhibition in 2007, and Museum Victoria has participated since 2009 (Creative Victoria 2016). This has resulted in the series embracing a diversity of themes, ranging from ancient civilisations, to heroes of Western art, to popular culture. A major advantage of Melbourne Winter Masterpieces is that the exhibitions are marketed nationally, and often the program includes two contrasting exhibitions to broaden the market appeal. In 2015 these were David Bowie Is at ACMI, and Masterpieces from the Hermitage:  The Legacy of Catherine the Great at the National Gallery of Victoria. This allows the series to maximise tourism potential, particularly when combined with a wider winter tourism strategy comprising exclusive premiere theatre productions and musicals. This approach is epitomised by the hyperbole of a national newspaper advertising feature: ‘Melburnians seem to favour the winter season, and it remains a vibrant city when the mercury dives. The restaurants are full, the theatres are packed, the bars hum with conversation and the galleries seem to attract the best shows on offer in Australia over the cooler months’ (Eggleton 2005). The program of events and associated cultural experiences (supplemented by places to stay, eat and shop) helps promote the idea of a longer stay in Melbourne (KPMG 2013, 15). The achievements of the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces brand were emphasised by Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews at the 2015 program launch. He noted that from 2004 to 2014 the series had contributed almost ‘$400 million of aggregated economic benefit’ and promoted ‘our brand extending to the world’ (Andrews 2015). Beyond its broad economic contribution, the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces brand has brought benefits for individual institutions. As a result of ‘record breaking attendance in 2014–​2015’, the National Gallery of Victoria was able to reinstate seven-​day-​a-​week opening, reversing its 2005 decision to close its two sites one day a week as a budget-​saving measure (NGV 2006, 5, 10; NGV 2015). ACMI has also experienced success, not just in bringing in pre-​packaged Melbourne Winter Masterpieces exhibitions but also in generating its own shows under that brand, two of which have gone on to tour internationally (discussed in Chapter 7). This success has, however, generated an expectation of high visitor numbers and continuing growth, which poses significant risks in the longer term (Boland 2015, 3; Cresswell 2011). Victoria’s model of cultural events has been highly influential, with many other states adopting similar models. In 2007, New South Wales launched a centralised agency, Events NSW,6 in direct competition with Victoria, and Queensland launched Events Queensland in 2001.7 Each organisation works to develop a calendar of events to attract tourism throughout the year (AAP 2007; Events NSW 2011; TEQ 2015). As demonstrated in Victoria, investment in events-​based tourism delivers significant economic benefit beyond the museum  –​unlike operational funding for museums  –​ which arguably explains why these organisations are often well supported

 127

Relinquishing the national 127 by state governments. The budgets of the major events companies demonstrate governments’ strong determination to boost tourism. A 2011 article, tellingly titled ‘Battle for the arts’, described the fierce competition between states bidding for cultural events:  ‘VMEC’s budget is estimated to be $80 million a year … Events Queensland recently had a boost of $83 million to $157  million over four years’ (Usher 2011, 15). In New South Wales, Michaela Boland has suggested that funding for cultural events through Events NSW in 2011 was ‘more than any other sector including sporting events’ (2011, 18). This budget is directed at exhibitions, musical theatre, and annual cultural festivals (Boland 2011, 18). Secrecy surrounding the real costs of obtaining exclusive rights to events, and difficulties with generating clear, hard numbers on broad economic benefit, are frequently noted by critics of these models, who argue that much of the economic flow-​on is measured in hazy terms (Pearson 2007; Stone 2015). Like Victoria, New South Wales markets blockbusters under a unified brand, in its case the Sydney International Art Series, launched in 2010 as a partnership between the Art Gallery of NSW and the Museum of Contemporary Art (Boland 2013a, 22; Canberra Times 2008, 4), with the support of Destination NSW (Events NSW 2011). Outside this series, Destination NSW has also supported exhibitions beyond these two galleries, including the Australian Museum in 2012 and 2016 and MAAS in 2014 and 2015 (Boland 2013b; Destination NSW 2012; Destination NSW 2015). Destination NSW’s current aim is to ‘double overnight visitor expenditure by 2020’ to maximise economic gains (Destination NSW 2016, 6). Like VMEC, Destination NSW is focused on enriching opportunities for visitors; exhibits are often packaged together with other events and festivals (Destination NSW 2016). For example, the Sydney International Art Series was launched with an exhibition, The First Emperor:  China’s Entombed Warriors (2010–​11), timed to coincide with both the Sydney Festival and Lunar New Year celebrations. The First Emperor became the second-​most popular exhibition held at the gallery to that time, with 54 per cent of its visitors coming from outside Sydney (AGNSW 2011, 19–​20). This tactic has seen the group use exhibits to market cultural tourism. A similar model exists in Queensland. The Queensland Events Corporation supported blockbusters at the Queensland Art Gallery in 2007 and 2008 (QAG 2008, 31–​2; QAG 2009, 11). Funding has continued more recently under the banner of Tourism and Events Queensland, which now plays a leading role in marketing exhibitions at the gallery (QAG 2016, 21). This has resulted in several successful exhibitions, including Picasso and his Collection (2008) from the Musée National Picasso in Paris. This was seen by 206,580 visitors, of whom 31 per cent came from regional Queensland, 16 per cent from interstate and 7 per cent from overseas (QAG 2009, 9, 21). It generated $10.64 million in ‘new spending in Queensland’ (QAG 2009, 9). The use of culture to attract visitors has continued with a four-​exhibition partnership between the Queensland Art Gallery and the Brisbane City

128

128  Blockbuster or bust Council’s marketing group, promoting the city as ‘a destination for cultural tourism’ (QAG 2015, 21). Queensland Museum worked in partnership with Tourism and Events Queensland and Brisbane Marketing to market its British Museum show, Medieval Power, Symbols and Splendour (2015–​16), to audiences in New South Wales and Victoria as part of the It’s Live! In Queensland campaign (TEQ 2015). Brisbane has pursued short-​haul international visitors by targeting New Zealand as a relatively untapped market (TEQ 2013). The value of exhibitions was made explicit by the 2016–​17 Queensland budget decision to invest $12 million over four years to allow Queensland Art Gallery ‘to bring back Blockbuster Exhibitions’ and entice ‘interstate visitors to Queensland’ (Pitt 2016, 13). All these examples of state support are built on an expectation of maximum return on investment (Ferguson 2004, 23). In turn, the exclusive single-​venue show has emerged. Moreover, contracts with tourism bodies often force an Australian exclusivity to ensure maximum visitation (Boland 2013a, 22; Canberra Times 2008, 4). Finally, organising a single-​ venue exhibition can be relatively easy:  risk is minimised and loan periods are shortened. In a post–​September 11 world, with institutions nervous about lending precious collections, this can be crucial. As Capon at the Art Gallery of NSW has noted: ‘It’s much easier to get major loans for one venue … If you do just two venues in Australia and you’re borrowing from Europe or America, it’s a seven-​month loan’ (Capon cited in Canberra Times 2008, 4). Because funders and governments respond to quantifiable measures of success, the single-​venue exhibition enables this full success to be gleaned by just one state, while appeasing risk-​averse lenders (Elliott, Naidoo, and Worrall 2011). On the other hand, while single-​venue exhibitions represent a less risky option for lenders, for borrowers there is only one opportunity for success. This is a precarious investment for government funders and institutional hosts (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 2). Exhibitions are subject to changes in taste and to unpredictable external events, as well as competition from other must-​see attractions. The central question for Australian cultural organisations is whether this new ecology of blockbusters in Australia is sustainable. The risks are high, and the consequences of a failed show can be very damaging. This is exemplified by the aftermath of the Art Gallery of Western Australia’s collapsed partnership with New York’s Museum of Modern Art: a 25 per cent drop in visitor numbers, a collapse in exhibition revenue from $1.5 million to just $210,000, and a fall in sponsorship from $1.6 million to $632,000 (Turner 2015). These figures have cost the gallery financially, as well as effecting staff morale and forcing a rethink of long-​ term plans (AGWA 2015, 7). This experience is exemplary of the hazards of this type of investment. An addiction to unpredictable spikes in visitor numbers and associated exhibition revenue remains a problem for cultural organisations to manage (Gopnik 2013, 16–​ 17; Grishin 2009). Visitor numbers can vary dramatically from year to year, depending on the scale and popularity of a blockbuster, and on factors beyond anyone’s control.

 129

Relinquishing the national 129 One journalist, referring to the National Gallery of Australia, quipped that ‘the record-​breaking show will echo through the ages every time the National Gallery promotes a new one’ (Pryor 2011, 20). For how long can institutions operate in such a competitive environment, bidding against one another and perhaps forcing up the price of securing exhibits and loans? Will audiences increase forever? Will Australians continue to travel interstate to see exhibitions? To hedge against all these risks, a substantial investment in the show’s success, and in its marketing, is required.

Once in a lifetime: sponsorship and marketing In a telling tweet in 2016, Michael Parry, then director of programs and engagement at Sydney’s MAAS, succinctly encapsulated the relationship between blockbusters and marketing:  ‘Isn’t #blockbuster just code for “we spent more on marketing than the actual show?” 😝’ (2016). Today, marketing blockbusters is an increasingly complicated proposition, because of their status as packaged events embedded in city-​based cultural calendars. This complexity reflects the scale and investment required and has resulted in institutions around the globe managing a greater range of interested parties, all of whom are hoping to gain from the exhibit (Barker 1999). Financial interests include private and government funders, sponsors, partners and the institution itself. While this is not new, the scale of projects and investment has evolved considerably (AEA 2001, 9–​10). As can be seen, sponsorship has moved from single partners to more complex arrangements, and the importance of such external support has grown steadily in response to decreases in government funding. Crucial to the success of new competitive blockbusters are marketing campaigns run in partnership with tourism agencies (Hall and Zeppel 1990; Kelly 2009). In the cultural sector, funding for marketing has typically been very low, resulting in decisions to market to an identified segment of visitors. In Australia the Art Gallery of NSW provides a good example of the differences between an in-​house campaign and one backed by tourism investment. The campaign for Monet and the Impressionists (2008–​9), for example, ‘was designed to reach the Gallery’s core audience as well as engage the culturally and socially aware’ (AGNSW 2009, 19). As a result, marketing was concentrated on this audience, using a standard array of advertisement types –​local city banners, advertisements at bus stops and train stations, and a free poster in The Sydney Morning Herald –​as well as a range of direct marketing to a Sydney audience (AGNSW 2009). There was little attempt to extend the campaign to new audience segments. During its fourteen-​week run, the exhibit drew 221,055 people  –​of whom 75 per cent came from New South Wales, 14 per cent from interstate and 11 per cent from overseas (AGNSW 2009, 10). In contrast, the marketing potential opened up by the new tourism-​branded exhibitions allows a single-​venue show to have a national reach. This was seen with The First Emperor: China’s Entombed

130

130  Blockbuster or bust Warriors (2010–​11), one of two exhibitions used to launch the Sydney International Art Series over the summer of 2010–​11. Under this brand, the gallery was able to expand its marketing campaign to target an ‘interstate market with a particular focus on Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra’ (AGNSW 2011, 43). This meant that, in addition to having a local campaign, the exhibition was promoted in the calendar of events organised and marketed by Events NSW, thus reaching a much broader market. This significantly increased the extent of the campaign, with Events NSW contributing $241,000 for media space. This was spent in New South Wales –​on television, print and radio –​and on similar media interstate and overseas (AGNSW 2011, 44). The exhibition was a significant success for the gallery –​ its second-​most popular show at the time, totalling 305,625 visitors. Visitor research revealed significant success outside the gallery’s typical audience, with 33 per cent of attendees visiting the gallery for the first time (AGNSW 2011, 19). The large sums spent on marketing are undeniably central to the success of these exhibitions. A campaign that draws on tourism and events coffers enables national ‘destination’ campaigns, unlike those funded by cultural institutions who typically only have resources to focus on their immediate audience. Authenticity and opportunity are often central to the marketing approach. This recalls Getz’s claim that events-​based tourism is a ‘spatial–​ temporal phenomenon’ (Getz 2008, 404), but it also recalls the longer history of blockbusters being represented as once-​in-​a-​lifetime opportunities. As eminent art historian Francis Haskell identified, this marketing approach was taken in the late nineteenth century to promote Old Master exhibitions (2000, 142). This enduring message remains central to all levels of promotion. Claims of uniqueness and authenticity are also used to attract sponsorship, which has long been essential in developing exhibitions of this size (Gilmore and Pine 2007; Shuey 1991). Moreover, sponsorship has reflected political motivations (Portus 1988, 9), being used to support trade and develop cultural understanding under the auspices of soft power (Lord and Blankenberg 2015). However, these new exhibits reveal the changing landscape of sponsorship in the cultural sector generally. For example, the exhibition catalogue for The Chinese Exhibition:  A Selection of Recent Archaeological Finds from the People’s Republic of China (1977) acknowledged Mobil as the project’s sole sponsor. Thirty-​eight years later, under the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces brand, ACMI’s David Bowie Is (2015) had a complex four-​tier system of thirteen sponsorship ‘partners’. These ranged from major partner Google Play; to program partners including the British Council, ABC Arts and the private Naomi Milgrom Foundation; official partners such as Melbourne Airport and two hotel groups; alongside tourism partner Tourism Victoria (ACMI 2017). Similarly, the National Gallery of Victoria’s The Fashion World of Jean Paul Gautier: From the Sidewalk to the Catwalk (2014–​15) demonstrated the new potential of exhibitions to open

 131

Relinquishing the national 131 up sponsorship, with no fewer than seven levels of partnership embracing twenty different organisations, together with organisers and other participating groups (NGV 2017). As has been shown blockbusters are now supported by a wide range of external organisations, state tourism bodies, hotel groups, media, and even local restaurants and breweries, all of whom have some stake in the project’s success. As noted earlier, sponsorship and private funding of exhibitions present risks for the reputation of institutions, who may be accused of tailoring ‘projects to areas which will attract private funding’ and thus allowing ‘financial imperatives to determine cultural offerings’ (van Barneveld and Chiu 2017, 8). But arguably this is the new reality for institutions forced into survival mode in the face of government cuts. The changing mix of partnerships and sponsors is evidence of the increasingly diversified ways in which blockbusters are packaged as experiences. Out-​of-​town visitors are lured with package deals that can include flights, accommodation and tickets to the exhibit or multiple exhibits, offered in conjunction with major travel partners (AGNSW 2011; Eggleton 2005). Once visitors arrive they can extend their exhibition experience to associated programs, themed dining, musical soirées, lectures, extended night-​time openings and branded pop-​ up bars (MCA 2015; Young Henrys 2017). This network of sponsors and events offered alongside the exhibit is all part of the packaging that furthers the branding and maximises opportunities for the exhibition to appeal to the widest possible audience (Destination NSW 2016; Rentschler, Bridson, and Evans 2014; Rentschler and Gilmore 2002). It demonstrates the need to capitalise quickly on audience interest during the exclusive limited season of many exhibitions. Tony Ellwood, as director of the Queensland Art Gallery, summarised this situation from the institutional point of view: [I]‌ncreasingly we are packaging them up to be great experiences for our cities in order to get added leverage for the investment to actually put on these programs. But at the same time we see significant economic return which can also assist us for the future programs. So I think we are being more sophisticated and more ambitious and taking a tourism driven approach without ever compromising on scholarship or standard. (Ellwood cited in Canberra Times 2008, 4) This notion of a package of experiences has undoubtedly opened up significant marketing and sponsorship potential for institutions. As a result, cultural institutions have raised their profile in their home cities and also established a national visibility (Camarero, Garrido, and Vicente 2010; Camarero, Garrido-​Samaniego, and Vicente 2012). More broadly, the loan exhibitions have helped them cement their wider international reputations, facilitating further opportunities (Munro 2010, 6; New Zealand Herald 2009). Australia’s eastern-​seaboard capitals –​Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne –​ have emerged as major contenders in event-​based tourism competition. But

132

132  Blockbuster or bust outside the eastern capital cities it is a very different story. Arguably Adelaide and, even more dramatically, Perth are significantly constrained by their geography and the resulting difficulties of drawing in sufficient visitors to cover the costs and risks of a stand-​alone blockbuster exhibition. Canberra is the exception. In spite of its small population, it has benefited from the advantage of its location halfway between Sydney and Melbourne. And as the nation’s capital, it represents a concentration of national institutions that serve as a catalyst for short-​ stay domestic tourism (White 2009). Nevertheless, Canberra still has to work hard to entice tourists. According to the National Gallery of Australia’s Assistant Director of Marketing and Commercial operations:  ‘[W]‌hat we’re selling is not just the ticket to the exhibition, but we’re convincing people to make a decision to get in the car or fly here, organize accommodation. So, in terms of a price, it’s a much higher commitment … Price and time’ (Elliott, Naidoo, and Worrall 2011). While the press constantly reminds us that blockbuster exhibitions are expensive for institutions (Fairley 2015b), visiting a single-​venue exhibit is also expensive for visitors from out of town. These costs are, arguably, resulting in an increasingly stratified cultural experience, whereby affluence determines the level of access. Patterns of inclusion are rarely reported in the statistics surrounding blockbusters (McColl 2013; Usher 2011, 15); it appears that, in today’s competitive environment, access and inclusion are not prioritised. This oversight is made all the more apparent when compared with access programs offered by Queensland Art Gallery for its Chinese Warriors exhibition in 1982. This show, which toured to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide under ICCA, included free entry for unemployed youth, and targeted programs for visually impaired visitors (QAG 1983, 23, 30). Such efforts can be seen today as remarkable examples of inclusion, not just in providing access to valuable objects, but also in prioritising the experiential over the commercial. Such an example raises important questions on the role of cultural institutions in society. Another point of concern is how the tourism drive is shaping the choice of exhibits, and further reducing institutions’ appetite for risk. The Australian Museum’s corporate strategic plan for 2011–​14 identified a desire to ensure ‘that our public engagement programs, including temporary exhibitions, are integrated into and aligned with the NSW Government’s Destination NSW Plan’ (AM 2011, [2]‌). This suggests that tourism considerations are influencing museums’ programming choices. Is the potential marketability of a subject constraining choice (Berryman 2013; Fairley 2015b; Mendelssohn 1988)? Undoubtedly, single-​venue exhibitions must appeal not only to their target audience but also to sponsors, state governments and others –​all of whom need to be convinced that they are backing an attractive and marketable product. When it comes to choosing larger exhibits, such considerations could be seen to place a greater emphasis on the exhibition’s saleability, than on its intrinsic artistic or educational worth. As will be discussed in the next chapter, this phenomenon has reignited criticisms of blockbusters as

 133

Relinquishing the national 133 simply populist events, luring institutions away from their founding mission of scholarship, education, and caring for their permanent collections.

Notes 1 Although the national cultural institutions in the ACT receive federal funding, ancillary costs of staging exhibitions, such as tourism-​based marketing campaigns, are often met by other government bodies. Thus institutions like the NGA must rely on the ACT government for any major marketing campaign. This severely restricts the resources available. 2 The significance of exhibitions as ‘events’ to generate tourism was clear in the organisation of state government portfolios. For example, in 2011 NSW had a Minister for Tourism, Major Events and the Arts; Victoria had a devoted Major Events Minister. 3 An example of this approach can be seen in the V&A’s international touring program (V&A 2014, 11, 13; V&A 2017). 4 The link between tourism, museums and economic revitalisation has been the subject of continuing debate in museology (Lord and Blankenberg 2015; McClellan 2008; Plaza 2000). The link between exhibitions and tourism is less theorised. 5 Part of Visit Victoria since July 2016. 6 Events NSW has been known as Destination NSW since 2011. 7 Now Tourism and Events Queensland (TEQ).

References AAP. 2007. ‘NSW:  Events NSW “Get Moving” to Boost State’s Social Calendar’. Australian Associated Press General News, December 19. Factiva: AAP0000020 071219e3cj001jn. ACMI. 2015. ‘David Bowie Is’. Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Accessed December 20. https://​2015.acmi.net.au/​exhibitions/​bowie/​. ACMI. 2016. Media Release:  Record Visitation at Home and Abroad for ACMI. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Moving Image. October 13. Accessed May 17, 2018. www.acmi.net.au/​about/​media-​releases/​media-​record-​visitation/​. AEA. 2001. Annual Financial Report. Sydney: Art Exhibitions Australia. AGNSW. 2009. Monet and the Impressionists. Exhibition Report. Sydney:  Art Gallery of New South Wales. AGNSW. 2011. The First Emperor. China’s Entombed Warriors. Exhibition Report. Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales. AGWA. 2015. Annual Report 2014–​2015. Perth: Art Gallery of Western Australia. AM. 2011. Australian Museum Corporate Strategic Plan 2011–​ 2014. Sydney: Australian Museum. Andrews, Daniel. 2015. ‘2015 Melbourne Winter Masterpieces Exhibition Launch’. Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. Accessed January 9, 2018. www.youtube.com/​watch?v=yZM-​T3q-​Lkc. Arts Victoria. 2003. Creative Capacity +:  Arts for All Victorians. Melbourne:  Arts Victoria. Australian Government International Exhibitions Insurance (AGIEI) Program  –​ Guidelines. 2013. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

134

134  Blockbuster or bust Balloffet, Pierre, François H. Courvoisier, and Joëlle Lagier. 2014. ‘From Museum to Amusement Park:  The Opportunities and Risks of Edutainment’. International Journal of Arts Management 16 (2): 4–​16. Barker, Emma. 1999. ‘Exhibiting the Canon: The Blockbuster Show’. In Contemporary Cultures of Display, edited by Emma Barker, 127–​46. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press. Berryman, Jim. 2013. ‘Art and National Interest:  The Diplomatic Origins of the “Blockbuster Exhibition” in Australia’. Journal of Australian Studies 37 (2): 159–​73. Boland, Michaela. 2011. ‘Cities Strike Back in Culture Wars’. Australian, May 28. Boland, Michaela. 2013a. ‘Art for Tourism’s Sake:  The Hard-​Headed Equation of Blockbuster Exhibitions’. Australian, April 6. Boland , Michaela. 2013b. ‘Alexander Joins the Great Blockbuster Club’. Australian, May 15. Boland, Michaela. 2015. ‘Museum Exhibits Lack of Pulling Power’. Australian, October 10. Boston Consulting Group. 2017. Melbourne as a Global Cultural Destination: Final Report and Summary. Melbourne:  Boston Consulting Group, Victoria State Government. Bradburne, James M. 2004. ‘The Museum Time Bomb:  Overbuilt, Overtraded, Overdrawn’. The Informal Learning Review 65 (March–​ April). Accessed December 18, 2017. www.informallearning.com/​archive/​Bradburne-​65.htm. Camarero, Carmen, María José Garrido, and Eva Vicente. 2010. ‘Components of Art Exhibition Brand Equity for Internal and External Visitors’. Tourism Management 31 (4): 495–​504. Camarero, Carmen, María José Garrido-​ Samaniego, and Eva Vicente. 2012. ‘Determinants of Brand Equity in Cultural Organizations:  The Case of an Art Exhibition’. The Service Industries Journal 32 (9): 1527–​49. Canberra Times. 2008. ‘Blockbuster’, November 29. Caust, Jo. 2010. ‘Arts and Business: The Impact of Business Models on the Activities of Major Performing Arts Organisations in Australia’. Media International Australia 135 (May): 32–​44. Commonwealth of Australia. 2001. Covering Your Arts: Art Indemnity in Australia. Canberra:  House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts. Coslovich, Gabriella. 2011. ‘Big Bucks and the Boy King’. Age, April 5. Craik, Jennifer. 2001. ‘Tourism, Culture and National Identity’. In Culture in Australia:  Policies, Publics and Programs, edited by Tony Bennett and David Carter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cray, David, Loretta Inglis, and Susan Freeman. 2007. ‘Managing the Arts: Leadership and Decision Making under Dual Rationalities’. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 36: 295–​313. Creative Victoria. 2015. ‘Melbourne Winter Masterpieces’. Creative Victoria. Accessed November 8, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​yazj7nag. Creative Victoria. 2016. ‘Melbourne Winter Masterpieces’. Creative Victoria. Accessed October 9, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ycrw22g8. Cresswell, Joel. 2011. ‘Tutankhamun Exhibition Opens in Melbourne’. Australian Associated Press General News, April 6.

 135

Relinquishing the national 135 Crisp, Lyndall. 2004. ‘Melbourne’s Masterpieces Make Huge Impression’. Australian Financial Review, December 18. Department of Communications and the Arts. 2017. Australian Government International Exhibitions Insurance (AGIEI) Program. Canberra. Destination NSW. 2012. Media Release:  Sydney Secures ‘Alexander the Great’ Exhibition. Sydney: Destination NSW. March 9. Destination NSW. 2015. Media Release: Sydney’s Summer of Blockbusters. Sydney: Destination NSW. November 23. Destination NSW. 2016. Annual Report 2015–​2016. Sydney: Destination NSW. Edwards, Robert. 1991. ‘The Role of the International Cultural Corporation of Australia Limited’. In Australian Museums  –​Collecting and Presenting Australia:  Proceedings of the Council of Australian Museum Associations Conference; Canberra ACT Australia, 21–​ 24 November 1990, edited by Donald F. McMichael, 165–​70. Melbourne:  Council of Australian Museum Associations. Eggleton, Mark. 2005. ‘Winter in Melbourne  –​A  Special Advertising Report’. Australian Magazine, May 21. Elliott, Simon, Shanthini Naidoo, and Adam Worrall. 2011. ‘Group interview at the National Gallery of Australia to discuss the Musée d’Orsay Exhibition’. Interview by Chiara O’Reilly and Anna Lawrenson. Ellis, Adrian. 2002. ‘Planning in a Cold Climate’. Presented at the Directors’ Seminar: Leading Retrenchment, The Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, July 21. Accessed December 12, 2017. www.issuelab.org/​resources/​10607/​10607. pdf?download=true. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. In Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. Events NSW. 2011. Corporate Report. Sydney: Events NSW. Fairley, Gina. 2015a. ‘Art’s Multi-​Million Dollar Mile High Club’. ArtsHub Australia, August 4. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y6v5mxqd. Fairley, Gina. 2015b. ‘Is Our Blockbuster Diet Stale:  Who’s Choosing the Menu?’ ArtsHub Australia, September 17. Accessed September 20, 2017. https://​tinyurl. com/​yayvsnl5. Falk, John H. 2009. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Falk, John H., and Lynn D. Dierking. 2012. The Museum Experience Revisited. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Ferguson, John. 2004. ‘Making an Impression’. Herald-​Sun, May 24. Foo, Lee Mee, and Alison Rossetto. 1998. Cultural Tourism in Australia. Characteristics and Motivations. Bureau of Tourism Research Occasional Paper Number 27. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research. Getz, Donald. 2008. ‘Event Tourism: Definition, Evolution, and Research’. Tourism Management 29 (3): 403–​28. Getz, Donald, and Stephen J. Page. 2016. ‘Progress and Prospects for Event Tourism Research’. Tourism Management 52 (February): 593–​631. Gilmore, James H., and B. Joseph Pine. 2007. Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Gopnik, Blake. 2013. ‘The Rush to the Box Office’. Art Newspaper 245 (April): 16–​17.

136

136  Blockbuster or bust Gorchakova, Valentina. 2017. ‘Touring Blockbuster Exhibitions: Their Contribution to the Marketing of a City to Tourists’. PhD thesis. Auckland: Auckland University of Technology. Gordon, Josh. 2007. ‘Anger as Auditor Queries GP’s Value’. Age, May 24. Grishin, Sasha. 2009. ‘The Rise and Rise of the Blockbuster Exhibition’. Australian Art Review 18 (February–​April): 28–​30. Hall, Doug. 2010. ‘Politicians of All Stripes Love a New Monument or a Big Blockbuster’. Age, May 31. Hall, Michael, and Heather Zeppel. 1990. ‘Cultural and Heritage Tourism: The New Grand Tour’. Historic Environment VII (3 & 4): 86–​98. Haskell, Francis. 2000. The Ephemeral Museum: Old Master Paintings and the Rise of the Art Exhibition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kelly, Lynda. 2009. ‘Cultural Tourism and Museums’. Presented at the International Symposium on Art Museum Education:  Innovation in the Art Museum, Taipei Fine Arts Museum, October 17. Kotler, Neil, and Philip Kotler. 2000. ‘Can Museums Be All Things to All People?:  Missions, Goals, and Marketing’s Role’. Museum Management and Curatorship 18 (3): 271–​87. KPMG. 2013. Economic Impact of the Victorian Arts and Cultural Sector. Melbourne: Arts Victoria. Lord, Gail, and Ted Silberberg. 2015. ‘Balancing Mission and Money:  Critical Issues in Museum Economics’. In Museum Practice, edited by Conal McCarthy, 155–​ 78. The International Handbooks of Museum Studies. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley/​Blackwell. Lord, Gail Dexter, and Ngaire Blankenberg, eds. 2015. Cities, Museums and Soft Power. Washington, DC: American Alliance of Museums. MAAS. 2009. The Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences Strategic Plan 2009–​2012. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. Marsden, Alex. 2016. ‘Why the Efficiency Dividend Wreaks Havoc on Cultural Organisations’. ArtsHub Australia, October 6.  Accessed October 24, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​y77czcuh. Martin, Lauren. 2005. ‘A Case for Passing on the Buck’. Sydney Morning Herald, November 8. MCA. 2015. Media Release:  Grayson Perry-​Inspired Gin Garden Pops up at the MCA for Summer. Sydney:  Museum of Contemporary Art. November 18. Accessed September 26, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​ycceu59l. McClellan, Andrew. 2008. The Art Museum from Boullée to Bilbao. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. McColl, Gina. 2013. ‘Blockbusted: Melbourne Galleries for Hire?’ Sydney Morning Herald, May 21. Mendelssohn, Joanna. 1988. ‘The Art of ICCA’. Bulletin, August 23. Minister for the Arts and Sport. 2002. Government Response to the Report Covering Your Arts: Art Indemnity in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Moorhouse, June. 2015. ‘Future Focus: Where to Next for the Art Gallery of WA?’ Artsource, May. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yc8yxp4l. Munro, Kelsey. 2010. ‘Always Picking up the Pieces’. Sydney Morning Herald, January 30. New Zealand Herald. 2009. ‘Van Gogh & Co in Canberra Extravaganza’, September 20. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yb464ojj.

 137

Relinquishing the national 137 NGV. 2004. National Gallery of Victoria Annual Report 03/​04. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. NGV. 2005. Year in Review 04/​ 05 Annual Report. Council of Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. NGV. 2006. NGV 05/​06 Annual Report. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. NGV. 2013. Media Release: Four Millionth Visitor to Melbourne Winter Masterpieces. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. NGV. 2015. Media Release:  Record Crowds and 7-​Day Opening for the NGV. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. NGV. 2017. ‘The Fashion World of Jean Paul Gaultier’. National Gallery of Victoria. Accessed September 26. www.ngv.vic.gov.au/​jeanpaulgaultier/​. North, Ian, ed. 1984. Art Museums and Big Business. Canberra:  Art Museum Association of Australia. NSW Auditor-​General. 2011. NSW Auditor-​ General’s Report:  Financial Audit. Focusing on Education and Communities. Volume 9. Sydney: Audit Office of NSW. NSW Parliament. 2016. Legislative Council. Portfolio Committee No.4  –​Legal Affairs. Inquiry into Museums and Galleries: Terms of Reference. Sydney: NSW Parliament. Official Committee Hansard. Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. 2016. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Parry, Michael @vaguelym. 2016. ‘Isn’t #blockbuster just code for “we spent more on marketing than the actual show?” 😝 #ma16nz’. Tweet. May 17. Accessed January 10, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yd4un3s2. Pearson, D.D.R. 2007. State Investment in Major Events. Melbourne:  Victorian Auditor-​General’s Office, Victorian Government Printer. Perkin, Corrie. 2009. ‘Blessed Events for All’. Australian, July 4. Piacente, Maria. 2014. ‘Traveling Exhibitions’. In Manual of Museum Exhibitions, edited by Barry Lord and Maria Piacente, 2nd ed. London:  Rowman and Littlefield. Pitt, Curtis. 2016. Queensland Budget 2016–​17: Budget Speech. Budget Paper No. 1. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Plaza, Beatriz. 2000. ‘Evaluating the Influence of a Large Cultural Artefact in the Attraction of Tourism:  The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Case’. Urban Affairs Review 36 (2): 264–​74. Portus, Martin. 1988. ‘The Diplomacy of Blockbuster Shows’. Sydney Morning Herald, November 12. Power, Julie. 2016. ‘Australian Museum’s $285 Million Plan to Bust out Hidden Collections’. Sydney Morning Herald, December 3. Prentice, Richard. 2001. ‘Experiential Cultural Tourism: Museums & the Marketing of the New Romanticism of Evoked Authenticity’. Museum Management and Curatorship 19 (1): 5–​26. Pryor, Sally. 2011. ‘More Than Just Painting by Numbers’. Canberra Times, December 26. QAG. 1983. Queensland Art Gallery Annual Report 1982–​83. Brisbane: Queensland Art Gallery. QAG. 2008. 2007–​08 Queensland Art Gallery Annual Report. Brisbane: Queensland Art Gallery. QAG. 2009. 2008–​09 Queensland Art Gallery Annual Report. Brisbane: Queensland Art Gallery.

138

138  Blockbuster or bust QAG. 2015. Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees Annual Report 2014–​15. Brisbane: Queensland Art Gallery. QAG. 2016. Queensland Art Gallery Board of Trustees Annual Report 2015–​16. Brisbane: Queensland Art Gallery. Rentschler, Ruth. 2001. ‘Entrepreneurship: From Denial to Discovery in Nonprofit Art Museums?’ Working Paper No. PONC98. Presented at the Program on Nonprofit Corporations, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Rentschler, Ruth, and Audrey Gilmore. 2002. ‘Museums:  Discovering Services Marketing’. International Journal of Arts Management 5 (1): 62–​72. Rentschler, Ruth, Kerrie Bridson, and Jody Evans. 2014. ‘Exhibitions as Sub-​Brands: An Exploratory Study’. Arts Marketing: An International Journal 4 (1–​2): 45–​66. Safe, Georgina. 2003. ‘Monet, That’s What We Want’. Australian, December 18. Shuey, J.C. 1991. ‘Attracting Corporate Sponsorship: The Implications of Business Relationships’. In Australian Museums:  Collecting and Presenting Australia: Proceedings of the Council of Australian Museum Associations Conference; Canberra ACT Australia, 21–​24 November 1990, edited by Donald F. McMichael, 180–​4. Melbourne: Council of Australian Museum Associations. Skinner, Sarah J. 2006. ‘Estimating the Real Growth Effects of Blockbuster Art Exhibits: A Time Series Approach’. Journal of Cultural Economics 30 (2): 109–​25. Smith, Bridie. 2004. ‘Not Interested Today, Sport –​There’s an Art Display On’. Age, July 27. Stone, Deborah. 2015. ‘Tourism Revamp:  Will Arts Get a Fair Go?’ ArtsHub Australia, August 20. Accessed May 24, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ycw2j6q6. TEQ. 2013. Media Release:  New Zealanders Invited to Take in a Blockbuster Brisbane Event. Brisbane: Tourism and Events Queensland. October 17. Accessed September 26, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​y7wgtsl2. TEQ. 2015. Media Release:  ‘It’s Live! In Queensland’ Grows with New Feature Events in 2016. Brisbane:  Tourism and Events Queensland. November 13. Accessed September 26, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​ydg3furv. Throsby, David. 2001. ‘Public Funding of the Arts in Australia 1900 to 2000’. Australian Bureau of Statistics Web Site. Accessed January 6, 2018. https://​ tinyurl.com/​yd2rs57l. Tobelem, Jean-​ Michel. 1997. ‘The Marketing Approach in Museums’. Museum Management and Curatorship 16: 337–​54. Tourism Victoria. 2011. Formula One Australian Grand Prix: Benefits to Victoria. Melbourne: Tourism Victoria. Turner, Rebecca. 2015. ‘Visitor Numbers to Art Gallery of WA Plummet, Contributing to Big Drop in Revenue’. ABC News. November 27. Accessed January 8, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y7q23ff3. Usher, Robin. 2011. ‘Battle for the Arts’. Age, July 20. V&A. 2014. V&A 2014–​ 2015 Iteration of the Strategic Plan 2011–​ 2015. London: Victoria and Albert Museum. V&A. 2017. ‘V&A Exhibitions for Hire’. Victoria and Albert Museum. Accessed November 7. www.vam.ac.uk/​info/​exhibitions-​for-​hire. van Barneveld, Kristin, and Osmond Chiu. 2017. ‘A Portrait of Failure:  Ongoing Funding Cuts to Australia’s Cultural Institutions’. Australian Journal of Public Administration 77 (1): 3–​18. White, Leanne. 2009. ‘Images of Canberra: Destination Marketing and the Capital City of Australia’. In City Tourism:  National Capital Perspectives, edited by Robert Maitland and Brent W. Ritchie, 37–​49. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

 139

Relinquishing the national 139 Woodward, Simon. 2012. ‘Funding Museum Agendas: Challenges and Opportunities’. Managing Leisure 17 (1): 14–​28. Wordley, Bianca. 2004. ‘The Impressionists Set to Break Australian Record’. Australian Associated Press General News, September 23. Young Henrys. 2017. ‘Old Master’. Young Henrys. Accessed September 26. www. younghenrys.com/​old-​master. Zan, Luca. 2006. Managerial Rhetoric and Arts Organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

140

6  Global buy-​ins and blockbuster tropes

Exhibitions with entertainment value, designed to have mass consumer appeal and marketed with the inflated rhetoric of a luxury car ad, are dominating exhibition calendars. And after seeing the show, we exit through the souvenir shop. (Smith 2016, 65)

In 1984 the New York–​based Australian art critic Robert Hughes observed, in an article titled ‘Art and money’, that blockbuster exhibitions had become a forum for either masterpiece or treasure shows, constituting a simple fix to draw in crowds without offering anything more. He contended that ‘the people who attend blockbusters show no more loyalty to the museum afterward than the people who saw Raiders of the Lost Ark did to the cinema in which they saw it’ (Hughes 1984, 26). His argument remains pertinent and, while the range of topics for blockbusters has expanded as museums seek out new markets, there remains a handful of identifiable topics. Questions continue about blockbusters’ capacity to develop audiences beyond the life of the show. Former Queensland Art Gallery director Doug Hall, for example, has suggested that, rather than fostering lasting relationships with audiences, these exhibitions manage only to inspire ‘a series of one-​night stands’ (Hall cited in McColl 2013). In a further parallel with contemporary cinema, from the evidence presented here the blockbuster seems to be moving in a purely market-​ driven direction, in which box-​office success trumps educational benefit. Unlike the cinema, however, museums retain education as a core part of their missions. This move towards the market is clearly seen in the rise of the buy-​in exhibition. The buy-​in is an exhibition for hire, which –​like cinema –​ provides a relatively uniform visitor experience regardless of the geographic location in which it is seen. Buy-​ins represent a globalised experience of culture, and are predominantly characterised by known entities:  global art stars, mythologised ancient civilisations, and popular culture (Fairley 2015). Critics argue that museums that host buy-​ in blockbusters have simply become venues for hire (McColl 2013). But, as this book has argued,

 141

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 141 motivations behind the selection and promotion of exhibitions must be seen in the cultural sector’s broader economic context, in which diminishing funding is forcing new partnerships that place a greater emphasis on quantifiable economic benefits. In this context, buy-​ins offer one way for museums to compete when resources (human, financial and collection) are stretched, and expectations inflated (Churcher 1994; McColl 2013; Thomas 2011, 5). Today it seems that, museums in Australia and throughout the world are struggling to resource the development of in-​house exhibitions at a rate high enough to meet demand. Buy-​ins allow museums to continue to meet market demand for changing content (Power 2018, 9), and can therefore be part of a suite of tactics used to appease funders’ desires for quantifiable measures of success (NSW Auditor-​General 2011, 38–​9). The packaged nature of a buy-​in offers greater efficiency to the host institution, which has less investment in developing the show. Thus many cultural workers argue that the buy-​in enables a break in programming that subsidises other, perhaps more research-​based, exhibitions (Thomas 2011, 5). The buy-​in does, however, bring its own risks, especially in relation to the difficulty of mounting a profitable exhibition in Australia (AEA 2001, 9–​10), where isolation from major centres is still felt, even in the globalised, connected world of the twenty-​first century (Capling and Nossal 2001).

The rise of the buy-​in The rise of packaged blockbuster exhibitions, or buy-​ins, is a global phenomenon (Zarobell 2017). These travelling shows, which institutions purchase the right to host, are part of a growing international circuit of must-​see cultural events (Pes, da Silva, and Sharpe 2017). The host institution’s input varies. A buy-​in can be a complete package, sometimes marketed as ‘a turn-​ key’ exhibit, where everything  –​exhibits, cases, interactives, soundscapes, signage and merchandise –​is supplied (Exhibits Development Group 2016). At the other extreme, the host can be more involved, sometimes purchasing an exhibition concept that can be tailored in-​house. The scope of this buy-​in exhibition trade can be seen in, for example, the establishment in 1983 of the International Committee for Exhibition Exchange, under the banner of the International Council of Museums. This group has held conferences that consider all aspects of touring exhibitions, including even a ‘Marketplace of Exhibitions and Ideas’ where ‘delegates can share information about exhibition projects under development for touring opportunities’ (ICEE 2017).1 The buy-​in trade has also moved beyond the non-​profit sector, to include purely commercial entities dedicated to developing travelling exhibitions for the cultural market. These ventures often replicate the format of the cultural sector, with groups like SC Exhibitions launching their own conference, the Touring Exhibitions Meeting, as a way of promoting commercial opportunities (‘Touring Exhibitions Meeting’ 2017). The choice of options,

142

142  Blockbuster or bust both institutional and commercial, demonstrates the entrepreneurial aspect of exhibitions designed primarily to attract audiences and earn revenue. This reflects fundamental changes across the sector following the breaking down of ‘boundaries which once separated museums from other recreational and educational organizations’ (Kotler and Kotler 2000, 271). Extending this idea, others have suggested that the collapse of boundaries between educational institutions and entertainment venues, resulting in ‘edutainment’ or ‘Disneylandization’, reflects ‘the prevailing trend towards capitalist-​based mass tourism marked by globalization and profit maximization’ (Balloffet, Courvoisier, and Lagier 2014, 7). This commercialisation of exhibitions has been the basis upon which critics have argued that populist blockbusters are ‘equivalent to football matches and pop concerts’ (West 1995, 89). Just as the cultural sector has been transformed into a cultural industry, so too has the exhibition become an industrialised component of that machine (Gopnik 2013). So it is not surprising that institutions are adopting a brand mentality, and that the buy-​ in has become an important opportunity to sustain, develop and extend museums’ and galleries’ brand recognition (Camarero, Garrido, and Vicente 2010; Camarero, Garrido-​Samaniego, and Vicente 2012; Rentschler, Bridson, and Evans 2014). Temporary exhibitions are essential to institutional brands, because they are often the most marketed and highest-​profile aspect of an institution’s engagement with the public. Rentschler, Bridson and Evans have suggested that the blockbuster exhibition can be thought of as a ‘sub-​brand’ that helps to expand ‘the appeal of the parent brand to wider and new audiences’ (2014, 48). Brand recognition, they argue, is vital to the success of contemporary exhibits, on several levels: the brand of the host, the brand of the subject and the brand attached to the source of the material. These brands overlap to shape the overall appeal of the venture and thus influence its potential success (Rentschler, Bridson, and Evans 2014, 49). The combination of source and host brands, coalescing to maximise the attractiveness of the offer, it is hoped, will increase the potential audience and thus the financial return. Buy-​ins can help all parties meet their financial goals through audience growth, and their ambitions for a higher institutional profile (Barker 1999; Elsen 1984). Such success begets future success, as audiences and sponsors gain confidence, based on the brand’s previous performance. It has been argued that this competitive, consumer-​driven turn has resulted in a stratification of institutions, whereby ‘[t]‌hose institutions that do not have either distinctive assets or the capacity to develop distinctive sources of competitive advantage languish, as human and financial resources and public attention refocus on those that do’ (Ellis 2002, 12). This segmentation into institutions that can trade on their ‘distinctiveness’ and those that cannot was also observed by Maxwell Anderson, head of the Indianapolis Museum of Art, in 2007. He laid bare the dilemma for institutions, arguing that, by accepting ‘claims that we are drivers of economic benefit, we have

 143

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 143 unwittingly altered the basis on which we are judged’ (Anderson 2007, 10). For those with distinctive assets that could be capitalised upon, he argued that the results were ‘short-​term’ gains that were ‘not extendable to year-​ round operations’ and not possible at all for those lacking ‘access to world-​ renowned artworks, ample cash, and a tourist market’ (Anderson 2007, 10). Barker too suggested a link between revenue, funding and commercially driven blockbusters, arguing that public institutions that are well funded by governments do not have ‘the same incentive to make money out of exhibitions’ (1999, 129). Exhibitions do, however, represent a significant potential revenue stream for institutions worldwide, particularly those with internationally recognisable collection areas (Zarobell 2017). The V&A in London provides a sophisticated example, as it has been generating exhibitions for hire since 1987. The V&A claims to have ‘one of the largest international touring exhibition programmes in the world … seen by over 1.5  million visitors’ (V&A 2013, 63). These touring programs contribute substantially to the V&A’s revenue (V&A 2014, 10). For example David Bowie Is, first shown at the V&A in 2013, has gone on to become an exhibition for hire, enjoying popular and critical acclaim (Bailey 2016; Idacavage 2016). V&A package exhibitions represent the museum’s brand by promoting the strength of its collections, its curatorial expertise, and its ability to source material from private owners (V&A 2017). The V&A, along with a handful of other British institutions, is at the vanguard of this move into developing international touring programs in order to grow and become more financially secure (Barbican International Enterprises 2017; BM 2017). This is a relatively sustainable way to make money from collections. But it only works for institutions with rich collections enjoying international appeal and relevance. While buy-​ins are an international phenomenon, their place in Australia is more nuanced. This is often overlooked in the international literature, which positions blockbusters as virtually free of risk. Zarobell, for example, has recently suggested that the format is:  ‘quite frankly, a cash cow, and though it may be quite expensive to organize, it will drive so much traffic to the museum that proceeds from new memberships, ticket sales, and auxiliary services, such as shops and restaurants, can more than offset any deficits’ (Zarobell 2017, 65). This characterisation, we argue, overlooks the factors that create a climate for such shows. That is, it assumes that the institution is in the privileged position of having either a collection that it can exploit, or the funds to buy-​in content, as well as access to an audience large enough to recoup its investment. In Australia, none of these is guaranteed (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 2). The long history of temporary exhibitions here forms a precedent for the current situation, in which cultural institutions often lack the collections to develop their own shows to hire out (Churcher 1994, 88). Rentschler, Bridson and Evans have observed that ‘Australia is an exemplar of an art museum sector characterised by the

144

144  Blockbuster or bust “tyranny of distance” with little choice but to seek product from beyond their own borders to supplement their own collections’ (2014, 46). Zarobell also acknowledges that, internationally, buy-​ins are most ‘successful when nothing of the kind can be found nearby … and in locations where an eager viewing public’ for this unique content exists (2017, 68). By implication, one benefit of the buy-​in is to compensate for gaps in the host institution’s collections. In Australia, this has always been an important motivation for temporary exhibitions (Churcher 2003, 165). Even in an era of broad access to information and international travel, Australians are still eager to see star international objects on home soil. Indeed, the way exhibitions are promoted reinforces this. The relative paucity of permanent collections of international art in Australia, and an eager audience, combined with the downward trend in funding, have created a market for buy-​ins. But, because of Australia’s geographical position and political makeup, buy-​ins are by no means risk-​free propositions (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, 2). As art critic John McDonald has argued, ‘Australia is perceived as being too far off the beaten track to justify major loans. Neither do we have a large stock of masterworks that can be swapped’ (2016, 6). Freight and insurance costs, a focus on exclusive events, and finite audiences in single-​venue locations, all make the buy-​in a risky venture. But, for many, it is the only way to continue the ‘circus’ of providing ‘something new to keep the public coming back for more’ (Marshall 2006, 36).

Masterpieces and popular appeal The blockbuster treads a fine line between originality and familiarity, trading on both. To attract new and broad audiences, the topic needs to have ‘instant brand recognition’ (Marshall 2006, 37). But the exhibition itself must be sold on the basis of its uniqueness, to distinguish it from the last must-​see event. As Gerard Vaughan noted while director of the National Gallery of Victoria, blockbusters are about ‘unique works of art only brought together in one place at one time’ (Vaughan cited in Canberra Times 2008, 4). Exhibition topics that are both familiar and original are few. The International Committee for Exhibition Exchange made light of this situation in 2004 when it called its annual conference ‘The Quest for the Eternal Blockbuster: Impressionist Paintings of Egyptian Dinosaurs’ (ICOM ICEE 2004) –​an impossible exhibition embracing the trinity of successful topics:  ancient Egypt, dinosaurs, and Impressionist art. The familiarity–​ originality paradox that characterises marketable buy-​ ins has rendered these topics synonymous with the format and its underlying economics (Safe 2003, 14). The repertoire has recently been joined by iconic subjects from popular culture that themselves constitute known brands (Pronitcheva 2018). All these topics (except dinosaurs) feature heavily in The Art Newspaper’s annual rankings of the most popular exhibitions (Pes, da Silva, and Sharpe 2017, 14). Indeed, the limited scope of topics for blockbusters in

 145

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 145 art museums has received much attention. As arts writer Michaela Boland has argued:  ‘[T]‌he words “impressionist”, “Monet”, “masterpiece” and “Picasso” spell instant audience. Everything else is a hard sell’ (2013, 22). The word play around Monet and money is an often-​repeated pun (Ho 2017; Pearson 2015; Safe 2003). The dominance of canonical Western artists or  –​more recently  –​contemporary art stars, has seen a proliferation of touring exhibitions that celebrate recognisable figures (Fairley 2015). These artists are dependable brands, almost guaranteed to draw an audience. For example, recent shows like Andy Warhol | Ai Weiwei (2015–​16) and Picasso: Masterpieces from the Musée National Picasso, Paris (2012) have broken attendance records for the National Gallery of Victoria and the Art Gallery of NSW respectively (AGNSW 2012, 11; NGV 2016, 6). They also represent two trends in this area:  Andy Warhol | Ai Weiwei was generated in house, whereas Picasso was a package made available for international touring while the Musée National Picasso underwent renovations. Both show the importance of the ‘artistic’ brand in selling blockbusters and their potential to achieve record numbers. Australian institutions have benefited greatly from the global wave of museum renovations in recent decades, hosting collections while their home institutions are closed. For instance, The Greats:  Masterpieces from the National Galleries of Scotland (2015–​16) was shown at the Art Gallery of NSW as part of a global tour, with a goal of raising funds and generating an international audience for the National Galleries of Scotland (National Galleries Scotland 2016, 19). For organisers, this is a valuable proposition because it combines revenue generation with the extension of their brand internationally, raising their profile by continual reporting of audience numbers during a period of upheaval. For hosts, these projects bring gains beyond audience numbers. Borrowing from just one collection arguably means that loans are centralised, which allows for strong controls on freight and negotiations, and the global multi-​ venue package can include a sharing of costs while maintaining exclusivity in one country. The most successful recent example in Australia was the National Gallery of Australia’s Masterpieces from Paris: Van Gogh, Cézanne, Gauguin and Beyond: Post-​Impressionism from the Musée d’Orsay (2009–​10; Fig. 6.1). This transformed expectations for exhibitions in Australia, attracting a record-​breaking audience of more than 470,000 visitors, of whom 64 per cent were first-​time visitors and 71 per cent came from outside of the territory (NGA 2010, 49). The gallery sold 63,500 catalogues –​a record for Australian art publishing –​attracted a substantial school audience despite an overlap with the school break, and sold more than 10,000 memberships (NGA 2010, 11, 42). As an event, it exceeded expectations, almost doubling the audience target (Commonwealth of Australia 2010, ECA196). As a result it contributed a staggering $94 million to the economy of the Australian Capital Territory (NGA 2010, 7, 47).

146

146  Blockbuster or bust

Figure 6.1 Crowds for Masterpieces from Paris: Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and Beyond: Post-​Impressionism from the Musée d’Orsay, 20 March 2010, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra. Courtesy of National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.

The gallery’s deputy director, Alan Froud, explained that Masterpieces from Paris generated a surplus that was used to subsidise ‘the ongoing exhibition program and for other gallery activities’, even though the show was ‘the most expensive ever mounted in the country’ (Froud cited in Commonwealth of Australia 2010, 194). Froud elaborated that the ‘costs of the exhibition was something in the order of $11 million’ and that there was an agreement to share some of the costs of moving the works to other venues, but ‘the revenue exceeded that sum’ (Froud cited in Commonwealth of Australia 2010, 195). These figures reveal the huge economic risks of staging blockbusters, as well as providing a rare public example in Australia of positive financial returns –​even surplus –​to the host. This exhibit set a benchmark that will be difficult for other institutions to attain (Pryor 2011, 20). It was a rarity in terms of the quality of the works, and its success hinged on the marketing of both the familiarity and the uniqueness of the show. That is, Masterpieces from Paris traded on internationally recognised names –​van Gogh, Cézanne and Gauguin –​ but also positioned itself as an exclusive opportunity to see these iconic paintings on home soil, as well as emphasising the scale and quality of the show (Canberra Times 2009, 2). It featured seven paintings by van Gogh, including the iconic Starry night (1888), alongside works by Monet, Degas,

 147

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 147 Pissarro, Picasso and many others who enjoy popular renown. The director of the National Gallery typified the way the familiarity and originality of the show were sold: ‘Never before have so many famous masterpieces been brought together for one exhibition in this country. This is truly a once-​in-​a-​ lifetime opportunity to experience these paintings, not by travelling to Paris but by coming to Canberra’ (Ron Radford cited in Canberra Times 2009, 2). This combination of mythologised artists and their iconic paintings, with the endorsement of quality provided by the Musée d’Orsay’s brand, worked to the gallery’s advantage when seeking sponsorship and enticing visitors. The success can be compared with other Musée d’Orsay shows in Australia. The first Melbourne Winter Masterpieces show, The Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musée d’Orsay (2004), attracted 380,000 people, setting a record at the time for national attendance, and celebrated by the National Gallery of Victoria as a significant achievement in global terms (NGV 2005, 13). The Musée d’Orsay brand continues to be highly valued. In 2018 the Art Gallery of South Australia hosted Colours of Impressionism: Masterpieces from the Musée d’Orsay after its Singapore showing (National Gallery Singapore 2017). The announcement made by South Australian premier and arts minister Jay Weatherill echoes the way Radford had characterised the Masterpieces from Paris show by emphasising its quality and uniqueness and positioning these in relation to the Musée d’Orsay brand. Weatherill contended that it was a great opportunity for audiences to see ‘Impressionist works in their own backyard … the Musée d’Orsay have been extremely generous in the selection of works of art they are sending to the southern hemisphere, with a number of them coming here for the very first time’ (Weatherill cited in AGSA 2017). The Musée d’Orsay is renowned for the depth of its Impressionist and Post-​Impressionist collections; all these exhibits have exploited this fame by evoking ‘masterpiece’ status. In addition to the Musée d’Orsay brand, central to the National Gallery’s marketing were the names of established artists: van Gogh, Monet, Cézanne and Gauguin, with their highly recognisable paintings an essential part of the campaign (Sun Herald 2010, 13). For Australian audiences, these names will always have a strong pull, because, regardless of the effects of globalisation, it remains easier to travel interstate to view such works than investing in a trip to Paris. This phenomenon also recalls the fact that these artists are not well represented in Australian collections, because of their relatively short history of collecting and their funding limitations (Churcher 1994, 88). An important advantage of this style of buy-​in is that Australian collections can be contextualised through partnerships with established collections. Strategically, these partnerships help ensure that Australian institutions are internationally connected. The exhibition raised the National Gallery of Australia’s profile internationally, with the director of the Musée d’Orsay praising the show and arguing that it forced a new reading of these familiar works (Pryor 2009, 1). Moreover, the exhibition itself came about because

148

148  Blockbuster or bust of the gallery’s previous collaboration with the Musée d’Orsay on an earlier Degas show (Munro 2010, 6; New Zealand Herald 2009). It was quickly accommodated into the gallery’s schedule (Commonwealth of Australia 2008, ECA123) and subsequently toured internationally (in a slightly modified form).2 Blockbusters can therefore open up opportunities via strategic partnerships that raise international recognition and help develop professional skills in Australia. Curatorial staff from the National Gallery did have input into the show, although it was largely a packaged exhibit of 112 works loaned by the Musée d’Orsay while it was undergoing substantial renovations. Local staff authored catalogue entries and contributed an essay to the substantial accompanying publication (Cogeval et  al. 2009). This is not always the case with buy-​ins, however, as one industry worker noted: ‘The curatorial decisions generally have been made … the intellectual content’s pretty much packaged up. So the input from Australia is really, bump it in, bump it out’ (Robyn Sloggett cited in McColl 2013). On this basis, institutions are justifiably criticised for using these exhibits to pad out numbers and generate audience, while neglecting their important mandate to undertake exhibition-​led scholarship and collection research (Hughes 1984; McColl 2013). The National Gallery of Australia, for example, rescheduled a major in-​house exhibition based on its permanent collection in order to host the Musée d’Orsay show (Commonwealth of Australia 2008, ECA123). Although this decision paid off in terms of financial and reputational gains, the strategy brings risks, the most obvious being that not every exhibit will be so successful. The fabulous success of Masterpieces from Paris has set a benchmark for success unmet by subsequent projects. Moreover, there is a risk in using buy-​ins repeatedly; one critic has argued that ‘the prevalence of these overseas “rental” blockbusters cannot help but introduce a certain “off the rack” feeling’ (Marshall 2006, 37). These risks for reputation and brand perception can have significant ramifications in Australia, where the costs of staging such shows are very high.

Risky business: mission or market? The reputational risk of buy-​ins may be felt most keenly when institutions repeatedly trade in commercially driven shows, where the visitor experience lacks the uniqueness and authenticity usually associated with museums and their collections. Often this results in only a tenuous link to museum missions (Jacobsen 2014). While the National Gallery of Australia could exploit the Musée d’Orsay brand to sell the quality of an exhibition that was demonstrably central to its mission as a public art gallery, this is not the case for an increasing number of shows developed by commercial entities.3 Such exhibitions often comprise a range of content and experiential interactives, but seldom include the priceless ‘masterpieces’ that characterise the art museum buy-​in (Fairley 2015). Instead, they trade in popular-​culture brands, with high marketplace visibility, to capitalise on public interest. This exposes

 149

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 149 the increasingly commercial context of contemporary cultural experiences, as defined by expanding ideas of leisure (Packer and Ballantyne 2004). In this commercial market of brands, it seems only natural that the new buy-​ins celebrate the current heroes of popular culture. These pop-​ culture blockbusters reflect the globalisation of culture, and the incentive for museums to continually seek out new audiences, as they are equally at home in Japan, America, Singapore and Australia. Contemporary pop-​ culture blockbusters are particularly adept at merging ideas of the exhibition with experience and consumption in their exploration of topics of contemporary appeal. Among these can be grouped the rising tide of fashion exhibitions, such as Vivienne Westwood:  34 Years in Fashion (2004–​5),4 Valentino Retrospective:  Past/​Present/​Future (2010)5 and The Fashion World of Jean Paul Gaultier: From the Sidewalk to the Catwalk (2014–​15).6 These exhibitions take their lead from the world of consumer culture but promote the originality of the product by focusing on the high-​end, bespoke nature of the objects and their association with museum collections. All three were hosted by art galleries in Australia, which stressed their artistic and aesthetic excellence. Tony Ellwood, then director of the Queensland Art Gallery, epitomised this when he stressed that ‘fashion is a serious form of design’ (Ellwood cited in McColl 2013). Yet reviews of such shows question this, as one article observed of Vivienne Westwood: ‘[I]‌t was difficult not to see this show as a marketing launch in Australia for the Westwood brand’ (Craik and Peoples 2006, 397). Other pop-​culture blockbusters seen in Australia have been inspired by film and literature, including Designing 007: 50 Years of Bond Style (2013),7 Harry Potter: The Exhibition (2011–​12), Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination (2008–​9)8 and Pixar: 20 Years of Animation (2007).9 Jurassic World: The Exhibition (2016),10 which had its global premiere at Museum Victoria, represents a happy merging of themes, drawing on the traditional success of dinosaur blockbuster exhibitions combined with their place in popular culture via the Jurassic Park film franchise. Still others in this genre have focused on internationally recognised people or groups, such as Diana: A Celebration (2007–​8)11 and ABBAWORLD (2010–​11),12 both at MAAS in Sydney, or David Bowie Is (2015) at Melbourne’s ACMI.13 The current Australian trend in pop-​culture blockbusters is a series of LEGO-​ based exhibitions staged in both museum and non-​museum spaces.14 All these exhibits trade on the brands with which they are associated –​whether an international fashion house, film juggernaut or popular-​culture icon  –​ echoing the ideas of Rentschler, Bridson and Evans (2014) in relation to art museums. Importantly, they demonstrate that the blockbuster format is now typical across a much broader range of institutions, challenging the dominance of art galleries. One of the most enthusiastic subscribers to this genre of exhibition in Australia has been Sydney’s MAAS (formerly the Powerhouse Museum).15 The MAAS experience is salient when discussing the risks of buy-​ins. Since

150

150  Blockbuster or bust 1988 the museum has been located in a retrofitted historical electricity station, in which the space for temporary exhibitions has varied greatly. MAAS has a vast collection from which it has generated many exhibitions, big and small, alongside hosting a number of buy-​ins (MAAS 2011, 38; MAAS 2012, 36). Blockbusters have played an important and frequently contested part in the museum’s history. Despite its long history, dating back to 1879, in recent decades it struggled to develop a clear brand identity. This was recognised in a 2008 internal review that identified that its reliance on blockbuster exhibitions was detrimental: While the Museum has successfully staged some of Australia’s highest grossing exhibitions of the past decade, the Museum’s ‘core’ audience, attending to visit the permanent exhibitions, has been declining. The Museum’s ‘brand’ is increasingly influenced by the most recent major temporary exhibition and this, in turn, has created some complexity and confusion about the Museum’s role and purpose. (MAAS 2008, 9) MAAS’s focus on buy-​in blockbusters was central to its strategy to attract visitors. This was noted by the state auditor-​general:  ‘The Powerhouse Museum relies on its ability to hold a “blockbuster” event in order to draw in visitors and associated revenues’ (NSW Auditor-​General 2011, 39). When the museum didn’t have a blockbuster in 2010, there was a 38 per cent drop in self-​generated income (MAAS 2010, 9). Previous buy-​ins were enormously popular and profitable, like Star Wars (2008–​9) or The Lord of the Rings Motion Picture Trilogy: The Exhibition (2004–​5).16 But these successes were tempered by others that failed to generate positive interest. Top Secret: License to Spy (2011), a buy-​in from Scitech Perth, and ABBAWORLD (2010–​11) both opened as ticketed exhibitions but were made free of charge as ‘public interest was below expectation’ and thus ‘revenues generated did not cover the costs for either exhibition’ (NSW Auditor-​ General 2011, 39). This brought a significant drop in overall visitation, a decline noted by the auditor-​general (NSW Auditor-​ General 2011, 38), demonstrating that governments defined success in quantifiable terms. The potential for blockbusters to increase visitation shaped choices made by the museum, including a decision in 2011–​12 to close a collection display focused on design in order to expand the space available for temporary exhibitions (MAAS 2012, 9; Taylor 2013). This revitalisation project created a highly flexible 1800 square metre space offering ‘a range of possibilities: from accommodating major international and in-​house developed exhibitions to sectioning off the gallery into discreet spaces for smaller exhibitions and/​or public programs’ (MAAS 2012, 9). These major building works temporarily interrupted the exhibition program (NSW Auditor-​ General 2011, 38).

 151

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 151

Figure 6.2 Actor Matthew Lewis, who plays the character Neville Longbottom in the film series, poses with fans at the Harry Potter Exhibition launch at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, New South Wales, 19 July 2011. Photo: Ella Pellegrini. Courtesy of Newspix.

When the new space opened, it was used for a series of buy-​ins that saw the museum collaborate with commercial firms. The first, Harry Potter: The Exhibition (2011–​12), represented its developer GES Exhibitions’ first foray into the Australian market (GES 2011; Fig. 6.2).17 For MAAS, its audience of 382,565 set a ‘new record for a paid exhibition at a NSW cultural institution’ (MAAS 2012, 4). When Harry Potter dramatically reversed the downward visitor trend, resulting in revenue of $11,748,000 that contributed to ‘a profit of $2,740,000’ for that year (MAAS 2012, 11), the auditor-​general made a more upbeat assessment of the museum, suggesting that the show had ‘cast its magic over the Museum’s visitor numbers’ (NSW Auditor-​ General 2012, 53). This assessment reveals the pressure upon museums to continually build on audience figures. Harry Potter was followed by The Chronicles of Narnia: The Exhibition (2012), another GES exhibit, which attracted a more modest audience,18 and Wallace and Gromit’s World of Inventions,19 which also failed to replicate Harry Potter’s success, attracting only 84,042 visitors (MAAS 2013, 7). At this time the museum received harsh criticism from previous supporters such as former museum trustee Leo Schofield, who argued that, in pursuing such exhibitions over its core mission of applied art and design, the museum ‘has been prostituted in pursuit of misguided populism’ (Schofield cited in

152

152  Blockbuster or bust Taylor 2013). Although the buy-​ins were only one part of a rich program of smaller exhibits, collection displays and regional touring exhibitions, they represented the biggest physical investment and most publicly visible aspect of the museum’s work (MAAS 2012, 7, 55). The consequence of this sequence of exhibitions was arguably twofold: its inability to generate a solid pattern of attendance failed to shore up MAAS’s revenue stream, and negative press as epitomised by Schofield’s denunciation damaged its reputation. External pressures on the museum increased accordingly (Gilmore 2014a, 13; Gilmore 2014b, 10). Under a new management team the museum was re-​ branded, changing its name from the Powerhouse Museum back to its original Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. It also underwent a significant restructure, cutting staff from 242 to 188, with plans to reinvest salary savings back into the museum (MAAS 2015, 10). The museum’s 2020 Vision, the first to be launched by the new executive, noted that ‘a focus on building audiences is required to regain the Museum’s reputation and global standing’ (MAAS 2014, 1). To achieve this, 2020 Vision identified eight disciplines around which the museum could focus its programs, resolved to articulate a ‘confident brand’, and emphasised the development of ‘formal partnerships and collaboration with significant international institutions’ (MAAS 2014, 5, 16). Although tourism and its contribution to the state economy were emphasised, it was clear that the plan represented a refocusing on the museum’s own collection, purpose and identity, in order to build a more sustainable audience in the long term (MAAS 2014). This has since materialised through exhibitions developed by reputable international institutions like the V&A and the Science Museum, London, alongside more commercial buy-​ ins associated with the newly articulated museum disciplines, including fashion, contemporary culture and new technologies (MAAS 2016). These disciplines have also been reflected in several collection-​based exhibitions exemplified by the Recollect series of exhibitions (MAAS 2016, 121). In the realm of buy-​ins, MAAS recently hosted the world premiere of Egyptian Mummies:  Exploring Ancient lives (2017) from the British Museum, which made use of technology to present a new perspective on this theme.20 This was supported by Destination NSW and attracted strong visitation (MAAS 2017, 8), demonstrating a significant increase in numbers since the decline identified by the auditor in 2011. The experience of MAAS underlines the importance of balance and sustainability when scheduling blockbusters. This example reveals that if audiences lose sight of the brand of the host institution, focusing only on the content of each temporary show, it is difficult to convert those visitors into loyal customers (Camarero, Garrido-​Samaniego, and Vicente 2012). By balancing its need to generate audience through major ticketed exhibitions with the need to maintain the integrity of its own brand, MAAS is using the format in a more sustainable way to complement its identity, expertise and collection.

 153

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 153

Financial rewards and risks It is unsurprising that MAAS attracted strong visitation to Egyptian Mummies (MAAS 2017, 5). The exhibition was built on a well-​understood blockbuster topic –​ancient Egypt –​and it aligned with MAAS’s own disciplines by presenting new technologies for analysing ancient artefacts. It follows a history of blockbusters on Egypt including Treasures of Tutankhamun (1972), seen at the British Museum before touring the United States, which is widely credited as the first modern-​day blockbuster exhibition (Barker 1999, 128). In Australia, the subject has also been well regarded, with Gold of the Pharaohs (1988–​9) still figuring in some institutions’ lists of most-​ visited exhibitions (AGNSW 2011, 19). Ancient Egypt has featured prominently in many Australian exhibition calendars, including Life Beyond the Tomb (2004–​5) at the Australian Museum, Egyptian Antiquities from the Louvre:  Journey to the Afterlife (2006–​7) at the National Gallery of Australia and state galleries in South Australia and Western Australia, with Mummy: Secrets of the Tomb (2012) seen at the Queensland Museum. These shows fall into the broader blockbuster theme of ancient worlds, and often draw on the collections of long-​established ‘universal’ museums such as the Louvre and the British Museum. These exhibits traverse topics from the Aztecs, ancient Mesopotamia, the historical roots of Afghanistan and dynastic China, to a perennial focus on dinosaurs. Like other buy-​ins, they have clearly exposed Australian audiences to aspects of human and natural history that are underrepresented in local collections. Although exhibitions on these themes have toured Australia since the 1970s, in this realm too there has been a move away from self-​generated exhibitions towards buy-​ins. Many of these later exhibitions have been comparatively straightforward, being derived from one primary institutional lender, although Australian hosts have been involved in design and interpretation to various degrees (MV 2011, 12; MV 2013, 14). One of the more recent buy-​ins among this group was the first Australian exhibition of material from the 1922 discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb:  Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs at Museum Victoria (2011) (Fig. 6.3). This show was a phenomenal success in terms of visitation, but it also demonstrated some of the inherent risks of the format in Australia. The exhibit was a complete package delivered via a partnership between the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, National Geographic, Arts and Exhibitions International, and International Management Group.21 It toured globally from 2005, attracting more than 7  million visitors (Limelight PR 2011, 5). Tutankhamun showcased some new research and, as part of the agreement, a share of the profits was returned to Egypt to support conservation and contribute to the construction of the Grand Egyptian Museum (Limelight PR 2011). The Melbourne season was the final stop on its global tour and was promoted as the last time the objects would be seen outside Egypt (Northover 2011, 9).

154

154  Blockbuster or bust

Figure 6.3 Billboard for Tutankhamun and The Golden Age of the Pharaohs, Museum Victoria, November 2011. Photo: C. O’Reilly.

This exhibition seemed to be a relatively safe investment, given its strong visitation at previous venues established above. The mythology surrounding the discovery of the tomb virtually guaranteed that Tutankhamun would draw large crowds. Museum Victoria was also well supported to market the show with funds from VMEC, which branded the exhibition as part of the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces series (Limelight PR 2011; Zarmati 2011, 35). The state government also offered support, recognising it as an opportunity to sell Melbourne as a cultural tourism destination (Northover 2011). Indeed, Tutankhamun broke all records for attendance in Australia, attracting an extraordinary 769,277 visitors (admittedly over an unusually long 34-​week season, compared to the typical 14 weeks), capitalising on the broad campaign supported by VMEC (MV 2011, 12). It also attracted large numbers of interstate and international visitors with some analysis suggesting that tourists comprised 41 per cent of visitors (Northover 2011). The exhibition raised significant commercial revenue for the museum, drawing in ‘more than $1,000,000 in additional income in the 2011–​12 financial year from ancillary services … including car parking, “Green Screen” photo sales, the Treasures of the World’s Museums shop, the Tcheft Marquee restaurant and venue hire’ (MV 2012, 14). This enabled

 155

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 155 Museum Victoria to cement a strong reputation as a tourist destination (MV 2011, 12)  –​a vital part of its original proposal for a new, purpose-​built space (Edwards 1985, 9–​10, 16–​17)  –​and helped raise the profile of the organisation. The exhibit used the dedicated temporary exhibitions space that opened when Museum Victoria moved to purpose-​built premises in 2000. This space, while initially used for a collection-​ based show, has enabled the museum to host a range of touring blockbusters, allowing it to participate in the international circuit (Power 2018, 9). Under the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces brand it hosted the record-​breaking A Day in Pompeii (2009), followed by a series of exhibitions covering everything from ancient civilisations to contemporary culture. Some of these partnerships were with established museums, like The Wonders of Ancient Mesopotamia (2012), from the British Museum, which attracted 128,500 visitors (MV 2013, 10). Others have been more populist ventures, such as the phenomenally popular Titanic:  The Artefact Exhibition (2010), brought to Australia by Frontier Events and Premier Exhibitions Inc., and Brickman: Wonders of the World (2017), a LEGO show which was also shown at non-​museum venues throughout Australia. As mentioned earlier, the degree to which museums are involved in developing the content for touring exhibitions varies, and this can be seen at Museum Victoria. A Day in Pompeii, for example, was a collaboration between the museum and the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Napoli e Pompei (MV 2009). It was shown at the Western Australian Museum before being seen in New Zealand. Museum Victoria developed multimedia content which was then licensed to other international institutions for Pompeii exhibitions (MV 2011, 12; MV 2013, 14). Multimedia was also developed and then licensed as part of The Wonders of Ancient Mesopotamia (MV 2013, 14). This demonstrates one way that Australian institutions can contribute to the content of such shows, even in the face of poor collection holdings, and in turn generate additional revenue. Undoubtedly these popular exhibitions benefited Museum Victoria, exceeding the record set by Titanic (2010), which in turn broke that set by Pompeii (2009) (MV 2012, 2). In fact, the combination of Titanic and Tutankhamun resulted in Museum Victoria claiming for itself the title of Australia’s ‘most popular museum’ (MV 2011, 2)  –​a radical turnaround from when it opened in its dedicated venue and suffered a dramatic decline in visitation (Mottram 2003). But, given that financial profit is a prime motivation for such ventures, it is important to look beyond income alone. The costs of staging buy-​ins are high, and the potential for profit is enmeshed in the detail of contractual arrangements with commercial providers. The same annual report that sang the praises of the show’s success for example also noted that, because of the ‘contract arrangements’, both Titanic and Tutankhamun contributed to an overall loss in revenue for the museum, which in 2010–​11  ‘decreased by $4.0  million compared to the previous

156

156  Blockbuster or bust financial year’ (MV 2011, 5). As was noted in the media at the time, Museum Victoria’s commercial partners on Titanic and Tutankhamun ‘have taken all the risk, and therefore received all the financial upside’ (Boland 2012a, 14). With patrons receiving ‘free entry to the museum’s permanent galleries’ as part of their exhibition ticket, the museum was financially disadvantaged (Boland 2012a, 14). It was speculated that ‘the museum only received $1 from each ticket’, even though prices were very high:  an adult ticket cost $29 (Gill 2012, 18). This had a negative effect on the overall budget, and it was reported that the museum was facing a 10 per cent reduction in staff (Boland 2012a, 14; Boland 2012b). Furthermore, as was the case for MAAS, the numbers achieved by successful blockbusters were difficult to repeat. In 2015, when audience numbers were again depressed, this was explained as ‘a normalisation’ in the wake of Titanic and Tutankhamun (Callum Ingram cited in Boland 2015, 3). So, despite the prestige that these exhibitions bring to museums, profits are by no means assured. As the experience at Museum Victoria demonstrates, even when an exhibition smashes attendance records, the costs involved mean that it may not necessarily bring the host an overall financial reward. Ancillary industries –​service industries in particular –​often reap the greater profit, through the economic stimulus that exhibition visitation offers (Thistleton 2010, 1). Moreover, for institutions, the cost of a loss is often far greater than can be absorbed. As in the case of Museum Victoria (Boland 2012b) and MAAS (Gilmore 2014a, 13), staff were lost in subsequent restructures and along with them their expertise, thus reducing the capacity of the organisation. In an extreme case this could prompt a self-​perpetuating cycle in which expertise resides outside the organisation, necessitating repeat investment in third-​party products over internally devised content.

New frontiers for buy-​ins: object-​less exhibitions One of the problems of staging Tutankhamun was simply its cost. Museum Victoria director Patrick Greene argued that the museum could not have afforded the exhibition ‘without the involvement of a commercial operator prepared to carry the financial risk’ (Coslovich 2011, 11). The ability to cover risk, be it through indemnity to insure valuable objects or the capacity to cover the financial risk of an unpopular show, has been a continuing dilemma, discussed throughout this book. One recent development that seems to allay some of these concerns is the rise of the ‘experience exhibit’, in which an overall immersive environment is created in lieu of the presentation of original (often expensive) collection items. In 2016–​17, another exhibition about Tutankhamun visited Australia. Tutankhamun:  His Tomb and his Treasures was held at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre in association with the Western Australian Museum. It was a buy-​in from the Van Egmond Group, best known for its stadium concerts, together with the German company SC

 157

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 157 Exhibitions (Van Egmond Group 2018; SC Exhibitions 2017). The stop in Perth was part of the exhibit’s global tour, mounted to mark the hundredth anniversary of the discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb in 2022 (SC Exhibitions 2017). Unlike the Museum Victoria exhibit, this show contained only replicas, arranged in an immersive way to evoke the tomb’s discovery (SC Exhibitions 2017). Renowned Egyptian archaeologist Dr Zahi Hawass, endorsed the show (SC Exhibitions 2017, 3–​4) and spoke at the opening in Perth (Gartner 2016, 4), giving it a greater sense of authenticity for visitors. This exhibit has been successfully shown in many venues worldwide, attracting large audiences (SC Exhibitions 2016, 27). Its immersive aspect offers a different experience from a traditional museum exhibition. Moreover, it can be surmised that displaying replica objects means significantly lower indemnity and other associated costs. In previous years Western Australia had struggled to cover indemnity for major exhibitions, as seen in the failed deal with New York’s Museum of Modern Art. Another area of development is exhibitions that include no objects –​ neither originals nor replicas. The Australian company Grande Exhibitions has created shows such as Van Gogh Alive and 101 Inventions that Changed the World, which offer an immersive experience based on technology. As chief executive Bruce Petersen explains, Grande Exhibitions has developed a new platform that immerses visitors ‘in the subject matter in a truly unique multisensory environment, unrivalled by any other exhibition experience’ (‘SENSORY4TM Exhibition Technology’ 2017). TeamLab is another provider working in this realm of the technology-​ based experiential exhibition. Its immersive environments have been exhibited in Australia as well as throughout Asia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Italy, France, USA, UK and Australia in various locations including shopping centres, a casino, McDonald’s restaurants, and museums (‘Exhibitions’ 2018). These exhibits allow for flexibility in venue choice as they are not limited by the conservation requirements of original museum objects. Moreover, the focus on data and hardware suggests that they could be simultaneously offered in several venues. Finally, if there are no objects, there is no need for specialist indemnity, and production costs are also reduced. While these exhibitions could be seen as examples of the ‘Disneylandization’ of cultural experience (Balloffet, Courvoisier, and Lagier 2014, 7), it is also possible to argue that they allow for a more democratic and family-​friendly experience, open to patrons outside the typical visitor profile of traditional museums (Malkin 2017; Weekend Argus 2015, 16). Most importantly, they are evidence of an expanding market for museum-​style exhibits and the increasingly commercial model that is emerging. As museums begin to take up these shows, the longer-​term question will be whether museums can maintain their institutional brand and authenticity while staging an infinitely repeatable experience.

158

158  Blockbuster or bust

How are museums served by buy-​ins? The experiential blockbuster invites a return to the original question of this chapter: how are museums affected by this uptake of the buy-​in? The buy-​in offers a comparatively easy method of filling exhibition programs and, when done well, can lead to fruitful partnerships, with opportunities for exposure to global practice (Elliott, Naidoo, and Worrall 2011; Harris 2016). As has been shown however, financially, buy-​ins are expensive, and contract negotiations can determine the ultimate benefit for the host institution. Perhaps more pressing are potential long-​term difficulties –​visitation is erratic and brand confusion can result if the institution does not manage communication carefully. This is exacerbated by the limited range of topics, with so many similar exhibitions circulating –​some original, some replicas. But these practical questions often overshadow more profound questions: what is lost in this reliance on international buy-​ins? Art critic Andrew Frost has presented a salient response: ‘The upside is … the chance to see some incredible historical art without the need to ever leave home … The downside is a homogenisation of culture that’s akin to the Hollywood-​ isation of cinema’ (2014). Countering this, many argue that ‘high-​ end box-​ office populism could cross-​ subsidise smaller, riskier, free-​ admission exhibitions’ (Thomas 2011, 5). But, given blockbusters’ appeal to a broad audience, the reach of smaller exhibitions is questionable. This is especially true when the brand of a museum is so clearly characterised by its major temporary exhibition program (Rentschler, Bridson, and Evans 2014). As Australia’s museum sector has matured, institutions and staff are now working as part of the international network of museums. This has resulted in an internationalisation of exhibition content. It is rare to see Australian stories presented on the same scale, or attracting the same visitor numbers, as internationally circulating buy-​ins (Grishin 2016). Moreover, Australian collections present few opportunities to develop shows that fit the identifiable ‘masterpieces’ or ‘treasures’ tropes discussed here (Hughes 1984). For Australian museums, buy-​ins are used to gain access to those cultural treasures not represented locally.

Notes 1 At a national level, annual conferences such as those of the American Alliance of Museums include a ‘Museum Expo’ where institutions and commercial touring companies promote their latest exhibitions for hire (‘Exhibitor List Index’ 2018). 2 Venues included the Tokyo National Art Centre (777,551 visitors) and the de Young Fine Art Museum, San Francisco (458,119 visitors) (Musées d’Orsay et de l’Orangerie 2011, 231). 3 Among this global network of companies are Imagine Exhibitions, Exhibits Development Group, Premier Exhibitions, Global Experience Specialists, and Flying Fish Exhibits  –​to name but a few. They offer a wide range of exhibits

 159

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 159 and consulting services. Their collaborations with museums in developing shows vary from being quite involved to no involvement at all (‘Imagine Exhibitions Inc. Our Team’ 2017). 4 Developed by the V&A; shown at the NGA. 5 Developed by Les Arts Décoratifs, Paris; shown at QAG. 6 Developed by the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, Maison Jean Paul Gaultier and a freelance curator; shown at the NGV. 7 Developed by Barbican International Enterprises; shown at MV. 8 Harry Potter developed by GES exhibitions; shown at MAAS. Star Wars developed by the Museum of Science, Boston, and Lucasfilm Ltd; shown at MAAS Scienceworks, MV. 9 Developed by Barbican International Enterprises; shown at ACMI. 10 Developed by Imagine Exhibitions Inc. working with NBC Universal Brand Development. 11 Developed by Arts and Exhibitions International in association with the Althorp Estate. 12 Developed by Touring Exhibitions (Sweden) in partnership with Dainty Consolidated Exhibitions, which now exists as TEG Dainty, a live entertainment group; also seen in Melbourne at Federation Square. 13 From the V&A. 14 The largest of these has been The Art of the Brick:  DC Comics (2015–​16), created by American Nathan Sawaya and seen at MAAS in partnership with DC Comics. Australian Ryan McNaught created Brickman: Wonders of the World (2016), which started its global tour at the Brisbane Convention Centre before going on to the Sydney International Convention Centre, Museum Victoria, the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre, and Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in 2017–​18. Both Sawaya and McNaught are LEGO certified professionals (‘LEGO® Certified Professionals’ 2017). 15 In recent years there have been many discussions about the future of MAAS. The NSW government considered plans to merge the museum with the AM to consolidate resources (Morgan 2007). The government is currently planning to move MAAS from its heritage site to Parramatta in Sydney’s western suburbs. This decision, presented as an opportunity for reinvention and a chance to locate MAAS closer to the population centre of Sydney, has encountered fervent backlash. Critics argue that the move has been motivated by financial interests on the part of the government (White 2017; Winkworth 2016). 16 A buy-​in from Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, developed with New Line Cinema. 17 The museum was first approached by GES in 2009 to stage this exhibit, securing exclusive rights in 2011 (MAAS 2012, 11). 18 MAAS reported two different visitor tallies for this exhibition: 52,105 or 75,608. Both were well below the Harry Potter benchmark (MAAS 2013, 7, 24). 19 A collaboration between SGA Exhibitions and Aardman Animations. 20 This exhibition returned to Australia in 2018, for another season this time at the QM (QM 2017). 21 International Management Group is a business experienced in managing sporting events, sporting and modelling talent, and television broadcast rights, together with entertainment.

160

160  Blockbuster or bust

References AEA. 2001. Annual Financial Report. Sydney: Art Exhibitions Australia. AGNSW. 2011. The First Emperor: China’s Entombed Warriors. Exhibition Report. Sydney: Art Gallery of NSW. AGNSW. 2012. Art Gallery of New South Wales Annual Report 2011–​ 2012. Sydney: Art Gallery of NSW. AGSA. 2017. Media Release: French Impressionism and the Triumph of Colour: An Exclusive for Australia. Adelaide: Art Gallery of South Australia. October 25. Anderson, Maxwell L. 2007. ‘Prescriptions for Art Museums in the Decade Ahead’. Curator 50 (1): 9–​17. Bailey, Martin. 2016. ‘How David Bowie Went from Hard-​Sell to Record Breaker’. Art Newspaper, March 31. Accessed March 3, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ yclddx9j. Balloffet, Pierre, François H. Courvoisier, and Joëlle Lagier. 2014. ‘From Museum to Amusement Park:  The Opportunities and Risks of Edutainment’. International Journal of Arts Management 16 (2): 4–​16. Barbican International Enterprises. 2017. ‘Exhibition Hire (BIE)’. Barbican. Accessed December 14. www.barbican.org.uk/​hire/​exhibition-​hire-​bie. Barker, Emma. 1999. ‘Exhibiting the Canon: The Blockbuster Show’. In Contemporary Cultures of Display, edited by Emma Barker, 127–​46. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press. BM. 2017. ‘International Exhibitions’. British Museum. Accessed November 20. https://​tinyurl.com/​y974japt. Boland, Michaela. 2012a. ‘Tomb to Overcome the Gloom’. Australian, April 19. Boland, Michaela. 2012b. ‘Museum to Cut Staff to Fill Funds Gap’. Australian, May 8. Boland, Michaela. 2013. ‘Art for Tourism’s Sake:  The Hard-​Headed Equation of Blockbuster Exhibitions’. Australian, April 6. Boland, Michaela. 2015. ‘Museum Exhibits Lack of Pulling Power’. Australian, October 10. Camarero, Carmen, María José Garrido, and Eva Vicente. 2010. ‘Components of Art Exhibition Brand Equity for Internal and External Visitors’. Tourism Management 31 (4): 495–​504. Camarero, Carmen, María José Garrido-​ Samaniego, and Eva Vicente. 2012. ‘Determinants of Brand Equity in Cultural Organizations:  The Case of an Art Exhibition’. The Service Industries Journal 32 (9): 1527–​49. Canberra Times. 2008. ‘Blockbuster’, November 29. Canberra Times. 2009. ‘Stanhope Masterstroke Secures Prized Art for ACT’, August 11. Capling, Ann, and Kim Richard Nossal. 2001. ‘Death of Distance or Tyranny of Distance? The Internet, Deterritorialization, and the Anti-​ Globalization Movement in Australia’. The Pacific Review 14 (3): 443–​65. Churcher, Betty. 1994. ‘Art Museums and Tourism: The Impact of the Blockbuster’. In Creating Culture:  The New Growth Industries:  Conference Papers, 11–​12 August 1994, 85–​9. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Communications and the Arts. Churcher, Betty. 2003. ‘The Years 1990 to 1997’. In Building the Collection, edited by Pauline Greene. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia.

 161

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 161 Cogeval, Guy, Sylvie Patry, Stéphane Guégan, and Christine Dixon. 2009. Masterpieces from Paris Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and beyond: Post-​Impressionism from the Musée d’Orsay. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. 2001. Covering Your Arts: Art Indemnity in Australia. Canberra:  House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts. Commonwealth of Australia. 2008. Proof Committee Hansard. Senate. Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts. Estimates (Budget Estimates). May 29, 2008. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. 2010. Official Committee Hansard. Senate. Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee. Estimates. May 25, 2010. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Coslovich, Gabriella. 2011. ‘Big Bucks and the Boy King’. Age, April 5. Craik, Jennifer, and Sharon Peoples. 2006. ‘Exhibition Review: Vivienne Westwood: 34 Years in Fashion’. Fashion Theory 10 (3): 387–​99. Cresswell, Joel. 2011. ‘Tutankhamun Exhibition Opens in Melbourne’. Australian Associated Press General News, April 6. Edwards, Robert. 1985. Museum of Victoria: A Concept for Development. The Next Decade. Melbourne: Museum Victoria. Elliott, Simon, Shanthini Naidoo, and Adam Worrall. 2011. ‘Group Interview at the National Gallery of Australia to Discuss the Musée d’Orsay Exhibition’. Interview by Chiara O’Reilly and Anna Lawrenson. Ellis, Adrian. 2002. ‘Planning in a Cold Climate’. Presented at the Directors’ Seminar: Leading Retrenchment, The Getty Center, Los Angeles, California, July 21. Accessed December 20, 2017. www.issuelab.org/​resources/​10607/​10607. pdf?download=true. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. ‘Exhibitions’. 2018. teamLab. Accessed January 11. www.teamlab.art/​e/​. ‘Exhibitor List Index’. 2018. AAM Annual Meeting & MuseumExpo 2017. Accessed January 15. https://​tinyurl.com/​ycpr7g79. Exhibits Development Group. 2016. EDG 10 Years: Currently Offering 2016. Saint Paul, MN: EDG. Fairley, Gina. 2015. ‘Is Our Blockbuster Diet Stale:  Who’s Choosing the Menu?’ ArtsHub Australia, September 17. Accessed September 20, 2017. https://​tinyurl. com/​yayvsnl5. Frost, Andrew. 2014. ‘Blockbuster Exhibitions: See Incredible Historical Art on Your Own Doorstep’. Australia Culture Blog (Guardian Australia). August 5. Accessed January 18, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yae42q2d. Gartner, Annelies. 2016. ‘Tutankhamun Riches Brought Back to Life’. West Australian, October 6. GES. 2011. Media Release: GES Brings the Magic of Hollywood to Asia-​Pacific. AAP MediaNet Press Releases. Global Experience Specialist. November 25. Gill, Raymond. 2012. ‘Treading Water on High Cost of Scholarship and the Lure of Popular Entertainment’. Age, April 7. Gilmore, Heath. 2014a. ‘Museum to Sack a Fifth of Staff’. Sydney Morning Herald, May 2.

162

162  Blockbuster or bust Gilmore, Heath. 2014b. ‘Plan Takes Wing to Lure Visitors Back to Powerhouse’. Sydney Morning Herald, May 5. Gopnik, Blake. 2013. ‘The Rush to the Box Office’. Art Newspaper 245 (April): 16–​17. Grishin, Sasha. 2016. ‘Tom Roberts at the National Gallery of Australia Has Gone Gangbusters and Here’s Why’. Canberra Times, March 23. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y88bdjko. Harris, Chris. 2016. ‘Interview regarding Australian Centre for the Moving Image’s International Touring program’. Interview by Anna Lawrenson and Chiara O’Reilly. Ho, Olivia. 2017. ‘Show Me the Monet:  10 Highlights from National Gallery Singapore’s Colours of Impressionism’. Straits Times, November 13. Hughes, Robert. 1984. ‘Art and Money’. New York Review of Books, December 6. ICEE. 2017. ‘ICOM International Committee for Exhibition Exchange’. ICOM ICEE. Accessed November 20. http://​network.icom.museum/​icee/​. ICOM ICEE. 2004.‘2004 –​Seoul: The Quest for the Eternal Blockbuster: Impressionist Paintings of Egyptian Dinosaurs’. International Committee for Exhibitions and Exchange. Accessed September 26, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​ybne7clf. Idacavage, Sara. 2016. ‘David Bowie Is’. Fashion Theory 20 (4): 485–​93. ‘Imagine Exhibitions Inc. Our Team’. 2017. Imagine Exhibitions. Accessed November 16. https://​tinyurl.com/​yah2blbv. Jacobsen, John W. 2014. ‘The Community Service Museum:  Owning up to Our Multiple Missions’. Museum Management and Curatorship 29 (1): 1–​18. Kotler, Neil, and Philip Kotler. 2000. ‘Can Museums Be All Things to All People?:  Missions, Goals, and Marketing’s Role’. Museum Management and Curatorship 18 (3): 271–​87. ‘LEGO® Certified Professionals’. 2017. LEGO.com. Accessed September 27. https://​ tinyurl.com/​ydf76df2. Limelight PR. 2011. Media Release: Melbourne Winter Masterpieces: Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs. Melbourne: Limelight PR. MAAS. 2008. Annual Report 07–​ 08. Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences Incorporating Powerhouse Museum, Sydney Observatory, Powerhouse Discovery Centre and NSW Migration Heritage Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. MAAS. 2010. Annual Report 09–​10. Incorporating Powerhouse Museum, Sydney Observatory, Powerhouse Discovery Centre and NSW Migration Heritage Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. MAAS. 2011. Annual Report 2010–​ 2011. Incorporating Powerhouse Museum, Sydney Observatory, Powerhouse Discovery Centre and NSW Migration Heritage Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. MAAS. 2012. Annual Report 2011–​ 2012. Incorporating Powerhouse Museum, Sydney Observatory, Powerhouse Discovery Centre and NSW Migration Heritage Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. MAAS. 2013. Annual Report 2012–​ 2013. Powerhouse Museum, Sydney Observatory, Powerhouse Discovery Centre and NSW Migration Heritage Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. MAAS. 2014. Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences 2020 Vision. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. MAAS. 2015. Annual Report 2014–​15. Powerhouse Museum. Sydney Observatory. Discovery Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences.

 163

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 163 MAAS. 2016. 2015–​ 2016 Annual Report. Powerhouse Museum. Sydney Observatory. Museums Discovery Centre. Sydney:  Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. MAAS. 2017. 2016–​2017 Annual Report. Powerhouse Museum. Sydney Observatory. Museums Discovery Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. Malkin, Bonnie. 2017. ‘Magic Touch: When Museums Get Family Exhibitions Right’. Guardian, December 14. Accessed May 13, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8yzlj5v. Marshall, Christopher. 2006. ‘Art Museums in an Age of Bread and Circuses’. Australian Book Review, March: 34–​7. McColl, Gina. 2013. ‘Blockbusted: Melbourne Galleries for Hire?’ Sydney Morning Herald, May 21. McDonald, John. 2016. ‘Degas en Pointe’. Sydney Morning Herald, July 30. Morgan, Joyce. 2007. ‘Powerhouse Merger off Table after Debus Reversal’. Sydney Morning Herald, March 29. Accessed January 18, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ ycaeyb3k. Mottram, Murray. 2003. ‘Nobody Saurus’. Age, January 4.  Accessed August 11, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​y7fdxwwx. Munro, Kelsey. 2010. ‘Always Picking up the Pieces’. Sydney Morning Herald, January 30. Musées d’Orsay et de l’Orangerie. 2011. Rapport d’activité 2011. Paris:  Musées d’Orsay et de l’Orangerie. MV. 2009. A Day in Pompeii. Melbourne: Museum Victoria. MV. 2011. Museums Board of Victoria Annual Report 2010–​11. Melbourne: Museum Victoria. MV. 2012. Museums Board of Victoria Annual Report 2011–​2012. Melbourne: Museum Victoria. MV. 2013. Museums Board of Victoria Annual Report 2012–​13. Melbourne: Museum Victoria. National Galleries Scotland. 2016. National Galleries Scotland. Annual Review 2015–​16. Edinburgh: National Galleries Scotland. National Gallery Singapore. 2017. ‘Colours of Impressionism:  Masterpieces from the Musée d’Orsay’. National Gallery Singapore. Accessed December 15. https://​ tinyurl.com/​y949xzsb. New Zealand Herald. 2009. ‘Van Gogh & Co in Canberra Extravaganza’, September 20. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yb464ojj. NGA. 2010. Annual Report 2009–​2010. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. NGV. 2005. Year in Review 04/​ 05 Annual Report. Council of Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. NGV. 2016. NGV Annual Report 2015/​16. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. Northover, Kylie. 2011. ‘Pharaoh, Pharaoh:  King Tut Show Is Where the People Go’. Sydney Morning Herald, December 7. Accessed December 12, 2017. https://​ tinyurl.com/​y88apnm7. NSW Auditor-​General. 2011. NSW Auditor-​ General’s Report:  Financial Audit. Focusing on Education and Communities. Volume 9.  Sydney:  Audit Office of NSW. NSW Auditor-​General. 2012. NSW Auditor-​ General’s Report:  Financial Audit. Focusing on Education and Communities. Volume 9. Sydney: Audit Office of NSW. Packer, Jan, and Roy Ballantyne. 2004. ‘Is Educational Leisure A  Contradiction in Terms? Exploring the Synergy of Education and Entertainment’. Annals of Leisure Research 7 (1): 54–​71.

164

164  Blockbuster or bust Pearson, Alison. 2015. ‘Monet Makes the Art World Go Around’. Daily Telegraph (London), July 8. Pes, Javier, José da Silva, and Emily Sharpe. 2017. ‘Visitor Figures 2016: Exhibition and Museum Attendance Survey’. Art Newspaper 289 (April): 2–​3, 6–​14. Power, Julie. 2018. ‘Push for Titanic-​Style Blockbusters’. Sydney Morning Herald, March 17. Pronitcheva, Karina. 2018. ‘Luxury Brands and Public Museums: From Anniversary Exhibitions to Co-​Branding’. In Global Luxury, edited by Pierre-​Yves Donzé and Rika Fujioka, 219–​37. Singapore: Palgrave. Pryor, Sally. 2009. ‘Greats Glow Under Our Lights Fantastic’. Canberra Times, December 4. Pryor, Sally. 2011. ‘More Than Just Painting by Numbers’. Canberra Times, December 26. QM. 2017. Media Release:  Tickets on Sale for Queensland Museum Exhibition Revealing Mummies’ Secrets. Brisbane:  Queensland Museum. December 1. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yd8gsaue. Rentschler, Ruth, Kerrie Bridson, and Jody Evans. 2014. ‘Exhibitions as Sub-​ Brands:  An Exploratory Study’. Arts Marketing:  An International Journal 4 (1–​2): 45–​66. Safe, Georgina. 2003. ‘Monet, That’s What We Want’. Australian, December 18. SC Exhibitions. 2016. Showbiz Culture:  The SC Exhibitions Magazine 2016. Bayreuth: SC Exhibitions. SC Exhibitions. 2017. The Discovery of King Tut 100th Anniversary 1922–​2022. Bayreuth: SC Exhibitions. Accessed February 23, 2018. www.sc-​exhibitions.com/​ kingtut/​. ‘SENSORY4TM Exhibition Technology’. 2017. Grande Exhibitions. Accessed November 22. http://​grandeexhibitions.com/​what-​is-​sensory4/​. Smith, Angela. 2016. ‘Art Now: Riding the Carousel’. Meanjin 75 (3): 64–​70. Sun Herald. 2010. ‘Advertisement: Masterpieces from Paris’, April 11. Taylor, Andrew. 2013. ‘Museum Prostituted for Populism: Schofield’. Sydney Morning Herald, May 11. Accessed January 18, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8qv6djx. Thistleton, John. 2010. ‘Brush with Art Crowds Tests Café Culture’. Canberra Times, March 17. Thomas, Daniel. 2011. ‘Art Museums in Australia: A Personal Retrospect’. Journal of Art Historiography 4 (June): 1–​14. ‘Touring Exhibitions Meeting’. 2017. Accessed November 21. http://​touring exhibitions.org/​. V&A. 2013. V&A Annual Review 2012/​13. London: Victoria and Albert Museum. V&A. 2014. V&A 2014–​2015 Iteration of the Strategic Plan 2011–​2015. London: Victoria and Albert Museum. V&A. 2017. ‘V&A Exhibitions for Hire’. Victoria and Albert Museum. Accessed September 26. www.vam.ac.uk/​info/​exhibitions-​for-​hire. Van Egmond Group. 2018. ‘Exhibitions Archives’. Van Egmond Group. Accessed May 12. http://​vanegmond.com.au/​category/​exhibitions/​. Weekend Argus. 2015. ‘Tutankhamun Tomb Exhibition Is an Educational Treasure Trove’, July 4. West, Shearer. 1995. ‘The Devaluation of “Cultural Capital”:  Post-​ Modern Democracy and the Art Blockbuster’. In Art in Museums, edited by Susan M. Pearce, 74–​93. London; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone Press.

 165

Global buy-ins and blockbuster tropes 165 White, Judith. 2017. ‘The Powerhouse Scandal:  A Case Study in Cultural Vandalism’. Culture Heist. Accessed January 18, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ y8mru4wc. Winkworth, Kylie. 2016. ‘Infrastructure NSW, Stitching up the Case to Sell the PHM’. Powerhouse Museum Alliance. Accessed January 18, 2018. https://​tinyurl. com/​y8uuuvlh. Zarmati, Louise. 2011. ‘“Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs” Comes to Melbourne Museum’. Teaching History 45 (1): 34–​7. Zarobell, John. 2017. Art and the Global Economy. Oakland, CA:  University of California Press.

166

7  Scholarship and the exportation of Australian exhibitions

I don’t want to waste my time resenting the blockbuster. (Churcher 1994, 86) I think blockbusters is a dirty word in many places, and it’s a sort of cash cow in other places. And the truth is, very much somewhere in between and also far more nuanced than that. (Harris 2016)

Having considered Australian museums as recipients of international exhibitions, trading on known topics to heighten brand recognition and visitation, we now look at Australian museums as producers of such content. A blockbuster producer is faced with a paradox: how to devise a new and unique way of presenting an internationally recognised topic. This dilemma has led to tensions around the place of scholarship in the blockbuster (Barker 1999; Spear 1986), and the format’s capacity to communicate local narratives (Frost 2014a). Previously we questioned the implications of the pre-​packaged exhibition for the telling of Australian stories, arguing that local narratives are rarely presented on the same scale as international buy-​ins. One explanation of this is that, in a purely practical sense, major temporary exhibitions of Australian content simply do not attract the same visitation as their international counterparts (Grishin 2016). The recent National Gallery of Australia blockbuster on an Australian Impressionist painter, Tom Roberts (2015–​16), was the first exhibition on a single Australian artist to feature in that gallery’s summer blockbuster slot (Boland 2016, 14). The show ‘set a new record for a paid exhibition of a single Australian artist’, but to achieve this result it was marketed heavily, ‘equivalent to what the gallery would spend on an international blockbuster’, yet did not attract comparable sponsorship to offset expenses (Boland 2016, 14). The show was therefore costly to stage and, although its 132,000 visitors set a record, it fell well short of the records achieved by international blockbusters. As Sasha Grishin has noted, ‘blockbuster exhibitions dealing with Australian art, that have admission charges, rarely succeed in attracting large numbers’ (2016).1 In the blockbuster realm it is more common for Australian content

 167

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 167 to become a small or complementary element of exhibitions on internationally known periods or individuals:  the familiarity of the global brand is maintained but the exhibition takes on some local flavour.2 The tension apparent in Australian institutions today is that they need to find ways to sustain the program of blockbusters while still attending to their longer-​term, mission-​related activities of serving local audiences, developing collections and disseminating research (Alderton 2016; Marshall 2006; Power 2018). This reflects global trends toward a more corporate business model for cultural institutions (Bradburne 2004; Ellis 2002). Criticism of blockbusters that focuses only on their educational value and contribution to a scholarly field (Spear 1986)  fails to consider that they can play a role in fostering professional skills, telling local stories, helping organisations develop new sources of funding while contributing to scholarship. Experimentation with the development of blockbusters by Australian institutions is resulting in new ways of collaborating in order to reach some of these goals. This has seen exhibitions created to be internationally attractive on the worldwide touring circuit. In some instances, as this chapter will show, this involves telling uniquely Australian stories, but in others the content is global. The exhibitions discussed here demonstrate that an important consideration for museums is how to extend the value of the institution’s investment in research towards exhibitions (Alderton 2016; Harris 2016; NMA 2017a, 12). This has resulted, we argue, in different approaches to securing the resources needed to shape in-​house exhibitions. What is constant in our research across this area is the importance of collaboration. This signals that, while the presentation of international blockbusters in Australia sees local institutions compete for audiences and exhibitions (Power 2018, 9; Usher 2011, 15), collaboration can still happen on internally devised shows. Often this represents a conscious decision by cultural organisations to invest in temporary shows and support long-​term development of expertise, resulting in exhibition innovations (Alderton 2016; Harris 2016). This chapter charts two parallel narratives here: the presentation of Australian stories –​so often displaced in the push towards large-​scale blockbusters –​and the presentation of Australian scholarship and creativity. These narratives provide an important example of how Australia is contributing to international discourse on blockbuster exhibitions, and provides further evidence of its importance in this wider history.

In defence of scholarship Blockbusters everywhere have had a vexed relationship with scholarship; art blockbusters are sometimes seen as ‘inimical to the development of art-​historical scholarship’ (Barker 1999, 127). In a more forceful indictment, they have been labelled ‘intellectually vacuous’ (Spear 1986, 358). This notion has been echoed in Australian criticism by Grishin (2009) and

168

168  Blockbuster or bust McDonald, the latter arguing that the curatorial premise is often dictated by Australian museums being forced to ‘take what they’re given’ (2016, 6). Such criticism can be valid, especially in relation to packaged buy-​ins where the host museum makes little contribution (McColl 2013).3 But the ‘blockbuster’ label has not always implied lack of scholarship. A  more nuanced examination reveals that scholarship has been central to the Australian investment in blockbusters since early exhibitions such as Dinosaurs from China (1982) through to present-​day shows such as Napoleon: Revolution to Empire (2012) or Degas: A New Vision (2016), both developed by the National Gallery of Victoria. An important justification for these exhibits has been their unique ability to present objects and new cultural-​history approaches to large audiences. Further, the host museum contributed significantly to their conception, scholarship and general development (Dinosaurs from China 1982; Gott 2012; Loyrette 2016; McDonald 2016). The scholarly underpinning of Australian blockbusters was emphasised in the approach of Betty Churcher at the National Gallery of Australia. Churcher advocated for the positive contribution of blockbusters, pragmatically proclaiming that ‘to suggest that popularity is inimical to scholarly rigour is to seriously underestimate the intelligence of our public’ (Churcher 1994, 86). To illustrate the potential for combining scholarship and popular appeal, Churcher singled out four exhibitions as emblematic of her vision for blockbusters. The first, Surrealism: Revolution by Night (1993), positioned Australian Surrealism among the international movement and was exhibited in Canberra, Brisbane and Sydney. In locating Australian Surrealists among universally known artists like Dali and Magritte, Churcher provided a familiar product, underpinned by original research –​this was characteristic of her approach (Churcher 1994, 89).4 Churcher identified a clear set of goals for the blockbuster: to open up art to the largest possible audience; to foster and celebrate scholarship; and to situate works from Australian collections in a broader international context (Churcher 1994, 89). In pursuing these aims, Churcher collaborated with Australian scholars to devise new approaches to well-​known subjects, as seen in Virginia Spate’s work on Monet in Japan (2001), which achieved a record audience in Perth (AGWA 2002, 6). This scholarly collaborative model was also used elsewhere, with art historian Roger Benjamin shaping Matisse (1995), which toured Australia with support from Art Exhibitions Australia. More recently, Pop to Popism (2014–​15) at the Art Gallery of NSW used the familiar work of artists such as Warhol and Lichtenstein to lure visitors into a show that also had a local focus. The show was curated by the gallery’s Wayne Tunnicliffe, and ‘was conceived as a way of putting Australian art from the gallery’s permanent collection into an international context’, which was welcomed as an example of what could be achieved ‘with resources, space and time’ (Frost 2014b). Arguably these factors  –​resources, space and time  –​continue to elude many museums seeking to present internally generated content. So

 169

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 169 partnerships are an important means to amass the resources required to stage innovative blockbusters based on Australian collections or research. Recently, for example, the state art galleries in Adelaide and Perth combined resources to develop Treasure Ships:  Art in the Age of Spices (2015)  –​ promoted as the ‘first major exhibition in Australia to present the complex artistic and cultural interaction between Europe and Asia from the sixteenth to early nineteenth centuries’ (Gwinnett 2014, 13). Given that institutions in South Australia and Western Australia have struggled to compete with the more populous and less isolated Australian eastern-​ seaboard states, this partnership can be seen as a novel rebuke. The exhibition drew largely on the Adelaide collection, supplemented by targeted national and international loans (Bennett and Kelty 2015). The Art Gallery of South Australia also launched a fundraising campaign and sought grant assistance to cover the significant development costs (AGSA 2015, 22, 9; Gwinnett 2014, 13). In spite of its resource-​intensive development, it was a blockbuster in ambition only (AGSA 2016, 66). Although costly in staff time and money, this style of exhibit continues to form part of the blockbuster offerings of Australian museums. But even this small sample shows that they must either rely on known names to lure visitors, or find creative ways to fund the lengthy development phase from external sources. Such exhibits are not unique to Australia, but they do show how blockbusters can support scholarship and be more than simply a commercial populist experience.5 The cost, however, is the museum’s significant investment.

New exhibition development models for scholarly research Exhibitions are the most outwardly visible aspect of museum work (McLean 1999, 83). Although it is beyond the scope of this book to examine in detail the repercussions of museum corporatisation on collection development and care, we know that, in tight times, collection care is often sidelined in order to keep the public-​facing aspects of the museum functioning (van Barneveld and Chiu 2017). In considering some of the innovative ways in which recent blockbusters have been developed, there is evidence that research partnerships have enabled museums to address both collections and audiences. This was seen at the National Museum of Australia, where an exhibition partnership ultimately supported collection development and documentation through a major acquisition. This example shows that blockbusters can do more than just attract visitors to demonstrate success against quantitative measures. As the discussion of this exhibition demonstrates, the show itself and subsequent acquisition augmented both the collection and the institution’s research capacity, and enabled the museum to meet its goals for attracting new audiences. All of this supported subsequent exhibition projects (NMA 2015a, 32; NMA 2017a, 20). The exhibition in question, Yiwarra Kuju: The Canning Stock Route

170

170  Blockbuster or bust (2011), included solely Australian content, which helped the museum meet its mission to tell Australian stories (NMA 2014b, 3). The National Museum of Australia is a relatively young museum, which opened in its permanent location in 2001. It is constituted around three themes:  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and cultures, Australian society and history since 1788, and people and the environment (NMA 2014b, 4). Yiwarra Kuju covered all three, offering an Aboriginal perspective on the Country bisected by an overland track laid out by government surveyor Alfred Canning between 1906 and 1910 to serve the pastoral industry (Davenport, La Fontaine, and Carty 2010). The project’s main aim was ‘to provide artists, elders and young people the means to share their stories in a way that reflected the social logic, historical sweep and cultural networks of the Western Desert’ (Davenport Acker 2015, 178). The museum’s director stated: ‘For many years, the story of the Stock Route was represented as a white man’s story –​this collection makes us recognise that its history goes back much further, and is held in the minds and hearts of the Aboriginal people of the region’ (Craddock Morton cited in NMA 2009). Yiwarra Kuju was staged in the museum’s large temporary exhibition space and drew on a range of content, including artworks, objects and multimedia, with the space itself designed to evoke the geography of the Country represented (Hewitt 2016, 132–​57). As a major temporary exhibition it was ‘a huge success’, attracting 122,234 visitors –​the largest exhibition attendance at the museum since its 2001 opening (NMA 2011, 13, 8). It proved that, for this institution, Australian content could be a major drawcard. Although it is important to recognise that these numbers are still well short of major internationally sourced blockbusters (Grishin 2016; Pes, da Silva, and Sharpe 2017; Smith 2004, 7). The exhibition was the result of a partnership, established in late 2008, between the museum and FORM, a Perth-​based, independent, not-​for-​profit arts organisation, which had initiated the project two years earlier, in association with ten Aboriginal art and culture centres across northern Western Australia (FORM 2012, 64). FORM’s aim was to work directly with community-​based art centres to research and document artists’ connections to the story of the Canning Stock Route (CSR Project 2018). In doing so, FORM amassed paintings and their stories, collected oral histories, and produced documentary films, which comprised the basis of its exhibition proposal to the museum. The museum agreed to host the show and then ‘to be a partner in its development’ (Pickering 2010, x). As recalled by Pickering, the museum was impressed by ‘the wealth of information implicit in the works and explicit in the accompanying documentation’, making it a project of ‘national importance’ (2010, x). The partnership with FORM gave the museum access to detailed primary research developed in close consultation with communities (Davenport, La Fontaine, and Carty 2010). FORM’s project ‘involved over 250 Aboriginal participants, over 100 Aboriginal artists and elders, approximately 100

 171

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 171 non-​indigenous contributors, and a cross-​cultural project team of curators, filmmakers, photographers and cultural advisors’, who ‘produced something like 40,000 unique cultural heritage items’ (FORM 2018). As Carly Davenport Acker, one of the project founders, argued, FORM was uniquely positioned, because its independence lent it a flexibility to expand as new opportunities arose. For her, ‘Only an agile, not-​for-​profit organisation working with communities would naively dare to imagine, kick-​start and attempt to sustain an initiative like the Canning Stock Route Project’ (Davenport Acker 2015, 200). Although cultural organisations aspire to foster community consultation and collaboration, they are often limited by project timelines, available human resources, and budget constraints (O’Reilly and Lawrenson 2014). In partnering with FORM, which aimed to use the project to build community capacity as well as to document stories (Davenport Acker 2015), the museum arguably gained a significant number of benefits from a manageable investment.6 The museum’s purchase of the Canning Stock Route collection and associated information in 2009 undoubtedly enriched its holdings. Its director described the acquisition as ‘one of the most important collections which the Museum has acquired’ (Craddock Morton cited in NMA 2009). But the longer-​ term benefits of the partnership were also considerable. Beyond the initial exhibition, the museum drew on the collection and its documentation to further the project’s aim to tell Indigenous Australian stories in new ways. The show was repackaged as a touring exhibition, first seen in Western Australia, where it coincided with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (2011). It then toured to the Australian Museum (2011–​12) in Sydney and the Queensland Museum in Brisbane (2013). Across these venues it attracted nearly 100,000 visitors (NMA 2012, 31; NMA 2013, 30; NMA 2014a, 30), significantly expanding the originating museum’s reach, in line with its national remit. Moreover, this rich collection, now part of the National Museum of Australia, continues to inform further projects. Elements have featured in other exhibitions (NMA 2018b), as well as being reconfigured, in a partnership with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australian diplomatic missions, as a panel display for international touring (NMA 2015a, 32). This was shown in China, Turkey, Chile, India, the Philippines, Japan, Mexico, Thailand, Russia, Tonga and Indonesia in 2014–​ 15, attracting 347,238 visitors (NMA 2015a, 32)  and a further 206,000 on its tour in 2015–​16 (NMA 2017, 20). A temporary outdoor panel exhibition in Mexico City, celebrating fifty years of diplomatic relations between Australia and Mexico in October 2016, was seen by an estimated 2 million people (NMA 2017, 20; Fig. 7.1). Alongside these panel shows, a more traditional museum exhibition toured to four venues in Japan as One Road: Aboriginal Art from Australia’s Deserts (2016–​17) (Trinca 2018). This series of exhibitions contributes to an impressive cumulative visitor profile. The international tour of One Road across Japan was part of

172

172  Blockbuster or bust

Figure 7.1 Opening of Yiwarra Kuju: The Canning Stock Route display, Rejas de Chapultepec, Mexico City, 24 October 2016. Featuring Alejandro Salafranca, Coordinator of the Historic, Artistic and Cultural Heritage of Mexico City, David Engel, Australian Ambassador to Mexico, Claudio Ruz Gutiérrez, General Director of Protocol and Diplomacy of Mexico City and José Manuel Rodríguez Ramírez, Deputy Technical Director of Open Galleries, Ministry of Culture of Mexico City. Photo: Milton Martínez. Courtesy of Secretaría de Cultura CDMX. www.flickr.com/​photos/​culturacdmx/​30545644165/​in/​album-​ 72157675559517406/​(CC BY-​SA 2.0).

the National Museum of Australia’s international travelling exhibitions program, which focuses on its position as a ‘world leader in the interpretation and presentation of Australia’s Indigenous histories and cultures through art’ (NMA 2017b).7 This program has seen the museum exhibit material in China and Japan, and collaborate with the British Museum on Indigenous Australia: Enduring Civilisation (2015) (discussed further below). The Yiwarra Kuju project is a convincing example of a strategic partnership, constituted in the first instance to stage an exhibition, that has benefited a museum in many ways. As this example demonstrates there is scope for blockbuster exhibitions of Australian content, that are central to the mission of a museum, in addition to promoting its brand internationally and fulfilling a government’s diplomatic objectives. This could not have been achieved, however, without the partnership arrangement which gave them access to original primary research (Pickering 2010). Through its collaboration with FORM, the museum gained access to a network of

 173

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 173 communities, individuals and experts who ensured that the resulting exhibition was innovative and succeeded in telling Indigenous Australian stories (Davenport Acker 2015). The exhibition’s flexibility as both an object-​based show suitable for cultural institutions and a panel exhibition serving a more political function was fundamental to its success because it enabled multiple locations. Furthermore, the exhibition, and the multiplicity of formats it has generated, helps the National Museum of Australia meet its remit to celebrate Australian culture on the international stage (Trinca 2018). The project’s benefits for the museum’s permanent collection are also important. The 2009 acquisition meant that the initial investment has a sustained return for the institution in terms of cumulative visitor numbers and collection research. It also opened up opportunities for future projects, with Songlines:  Tracking the Seven Sisters (2017–​ 18) taking a similar approach, this time using government-​funded research partnerships (Neale 2017). Songlines has also been a critically acclaimed and popular exhibition (Nicholls 2018). The National Museum of Australia is establishing itself as an important developer of blockbusters presenting Indigenous stories thus providing an example of collaboration and innovative exhibition development that sets a standard for institutions globally.8

Institutional partnerships Partnerships between cultural institutions enable resource-​ deprived museums to pool reserves, piggyback on more established organisations, or identify a point of uniqueness they can exploit in collaborating on new exhibitions (Ellis 2002; Ellis 2009). In the competitive exhibition landscape, institutional partnerships are commonplace and are often essential to meeting objectives. This is reflected in many annual reports and strategic plans, such as the Art Gallery of South Australia’s in 2014: ‘[T]‌he development of a long-​term major exhibitions partnership is critical to ensuring that the Art Gallery remains relevant on a national and international stage, and delivers upon the goal to develop South Australia as a cultural tourism destination’ (AGSA 2014, 10). The gallery’s ambition to secure such a partnership represents a standard association with an overseas institution to capitalise on the rarity and exclusivity of a packaged exhibit (McColl 2013, 3). But arguably partnerships that are more reciprocal in nature have greater potential to advance knowledge through scholarship. One of the strongest recent examples of this in Australia has been the linkage between the National Museum of Australia and the British Museum. These institutions signed a memorandum of understanding in 2009, initially for twin exhibits to be held at each venue, which was then expanded to include two further loan shows from the British Museum’s collection (NMA 2015b). This first aspect of the partnership used the rich array of Australian Indigenous cultural items in the British Museum’s collection as the foundation for two exhibitions:  Indigenous Australia:  Enduring Civilisation

174

174  Blockbuster or bust (2015), attended by 59,000 people in London (BM 2016, 6), and Encounters: Revealing Stories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Objects from the British Museum (2015–​ 16), seen by 98,392 visitors in Canberra (NMA 2016a, 27). As well as making Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural collections the centrepiece of two major temporary exhibitions, this partnership, along with a government-​funded research grant with the Australian National University, enabled Australian Indigenous communities to reconnect with their cultural collections housed at the British Museum (BM 2016, 5). This important aspect of cultural inclusion is considered best practice in Australian museums (Museums Australia 2005), but it represented a significant shift for the British Museum, which had previously been much less collaborative in working with source communities (Daley 2016; Gorrey 2015; Nugent 2015; Prott 2006). Moreover, the exhibition constituted the ‘first time the British Museum has staged a major exhibition devoted to Indigenous Australia’ (Nugent 2015), in spite of its considerable holdings in this area. For Peter Yu, chair of the National Museum of Australia’s Indigenous Reference Group, the partnership ‘created opportunities for reflection and dialogue between our respective nations and peoples, and is a milestone in the relationship between Indigenous Australia, and the British and Australian public’ (Yu 2015, 11). Wider gains included support for a research project to ‘investigat[e]‌ dispersed collections … and ways in which local and international museums can share data and support communities in their engagement with collections’ (BM 2016, 5) –​again, a radical shift in the British Museum’s involvement with source communities (Simpson 1996, 223–​8). This aspect of the partnership enabled the connections and expertise of the National Museum of Australia to influence the British Museum in a positive way.9 Australian historian Maria Nugent even suggested that ‘such an exhibition can change how the conversation about relationships between Indigenous people, museums and collections is conducted’ (Nugent 2015). The exhibition’s Australian component presented historical collection items from the British Museum alongside ‘new objects from the Indigenous communities represented in the exhibition’ (NMA 2018a) in order to illuminate their cultural significance. Importantly, these research driven activities also benefited the more commercial aspects of the museum. A  further agreement was signed for the National Museum of Australia to host two more British Museum shows: A History of the World in 100 Objects (2016–​17), which in Canberra attracted 178,220 visitors, and an exhibition on ancient Rome: City and Empire (2018–​ 19) (NMA 2016a, 27).10 For the National Museum of Australia the association with the globally recognised brand of the British Museum is attractive for reaching new audiences, and for the British Museum the exhibitions are part of its strategy to position itself internationally (BM 2017). Through this partnership, the National Museum of Australia has arguably fulfilled its mandate to involve Indigenous communities and the wider

 175

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 175 public, built an international profile, and secured buy-​in exhibitions to meet its quantitative success measures (NMA 2014b). Furthermore, the museum continues to build on its reputation for staging well-​designed, large-​scale blockbusters presenting Indigenous Australian narratives, underpinned by community collaboration, and helping improve international museum practice. Lastly, this trend is evidence of how the National Museum of Australia has started a dialogue with a major international museum with a view to improving the way in which that museum works with Indigenous peoples and their collections. The relationships that have been formed through this association have the potential to change the British Museum’s attitudes and practices. This in itself is a major outcome of the partnership. More broadly, institutional partnerships have been vital to the National Museum of Australia, which has signed memoranda of understanding to benefit the institution itself, and advance the government’s agenda for cultural diplomacy. These include an agreement with the Muséum d’histoire naturelle du Havre, which, as with the British Museum agreement, facilitates access to collections relevant to the history of Australia (NMA 2017a, 20), as well as aligning with diplomatic goals (Cerabona 2018; Fornasiero, Lawton, and West-​Sooby 2016). Other agreements involve nations with which Australia has close trade and diplomatic ties: the National Heritage Board, Singapore; Papua New Guinea National Museum and Art Gallery; and the National Museum of China (NMA 2017a, 20). These agreements provide for more than exhibitions:  they are designed to ‘foster staff exchanges to build cross-​country expertise and understanding and undertake joint research and collection management projects’ (NMA 2016b, [2]‌). It is not surprising that this diplomatic function is central to the role of the federally funded National Museum of Australia; similar work is done by other national institutions: the Australian National Maritime Museum, National Library of Australia, and National Gallery of Australia. Partnerships and a renewed emphasis on forming relationships with institutions overseas reflect trends across Australian museums for funding and developing exhibitions (ANMM 2018). Australian museums have always formed partnerships with their international counterparts, but, while the sector was developing, these were about building capacity, as was seen in the Carnegie grant program discussed in Chapter 2. More recently, Australia has acted as an intermediary between the larger and smaller museum sectors and has sought to improve practice in larger museums through partnerships like that with the British Museum. Thus the National Museum of Australia is a leader in the field, seeking out new ways to demonstrate the value of cultural exchange by building relationships with academia, the private sector and established institutions around the world. As has been shown these foster scholarship and innovation, and help secure blockbuster exhibitions that build resources and tell both Australian and international stories.

176

176  Blockbuster or bust

Selling an international product Like the National Museum, Australian institutions’ contributions to the international world of exhibitions have often told uniquely Australian stories –​particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ones. Although this is an extremely important contribution, some Australian museums, as will be discussed below, are also generating exhibitions for the touring market with content that is deliberately international in scope. Developing shows for the international market presents difficulties for Australian institutions. Art galleries do not have the collection depth to export shows of non-​Australian content,11 due to their history of collecting predominantly local art, and lack of comprehensive holdings of major works by internationally recognised artists with wide international appeal (Churcher 1994, 88; McDonald 2016, 6). This is why, in the early days of blockbusters in Australia, galleries were preoccupied with compensating for perceived gaps in their own collections. Non-​art museums concentrated on developing collections and on research, making them latecomers in realising the potential of blockbusters. For these reasons Australian institutions have more frequently been recipients of imported blockbusters than initiators of such shows. But this has changed in recent times. Some Australian cultural organisations, particularly science, natural history, popular culture, and technology museums, are leading the way to an alternative model that sees them exploiting their expertise and knowledge, rather than objects, to develop blockbuster exhibits for export.12 It is important to distinguish these exhibitions from those that have been exported with the aim of raising the profile and understanding of Australian collections, history, or identity like the National Museum of Australia. These experiments do not aim at initiating a dialogue on Australian culture; rather they are international products marketed to appeal globally and to provide another source of revenue for the initiating museum (ACMI 2015, 7; McKay cited in AM 2017, 6, 31). ACMI and the Australian Museum are leaders here; both have embraced the idea of exhibitions as products that are tested first on Australian audiences before being sold overseas. The benefits include defraying costs of producing exhibits, developing the institutional brand internationally, and raising revenue in a climate of successive funding cuts. Although these two institutions have adopted different methods, both deliberately focus on globalised content. ACMI has made a substantial investment in its two exhibits developed in house:  Game Masters:  The Exhibition (2012) and DreamWorks Animation: The Exhibition (2014; Fig. 7.2). Both were launched at ACMI as part of the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces series (Creative Victoria 2015), before being made available for international touring (ACMI 2018d). ACMI’s 2015 annual report identified this as a conscious strategy for the institution to ‘spread [its] wings’ through its ‘newly established international touring program [which] is the most successful in the country’ (ACMI 2015, 7). The program’s importance was reinforced the following year when it had become ‘a growing part of our business’, extending the institution’s reach

 177

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 177

Figure 7.2 Installation view, ACMI’s DreamWorks Animation: The Exhibition, Arts Science Museum, Singapore 2015. Photo: Anat Meiri. Courtesy of ACMI.

and delivering ‘vital revenue’ (ACMI 2017a, 32). To service this demand, ACMI has established a separate and significantly expanded touring exhibition business unit (Harris 2016). ACMI’s initiation of international touring exhibitions is an excellent example of an Australian institution building success on innovation and is a model highly relevant to institutions globally. Like the National Museum of Australia, ACMI has a relatively short history at its current site in Melbourne, which opened in 2002, and has risen rapidly, positioning itself as a museum of film, television, video games, digital culture and art (ACMI 2002; ACMI 2018b). This has been helped by the strengths and popularity of its temporary exhibition program of in-​house exhibits and international buy-​ins (ACMI 2018c). ACMI is widely recognised as a dynamic cultural player –​in a recent tally of visitor figures published by the London Art Newspaper, it was the second-​most visited cultural organisation in Australia, and the forty-​first globally (Pes, da Silva, and Sharpe 2017, 14). This is an impressive result for any Australian organisation, and reflects the combined allure of ACMI’s subject matter, permanent displays and rich program of temporary exhibitions (ACMI 2017a). ACMI staff built up their exhibition skills by hosting international buy-​ins, which equipped them to generate their own shows (Harris 2016). Touring

178

178  Blockbuster or bust shows help ensure ACMI’s long-​term sustainability:  visitor statistics from numerous countries and venues can be accumulated, and revenue raised can support continued growth (ACMI 2016). Significantly, ACMI has made a deliberate decision to also invest in smaller-​scale shows, described by director Katrina Sedgwick as ‘sacrificing big attendance with immersive solo experiences’ (ACMI 2017a, 9). By touring content internationally, it allows more freedom in local programming, enabling a focus on the smaller shows identified by Sedgwick without compromising overall audience numbers. In this way, exhibitions provide both a source of income and an opportunity for innovation, and all contribute to ACMI’s institutional brand. As elaborated here, the process adopted by ACMI to date has relied on trialling and developing exhibits for its home site, in close partnerships with other groups, to secure the content, funding and investment required to sustain its exhibits. Game Masters: The Exhibition (2012) was the first of these international touring shows to be developed –​with the support of the Melbourne Winter Masterpieces program –​celebrating the little-​known figures behind video games and offering an interactive experience for visitors (ACMI 2013, 8; Creative Victoria 2015). Since its launch at ACMI in 2012 it has toured to the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Wellington), MAAS (Sydney), National Museum of Scotland (Edinburgh), Halmstad Arena (Sweden), Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (Portland), Centre for Science and Industry (Columbus, Ohio), and Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe (Hamburg), with touring plans extending into 2018 (ACMI 2017b). At ACMI the exhibition attracted some 100,000 visitors, an impressive figure for the museum at the time, but its accumulated attendances across all venues are much more significant: the showings in Columbus and Hamburg alone attracted 290,000 visitors (ACMI 2017a, 32). The project has brought benefits beyond visitor numbers, including building ACMI’s international reputation as a provider of quality exhibitions (Harris 2016). The curatorial approach and innovation of Game Masters led to further partnerships that resulted in ACMI’s second foray into the international touring market. The chief creative officer of DreamWorks Animation, Bill Damaschke, mused on his positive response to the show and the potential for a collaboration: I thought it was an amazing way of looking at video games, the evolution of video games, the people who make video games, and every aspect of it. And it led to a very organic conversation with Tony Sweeney [then director of ACMI], about had there ever been an exhibition about DreamWorks. And there hadn’t been. (Damaschke cited in Gibbs 2014) Although this reflection provides an indication of the exhibit’s innovation, the partnership with DreamWorks did not begin as casually as Damaschke suggests. In fact it was actively facilitated by Melbourne Winter Masterpieces

 179

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 179 and Tourism Victoria, both of which recognised the potential of linking ACMI with the animation studio –​which was working on another project in Melbourne at the time. The subsequent relationship gave DreamWorks Animation unprecedented access to original content from the studio, including interviews with key staff, original drawings and concept art –​all of which helped attract a global audience commensurate with the popularity of the studio’s films. Like Game Masters, DreamWorks Animation premiered at ACMI; since 2015 it has visited five international venues and will continue touring internationally in the years leading up to the studio’s 25th anniversary (2019) and beyond (ACMI 2017a, 32; Fig.  7.3).13 Both Game Masters and DreamWorks Animation have exceeded visitor number

Figure 7.3 Street banner promoting ACMI’s DreamWorks Animation: The Exhibition at Seoul Museum of Art, Seoul, South Korea 2016. Photo: Chris Harris. Courtesy of ACMI.

180

180  Blockbuster or bust expectations; this sustained interest from international venues has led to the development of a third exhibition under this program (ACMI 2017a, 32). Like the popular-​culture blockbusters discussed in Chapter  6, these two shows, particularly DreamWorks Animation, exploit widely recognised brands to attract the public. They do not present Australian stories, but rather we argue they demonstrate the innovation of the Australian cultural sector in capitalising on partnerships and creating original exhibitions with broad local and international appeal. The Australian Museum in Sydney is also determined to exploit its innovative work in research and exhibition development to market blockbusters to an international audience. Its foray into international production, like ACMI’s, represents a desire to extend the organisation’s brand and make use of Australia’s strong exhibition skills. Steven Alderton, then the Australian Museum’s director of exhibitions and cultural collections, stressed that institutions are under pressure to remain dynamic in order to retain funding, because ‘if you become a little bit uninteresting to audiences’ then funding could be jeopardised (Alderton 2016). In this climate, Alderton outlined how the museum sought to use international exhibits to help secure its long-​term financial sustainability (Alderton 2016). Similarly, director Kim McKay has argued that international touring projects provide a means of helping to ‘build the economic sustainability of the museum through self-​generated revenue’ (McKay cited in AM 2017, 6, 31). The Australian Museum currently has two internally developed exhibits available in its international touring program:  Tyrannosaurs:  Meet the Family (2014) and Spiders: Alive and Deadly (2015–​16).14 Tyrannosaurs was developed in house and successfully toured in Australasia before being made available for booking on the international circuit.15 The exhibit showcased recent science, and made strong use of technology to create an interactive experience that could be tailored to each location (AM c.2015, [1]‌). Tyrannosaurs broke attendance records at its first North American venue, the Waterloo Region Museum in Ontario, and has set high expectations (AM 2017, 31). To entice potential venues, elements of the show can be tailored to include local content, thus ensuring a close fit with host institutions and local audiences. For example, when the exhibit opened in Iowa in 2017, the advertising featured a T-​Rex against the skyline of the host city of Des Moines (Science Center of Iowa @SCIOWA 2017). Their second touring show, Spiders, was developed in partnership with Questacon:  The National Science and Technology Centre. This allowed for two Australian trials, which attracted strong audiences in Canberra and Sydney, totalling 318,052 visitors (AM 2017, 28, 31). The show made its international debut in mid-​2018 at the Royal Ontario Museum as Spiders:  Life & Death (AM 2017, 31). Again, exhibition content can be tailored to reflect local themes, with the inclusion of indigenous spider species as part of the package (Alderton 2016).

 181

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 181 The Australian Museum’s model hinges on internationally appealing subjects that are presented in a way that emphasises ‘rigorous contemporary science, localised content [and] world leading interactive multimedia’ (AM c.2015, [1]‌). Instead of trading on collection objects, the museum is trading on its scientific scholarship, original narratives and exhibition design. Moreover, by focusing on multimedia, the museum is combining the experiential aspects of more commercially developed exhibitions with the scientific rigour provided by an established natural history museum. Alderton asserted that the uniqueness of this approach made him confident of success (2016). He characterised the museum’s work as a demonstration of Australian innovation and ingenuity, suggesting that ‘we are part of the world’s best museum makers, exhibition makers. We want to show that’. He added that, for local audiences, the gain is in the freedom provided by more secure revenue streams, enabling the museum to ‘continue to present exhibitions for local audiences and make them more sustainable in the long term’ (Alderton 2016). Therefore, in this museum, international touring exhibitions capitalise on staff expertise to invest in long-​term sustainability (Fig. 7.4). Unlike ACMI, which has chosen to manage international tours itself, the Australian Museum has engaged a commercial exhibition company, Flying

Figure 7.4 Exhibition prospectus for Tyrannosaurs: Meet the Family. A travelling exhibition by the Australian Museum, c.2015. Courtesy of Australian Museum and film director, Matt Drummond, Hive Studios.

182

182  Blockbuster or bust Fish Exhibits, to manage both exhibits in North America (AM 2015). Flying Fish promotes itself as providing ‘a comprehensive consulting, sales & marketing, and operational management service to the touring exhibition industry, both within Australia and around the world’ (Flying Fish Exhibits 2017). This partnership represents an important step for the Australian Museum, lauded by McKay as an opportunity to extend the museum’s international reach (AM 2015). The growth of Australian companies like Flying Fish can be compared with other commercial exhibition developers globally, as highlighted previously. Their expanding list of museum clients (Flying Fish Exhibits 2017), reflects the strong economic interest in selling blockbusters. The export programs of ACMI and the Australian Museum are alike in focusing on globally appealing subjects to compete with other international blockbusters, meeting the familiarity–​ originality paradox discussed in Chapter  6. They are examples of highly saleable products that tap into a worldwide desire for exhibits on dinosaurs, the popular appeal of deadly creatures, and globalised contemporary culture. Moreover, as much of the visitor’s experience of these shows lies in the exhibition design, concept, physical environment and multimedia elements, overhead costs are lower.16 Unlike other large-​scale shows in art galleries for example, they do not depend on the use of highly valuable, rare or fragile original objects as their core attraction. There are fewer limitations on venue conditions, and exhibition periods can be extended with less stringent conservation requirements (AM c.2015; AM 2016). For the institutions, their global ambition has allowed for a significant expansion of their international profile: ‘[O]‌ur exhibitions are about extending ACMI’s brand, not Australia’s brand’ (Harris 2016). Arguably such projects give their instigators a competitive advantage, not only financially but also by capitalising on their higher profile and record of success when negotiating future loans and exhibitions. Another characteristic of this trend, obvious in these examples, is that it involves institutions whose strengths lie in exhibiting science and technology, not art galleries where the original work is the exhibition’s raison d’être (Barker 1999; Elsen 1984; Haskell 2000; West 1995). ACMI and the Australian Museum are both at an advantage here, as their blockbusters do not depend on strong permanent collections, but are the result of partnerships, narrative development, technological innovation, and imaginative display design to appeal to a diverse audience. Spiders: Life & Death, for example, makes extensive use of technology and interactive design, as well as more traditional natural history models and living specimens (AM 2016). Furthermore, the Australian Museum’s blockbusters have the distinct advantage of being reproducible in multiples and thus have the potential to tour to a number of venues simultaneously (Alderton 2016). Finally, as evidenced in this chapter, these new export exhibits reflect confidence in the skills and expertise of Australian museum professionals, as well as highlighting the globalised nature of exhibitions today. As all of the exhibitions discussed in this chapter reveal, for museums to be able to invest in the scholarship required for successful exhibits, they

 183

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 183 must seek out ways to innovate, so that exhibitions pay off in many ways. Nevertheless, the ambitious aspirations of a home-​grown blockbuster amplify the risk to the organising museum, primarily because of the investment in research. This chapter has shown that exhibitions developed in house often rely on external support and touring in an attempt to maximise returns for the devising institution –​be they financial, intellectual, collection or reputation. An important aspect of this change is to expand the reach of exhibits to capture a larger and geographically diverse audience. Clearly, these models bring economic advantages:  touring fees and strategic opportunities for brand recognition. But they also bring additional benefits, particularly for national institutions compelled to serve the broader Australian community. The approach of the National Museum of Australia reflected their mission to tell Australian stories (NMA 2014b). But it also delivered benefits for the collection, raised its international profile, fulfilled diplomatic expectations and built new community relationships. For ACMI and the Australian Museum, a commercial model trades internationally on the museums’ scholarship and exhibition design skills. Blockbusters remain complex –​a focus on scholarship, as well as entertainment and audience appeal, ensures that they have a wider benefit. Australian galleries and museums, like their international counterparts, view their investment in partnerships with commercial, governmental and cultural organisations as important in ensuring their own long-​term brand sustainability. This partnership approach was singled out by Alderton as the future for exhibitions at the Australian Museum. He stated that ‘building international partnerships to deliver major blockbuster styled exhibitions’ will be key (Alderton 2016). The specific value for the Australian Museum is found in the potential of partnerships to provide access to ‘more expertise, more collections, more scientists, more researchers, more knowledge, more designers’, enabling the museum to develop exhibitions in a way that is focused on ‘skills and knowledge and expertise’ (Alderton 2016). Although the death of the blockbuster has long been predicted (Barker 1999; Jones 1991), today it is widely recognised that without these big exhibitions institutions would not survive (Power 2018). In fact, as soon as blockbusters fall short of expectations, the press publishes gloomy reports of falling numbers, and hints at a funding crisis (Boland 2012; Colley 2015). In this new reality, institutions are developing innovative ways to support scholarly research, open up opportunities and develop the skills of their staff, while also maximising visitor numbers. Thus Australian museums continue to evolve  –​not just at home, but on the international stage.

Notes 1 Other highly successful ticketed exhibitions of Australian art include Golden Summers:  Heidelberg and Beyond (1985–​ 6) and The Great Australian Art Exhibition (1988–​9), which attracted 237,755 people on its national tour (ICCA

184

184  Blockbuster or bust 1989). Both were survey shows, staged during a peak in interest in Australian history around the bicentenary. 2 For example, Reigning Men: Fashion in Menswear, 1715–​2015 (2018) at MAAS, which was a buy-​in from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, included collection items from the host museum. The AGNSW also included four works from its collection in the 2018 exhibition Rembrandt and the Dutch golden age: masterpieces from the Rijksmuseum . 3 This volume considers only major ticketed temporary exhibitions. Numerous other exhibitions demonstrate deep investment in scholarship and collection research. Many, however, are simply too small, or seen by too few people, to be labelled blockbusters. 4 The other three shows mentioned were then in development: Vision of Kings: Art and Experience in India (1996), conceived as a forum for scholarship and cultural exchange with India; New Worlds from Old: 19th Century Australian & American Landscapes (1998), exhibited at the NGA and its partner gallery the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art; and Monet and Japan (2001), shown at the NGA and AGWA. 5 For wider discussion on the potential of blockbusters to attract new audiences, see (O’Reilly and Lawrenson 2014). 6 For discussion of the challenges of working with communities, see Lynch and Alberti (2010). 7 The NMA has previously toured Utopia: The genius of Emily Kame Kngwarreye (2008) in Japan (NMA 2017c) and Papunya Painting:  Out of the Australian Desert (2010) in China (Trinca 2018, 5). 8 Other major exhibitions of Aboriginal art that have toured internationally include Dreamings: The Art of Aboriginal Australia, which in 1988 broke the attendance record of New York’s Asia Society Gallery (Myers 2002, 237). Aṟatjara: Art of the First Australians (1993) also broke attendance records when touring Europe. 9 The exhibitions have not been without criticism (Robinson 2017), but they do represent a move forward for the BM. 10 NMA does not have an exclusive arrangement with the BM. A History of the World in 100 Objects went to Perth before Canberra, and, as discussed in Chapter  6, other Australian institutions have hosted exhibits from the BM during this period, including the world premiere of Medieval Power: Symbols & Splendour (2016) at the QM (QM 2015), and Egyptian Mummies: Exploring Ancient Lives (2016–​17) at Sydney’s MAAS (‘Egyptian Mummies: Exploring Ancient Lives’ 2017). 11 Australian galleries continue to have a strong appetite for international blockbusters, but their own exhibitions rarely tour internationally. For instance, Australia, developed by the NGA and shown at London’s Royal Academy in 2013, and the AGNSW’s Australian Impressionists, shown at the National Gallery, London (2016–​17), draw on the greatest strength of Australian collections:  Australian art. Such exhibitions are destined for a small overseas audience; many of these engagements, including loans of individual works, are best understood as mechanisms to support networking and achieve longer-​term strategic goals. 12 In addition to ACMI and AM, discussed here, Sydney Living Museums developed a LEGO exhibition which was made available for the international market after visiting a number of Australian venues. Towers of Tomorrow with LEGO Bricks made its international debut at The MagicHouse (St. Louis Children’s Museum)

 185

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 185

13

14 15 16

in December 2017 and has a series of American venues to follow (‘Exhibits’ 2017; SLM 2015). DreamWorks Animation has been shown at the ArtScience Museum (Singapore), Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Wellington), Seoul Museum of Art, National Taiwan Science and Education Centre (Taipei) and Museo de Arte Contemporáneo de Monterrey (Mexico) and Canadian Museum of History, Ottawa (ACMI 2018a). Spiders was first exhibited at Questacon, Canberra, in 2015–​16, then at the AM in 2016. Tyrannosaurs has been shown at Scienceworks (Melbourne), Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Wellington) and the Newcastle Museum (NSW) (AM 2015). For example the freighting of these exhibitions has been carefully considered in the design. Tyrannosaurs and Spiders each travel in three 40-​foot shipping containers (AM c.2015; AM 2016). This is comparatively economical when compared to the Harry Potter exhibition at MAAS, developed by GES Exhibitions, which travelled to Australia in twenty-​four shipping containers (MAAS 2012, 37).

References ACMI. 2002. Australian Centre for the Moving Image  –​Report of Operations 1 January to 30 June 2002. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Moving Image. ACMI. 2013. Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Annual Report 2012/​13. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Moving Image. ACMI. 2015. Australian Centre for the Moving Image –​Annual Report 2014/​2015. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Moving Image. ACMI. 2016. Media Release:  Record Visitation at Home and Abroad for ACMI. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Moving Image. October 13. Accessed May 17, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ybeduzev. ACMI. 2017a. Australian Centre for the Moving Image Annual Report 2016–​17. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Moving Image. ACMI. 2017b. ‘Touring Exhibitions:  Game Masters’. Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Accessed September 28. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8ba2vsd. ACMI. 2018a. ‘DreamWorks Animation’. Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Accessed February 23. https://​tinyurl.com/​yd3kbouz. ACMI. 2018b. ‘About’. Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Accessed May 16. www.acmi.net.au/​about/​. ACMI. 2018c. ‘Past Exhibitions’. Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Accessed May 16. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8tuqc9h. ACMI. 2018d. ‘Touring Exhibitions for Hire’. Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Accessed May 17. https://​tinyurl.com/​y7nqx2y8. AGSA. 2014. Annual Report of the Art Gallery of South Australia for the Year 1 July 2013–​30 June 2014. Adelaide: Art Gallery of South Australia. AGSA. 2015. Annual Report of the Art Gallery of South Australia for the Year 1 July 2014–​30 June 2015. Adelaide: Art Gallery of South Australia. AGSA. 2016. Art Gallery of South Australia Annual Report 15–​16. Adelaide:  Art Gallery of South Australia. AGWA. 2002. Annual Report 2001–​2002. Perth: Art Gallery of Western Australia.

186

186  Blockbuster or bust Alderton, Steven. 2016. Interview regarding the Australian Museum’s international touring program. Interview by Chiara O’Reilly and Anna Lawrenson. AM. c.2015. Tyrannosaurs:  Meet the Family. A  Travelling Exhibition by the Australian Museum. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 2015. Media Release: T-​Rex’s Family Goes Global. Sydney: Australian Museum. December 11. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8do92xf. AM. 2016. Spiders:  Life & Death. Exhibition Developed and Produced by the Australian Museum and Toured by Flying Fish. Sydney: Australian Museum. AM. 2017. Annual Report 2016–​17. Sydney: Australian Museum. ANMM. 2018. ‘On Their Own’. Australian National Maritime Museum. Accessed May 16. https://​tinyurl.com/​y9dwwwzr. Barker, Emma. 1999. ‘Exhibiting the Canon: The Blockbuster Show’. In Contemporary Cultures of Display, edited by Emma Barker, 127–​46. New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press. Bennett, James, and Russell Kelty. 2015. Treasure Ships:  Art in the Age of Spices. Adelaide: Art Gallery of South Australia. BM. 2016. The British Museum: Report and Accounts for the Year Ended 31 March 2016. London: British Museum. BM. 2017. ‘International Exhibitions’. British Museum. Accessed November 20. https://​tinyurl.com/​y974japt. Boland, Michaela. 2012. ‘Tomb to Overcome the Gloom’. Australian, April 19. Boland, Michaela. 2016. ‘Impressionist Tom Roberts a Breakaway Winner’. Australian, March 31. Bradburne, James M. 2004. ‘The Museum Time Bomb:  Overbuilt, Overtraded, Overdrawn’. The Informal Learning Review 65 (March–​ April). Accessed February 23, 2018. www.informallearning.com/​archive/​Bradburne-​65.htm. Cerabona, Ron. 2018. ‘The Art of Science: Baudin’s Voyagers 1800-​1804, National Museum of Australia’. Canberra Times. Accessed May 16, 2018. https://​tinyurl. com/​yb5t5pqu. Churcher, Betty. 1994. ‘Art Museums and Tourism: The Impact of the Blockbuster’. In Creating Culture:  The New Growth Industries:  Conference Papers, 11–​12 August 1994, 85–​9. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Communications and the Arts. Colley, Clare. 2015. ‘The National Gallery’s Attendance Slump in 2014–​15 is Blamed on the James Turrell Show’. Age, October 27. Accessed December 21, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​ybs6w33k. Creative Victoria. 2015. ‘Melbourne Winter Masterpieces’. Creative Victoria. Accessed December 20, 2017. https://​tinyurl.com/​yazj7nag. CSR Project. 2018. ‘Canning Stock Route Project:  About’. Canning Stock Route Project. Accessed January 19. www.canningstockrouteproject.com/​about/​. Daley, Paul. 2016. ‘The Gweagal Shield and the Fight to Change the British Museum’s Attitude to Seized Artefacts’. Guardian, September 25. Davenport Acker, Carly. 2015. ‘Convergence:  The Making of the Canning Stock Route Project and Yiwarra Kuju Exhibition’. Cultural Studies Review 21 (1): 177–​205. Davenport, Carly, Monique La Fontaine, and John Carty. 2010. Yiwarra Kuju: The Canning Stock Route. Canberra: National Museum of Australia Press. Dinosaurs from China. 1982. Melbourne: National Museum of Victoria.

 187

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 187 ‘Egyptian Mummies: Exploring Ancient Lives’. 2017. Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. Accessed December 13. https://​tinyurl.com/​gpgk3ym. Ellis, Adrian. 2002. ‘Planning in a Cold Climate’. Presented at the Directors’ Seminar:  Leading Retrenchment, The Getty Center, Los Angeles, CA, July 21. Accessed December 20, 2017. www.issuelab.org/​resources/​10607/​10607. pdf?download=true. Ellis, Adrian. 2009. ‘The Recession and US Museums:  How to Compensate for the Loss of Philanthropic, Endowment and Visitor Incomes’. Art Newspaper 200 (March). Accessed February 21, 2018. www.theartnewspaper.com/​article. asp?id=17087. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. ‘Exhibits’. 2017. The Magic House St Louis Children’s Museum. Accessed December 6. www.magichouse.org/​exhibits/​. Flying Fish Exhibits. 2017. ‘The Source for Touring Exhibitions’. Flying Fish. Accessed September 28. http://​flyingfishexhibits.com/​. FORM. 2012. FORM Annual Report 2012. Perth: FORM. FORM. 2018. ‘One Road & Mira Canning Stock Route Project Archive’. FORM. Building a State of Creativity. Accessed February 23. https://​tinyurl.com/​ y9fzw84y. Fornasiero, Jean, Lindl Lawton, and John West-​ Sooby. 2016. The Art of Science: Nicolas Baudin’s Voyagers 1800–​1804. Adelaide: Wakefield. Frost, Andrew. 2014a. ‘Blockbuster Exhibitions:  See Incredible Historical Art on Your Own Doorstep’. Australia Culture Blog (Guardian Australia). August 5. Accessed January 18, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yae42q2d. Frost, Andrew. 2014b. ‘Pop to Popism Review  –​Shock and Social Critique, with an Australian Thread’. Australia Culture Blog (Guardian Australia). November 3. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8xnhu27. Gibbs, Ed. 2014. ‘Inside DreamWorks Animation’s Anniversary Exhibit in Australia’. The Hollywood Reporter, April 23. Gorrey, Megan. 2015. ‘Canberra’s National Museum of Australia Announces Major Partnership with British Museum’. Canberra Times, February 26. Gott, Ted. 2012. Napoleon: Revolution to Empire. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. Grishin, Sasha. 2009. ‘The Rise and Rise of the Blockbuster Exhibition’. Australian Art Review 18 (February–​April): 28–​30. Grishin, Sasha. 2016. ‘Tom Roberts at the National Gallery of Australia Has Gone Gangbusters and Here’s Why’. Canberra Times, March 23. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y88bdjko. Gwinnett, Andrew. 2014. ‘A Message from the Art Gallery Foundation’. In Treasure Ships: Art in the Age of Spices, by James Bennett and Russell Kelty, 13. Adelaide: Art Gallery of South Australia. Harris, Chris. 2016. ‘Interview regarding Australian Centre for the Moving Image’s International Touring Program’. Interview by Anna Lawrenson and Chiara O’Reilly. Haskell, Francis. 2000. The Ephemeral Museum: Old Master Paintings and the Rise of the Art Exhibition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

188

188  Blockbuster or bust Hewitt, Thomas. 2016.‘The Role of Design in the Development of Museum Exhibitions in Australia’. PhD thesis. Queensland: University of the Sunshine Coast. ICCA. 1989. The Great Australian Art Exhibition –​Presentation Binder. International Cultural Corporation of Australia, Cat. AG1988. Edmund and Joanna Capon Research Library, Art Gallery of NSW. Jones, Lisa Anne. 1991. ‘Australian Blockbuster Exhibitions: A Passing Fad?’ MLitt thesis. James Cook University of North Queensland. Loyrette, Henri. 2016. Degas:  A New Vision. Melbourne:  National Gallery of Victoria. Lynch, Bernadette T., and Samuel J.M.M. Alberti. 2010. ‘Legacies of Prejudice: Racism, Co-​Production and Radical Trust in the Museum’. Museum Management and Curatorship 25 (1): 13–​35. MAAS. 2012. Annual Report 2011–​ 2012. Incorporating Powerhouse Museum, Sydney Observatory, Powerhouse Discovery Centre and NSW Migration Heritage Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. Marshall, Christopher. 2006. ‘Art Museums in an Age of Bread and Circuses’. Australian Book Review 279 (March): 34–​7. McColl, Gina. 2013. ‘Blockbusted: Melbourne Galleries for Hire?’ Sydney Morning Herald, May 21. McDonald, John. 2016. ‘Degas en Pointe’. Sydney Morning Herald, July 30. McLean, Kathleen. 1999. ‘Museum Exhibitions and the Dynamics of Dialogue’. Daedalus 128 (3): 83–​107. Museums Australia. 2005. Continuous Cultures, Ongoing Responsibilities. Principles and Guidelines for Australian Museums Working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage. Canberra: Museums Australia. Myers, Fred R. 2002. Painting Culture:  The Making of an Aboriginal High Art. Objects/​Histories. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Neale, Margo. 2017. Songlines:  Tracking the Seven Sisters. Canberra:  National Museum of Australia Press. Nicholls, Christine Judith. 2018. ‘Songlines:  Tracking the Seven Sisters is a Must-​ Visit Exhibition for All Australians’. The Conversation. Accessed January 19. https://​tinyurl.com/​ybmgo4l5. NMA. 2009. Media Release:  National Museum Acquires Canning Stock Route Collection. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. March 19. NMA. 2011. National Museum of Australia 2010–​11 Annual Report. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. NMA. 2012. National Museum of Australia 2011–​12 Annual Report. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. NMA. 2013. National Museum of Australia 2012–​13 Annual Report. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. NMA. 2014a. National Museum of Australia 2013–​14 Annual Report. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. NMA. 2014b. National Museum of Australia. Where Our Stories Come Alive. Strategic Plan 2014–​18. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. NMA. 2015a. National Museum of Australia 2014–​15 Annual Report. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. NMA. 2015b. Media Release:  Major Partnership Between the National Museum and British Museum. Canberra:  National Museum of Australia. February 26. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y9un7hgy.

 189

The exportation of Australian exhibitions 189 NMA. 2016a. National Museum of Australia 2015–​16 Annual Report. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. NMA. 2016b. National Museum of Australia Testimony. ICOM Australia. Accessed January 22, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y6upqnk5. NMA. 2017a. National Museum of Australia 2016–​ 17 Annual Report. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. NMA. 2017b. ‘International’. National Museum of Australia. Accessed September 28. https://​tinyurl.com/​y9q6555f. NMA. 2017c. ‘Utopia: The Genius of Emily Kame Kngwarreye. The Exhibition in Japan’. National Museum of Australia. Accessed September 28. https://​tinyurl. com/​y7uahvlj. NMA. 2018a. ‘Old Objects, New Stories’. National Museum of Australia. Accessed January 22. www.nma.gov.au/​exhibitions/​encounters/​objects. NMA. 2018b. ‘Kaninjaku: Stories from the Canning Stock Route’. National Museum of Australia. Accessed May 16. www.nma.gov.au/​exhibitions/​kaninjaku. Nugent, Maria. 2015. ‘Forty Millennia of Indigenous History at the British Museum’. Inside Story, May 8. O’Reilly, Chiara, and Anna Lawrenson. 2014. ‘Revenue, Relevance and Reflecting Community:  Blockbusters at the Art Galley of NSW’. Museum and Society 12 (3): 157–​70. Pes, Javier, José da Silva, and Emily Sharpe. 2017. ‘Visitor Figures 2016: Exhibition and Museum Attendance Survey’. Art Newspaper 289 (April): 2–​3, 6–​14. Pickering, Michael. 2010. ‘We Do Things Differently Here’. In Yiwarra Kuju:  The Canning Stock Route, x–​xiii. Canberra: National Museum of Australia Press. Power, Julie. 2018. ‘Push for Titanic-​Style Blockbusters’. Sydney Morning Herald, March 17. Prott, Lyndel V. 2006. ‘The Dja Wurrung Bark Etchings Case’. International Journal of Cultural Property 13 (2): 241–​6. QM. 2015. Media Release: Queensland Museum Hosts World Premiere of Medieval Power. Brisbane:  Queensland Museum. December 10. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8ego6jx. Robinson, Helena. 2017. ‘Is Cultural Democracy Possible in a Museum? Critical Reflections on Indigenous Engagement in the Development of the Exhibition Encounters:  Revealing Stories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Objects from the British Museum’. International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (9): 860–​74. Science Center of Iowa @SCIOWA. 2017. ‘Iowa, get ready for Tyrannosaurs: Meet the Family. The U.S. premiere of this exhibit will be September 30. Sponsored by @EMCInsurance’. Tweet. September 13. Accessed November 24, 2017. https://​ tinyurl.com/​ybj7oz8x. Simpson, Moira G. 1996. Making Representations: Museums in the Post-​Colonial Era. London: Routledge. SLM. 2015. ‘Towers of Tomorrow with LEGO® Bricks’. Sydney Living Museums. Accessed May 16, 2018. https://​sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/​exhibitions/​ towers-​tomorrow-​lego-​bricks. Smith, Bridie. 2004. ‘Not Interested Today, Sport –​There’s an Art Display On’. Age, July 27. Spear, Richard E. 1986. ‘Art History and the “Blockbuster” Exhibition’. The Art Bulletin 68 (3): 358–​9.

190

190  Blockbuster or bust Trinca, Mathew. 2018. ‘Australia and the World’. The Museum 13 (March–​August): 4–​8. Usher, Robin. 2011. ‘Battle for the Arts’. Age, July 20. van Barneveld, Kristin, and Osmond Chiu. 2017. ‘A Portrait of Failure:  Ongoing Funding Cuts to Australia’s Cultural Institutions’. Australian Journal of Public Administration 77 (1): 3–​18. West, Shearer. 1995. ‘The Devaluation of “Cultural Capital”:  Post-​ Modern Democracy and the Art Blockbuster’. In Art in Museums, edited by Susan M. Pearce, 74–​93. London; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone Press. Yu, Peter. 2015. ‘Foreword’. In Encounters:  Revealing Stories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Objects from The British Museum, by National Museum of Australia, 11. Canberra: National Museum of Australia Press.

 191

Epilogue

We began this book in Canberra, looking at one of the most successful art exhibitions ever held in Australia (NGA 2010, 37, 47). At the time, many people thought that the show –​its quality, large attendance and significant economic contribution –​would be difficult to match (Elliott, Naidoo, and Worrall 2011; Pryor 2011, 20). But success was a double-​edged sword. As one commentator noted, the National Gallery of Australia was forced to ‘accept the cold light of day that is Life After Masterpieces from Paris … there’s no denying that the bar has been set terribly high’ (Pryor 2011, 20). The achievement of this exhibition raised expectations and sent ripples through the cultural sector. In subsequent years, only the National Gallery of Victoria has come close to comparable visitation, with its blockbusters generating consistently high numbers. Its summer blockbuster Andy Warhol | Ai Weiwei (2015–​16) broke house records with 399,127 visitors (NGV 2016), while the 2017 Melbourne Winter Masterpieces exhibition Van Gogh and the Seasons (2017), presented with Art Exhibitions Australia, attracted 462,000 visitors (NGV 2017, 9). From these numbers it is clear that art galleries continue to set the standard for the highest numbers of visitors, with other institutions far behind in tallies of attendance (ACMI 2017, 32; AM 2017, 28; Fairley 2015; MAAS 2017, 11). But, as we also began this book by stating, visitor numbers must be considered in comparison to the norm for that institution. While museums may not match galleries’ numbers, as we have shown they are certainly presenting popular blockbusters that help to build audience. The potential for blockbusters to increase visitation and contribute to local economies has also filtered down into regional areas in Australia, where there is experimentation with blockbusters, albeit on a smaller scale (Fairley 2017). These regional institutions are traditionally funded by local municipal governments, yet many are seeking additional support to invest in infrastructure and develop professional capacity in order to secure international exhibitions that will foster tourism and generate a wider economic benefit. Bendigo Art Gallery is a perfect example of this. In a city of some 112,000 people located a two-​hour drive from Melbourne, the historic art gallery has sought out new ways to develop its brand under the leadership

192

192 Epilogue of Karen Quinlan (since 2000). International exhibitions have been central to this, helping to put Bendigo ‘on the map’ (KPMG 2013, 18). Quinlan described how, after significant renovations to the gallery, ‘We had a building of international standards, so let’s see what we could do with it’ (Shmith 2014, 18). Grace Kelly:  Style Icon (2012) attracted 152,500 visitors and contributed around $16.3 million to the local economy (KPMG 2013, 18), and 75,000 visitors saw The Golden Age of Couture: Paris & London 1947–​ 57 (2009), making a $9.2  million economic contribution (Adams 2017). This use of blockbuster exhibitions to stimulate tourism recognises the economic benefit of the arts in renewing regional centres, and has been labelled the ‘Bendigo Effect’, a local nod to the ‘Bilbao Effect’ (Stephens 2016). And it has transformed the city, as one local government official claimed: ‘The last 10 years have arguably been the best in Bendigo’s history since the gold rush’ in the 1850s (Stan Liacos cited in Shmith 2014, 18). Bendigo is the standout example of this approach, but other regional cities are also setting out on this path. The Murray Art Museum Albury (MAMA)  –​redeveloped out of the former Albury Regional Art Gallery and opened in late 2015  –​made its international blockbuster debut with Marilyn: Celebrating an American Icon (2016). The show was exclusive to Albury and made an economic contribution of more than $12.5  million (ACC 2016, 41). It also drew new audiences to the region, with 38 per cent of visitors residing out of town, resulting in increased demand for accommodation, and all associated programs being booked out (Kruijff 2016). The efforts of MAMA and Bendigo Art Gallery are, in one sense, a replay of the historical narrative of this book:  museums invest in international-​ standard facilities, build internal capacity, and host large-​ scale temporary exhibitions. Thus we can see that regional institutions are taking a similar path to their state-​based counterparts, whereby large-​scale touring exhibitions have helped to shape the cultural infrastructure in Australia and develop professional skills and networks. In this history, we have traced a movement that benefited, at times, from collaboration between institutions, but that today is increasingly individualised, as institutions seek out competitive advantages and link into broader governmental strategies for tourism and economic benefit. MAMA and Bendigo provide current examples of the expansion beyond capital cities of this competitive, events-​based tourism strategy (as discussed in Chapter  5), in which exhibitions are used as drawcards. They represent the next chapter in the history of blockbuster exhibitions in Australia. In considering how blockbusters function in Australia, this book has revealed that these exhibitions are more than a simple showing of treasures, or event of populist appeal. Rather, they are embedded in cultural organisations and have a deeper economic, political and social value. Moreover, many of the trends we associate with today’s blockbusters have been evident from early on. Their unique format, as short-​term events, has always given them a sense of being something special, and this will always

 193

Epilogue 193 help sell them as must-​see opportunities to glimpse valuable objects from far away, close to home. Underpinning this history of large temporary exhibitions is a broader trend towards the corporatisation of museums, and a subsequent focus on economic sustainability that has forced museums to search for funding from sources beyond government budgets, whether federal, state or local. Exhibition programs have helped to meet this changing need, through sponsorship, merchandising, public and educational programs, café patronage and associated revenue-​ raising opportunities. The main difficulty here is sustainability. Sustainability is relevant to several aspects of blockbusters: institutions’ ability to continually negotiate loans with overseas lenders; their skill at re-​ packaging well-​ worn subjects in new and interesting ways; their staff’s capacity to regularly churn out the next big thing; and audiences’ willingness to travel to, and pay for, such exhibitions. The audience is crucial: the age of the blockbuster will continue unabated as long as audiences evince an appetite for these shows. We began this book by observing that the supporters of early blockbusters deemed them democratic –​because they appealed to a mass market (Elsen 1984). So, what do we make of today’s penchant for exclusive, single-​venue events, blatantly aimed at generating revenue? In their exclusivity, blockbusters in Australia seem to have become a local equivalent of the eighteenth century grand tour. The cultural cachet of attending such an exhibition is heightened not only by the event’s relatively short season, but also by its limitation to a single city. But this exclusivity is inflected with an Australian character. Blockbusters still provide a more accessible means of viewing collections that are not held locally, by circumventing the need for long-​haul international travel. So, in the current landscape, the purported democratic role of blockbusters is more complex. Although art museums in particular still subscribe to the rhetoric that blockbusters open up great collections and works of art to a broad public, the reality is rather more limited. Arguably, in Australia, only the relatively affluent can afford to travel interstate to see the latest exhibition, and, even for a local audience, the considerable entrance fee can be prohibitive when combined with the costs of travel to and from the venue, food and other incidentals. Exclusivity then is not just about a single venue and authentic objects, but is also becoming about the audience. Who can afford access to those original objects and the cultural capital that the blockbuster experience bestows? Where art galleries led the way by importing large-​ scale temporary exhibitions to facilitate access to international masterpieces, other museums are now taking the lead as producers and even exporters of blockbusters. This has been made possible by developing exhibitions based on original research rather than on internationally recognisable collections. Research is reproducible  –​an original van Gogh is not. As discussed in Chapter  7, the Australian Museum and the Australian Centre for the Moving Image have created international touring exhibitions based on content that is

194

194 Epilogue international in scope, often reproducible, and can withstand long tours without stringent conservation requirements. Such exhibitions provide the visitor with an immersive experience in which objects are diminishing in importance. Many commercial exhibition providers have taken a similar approach. Thus the financial risk that has always posed difficulties for staging blockbusters in Australia, evidenced by high-​ level negotiations on indemnity and insurance, is significantly reduced. The Australian turn towards immersive, experiential exhibitions mimics international trends, where the experience economy forces cultural institutions to compete with commercial ventures, to provide a package of experiences that meets a variety of needs:  cultural, intellectual and social (Falk 2009, 43). In this environment, museums can position themselves as ‘value-​added leisure options’ that provide a variety of experiences, packaging higher-​level educational and cultural goals that are dependent upon the authority of the institution with other, less lofty, experiences  –​commercial, social, entertainment, culinary –​to serve the desires of their time-​ poor patrons (Falk 2009, 43). This competitive turn towards the experience economy is magnified in Australia, where there was already great competition between the states as a result of long-​standing colonial legacies in the way institutions were established, developed and funded. Moreover, the audience for exhibitions in Australia, though enthusiastic, is limited in size. Exclusive single-​venue shows rely on the mobility of the population to be economically viable. Whatever is offered by institutions must be compelling and comprehensive to attract the numbers needed to break even financially. In our Australian history of blockbusters, the packaging of the spectacle of exhibitions harkens back to the nineteenth century, when cities were transformed by the excitement of the latest international exposition. The current trend towards packaged events can be read as a continuation of that phenomenon. The National Gallery of Victoria’s Van Gogh and the Seasons (2016) is an exemplar here. The show took over the city of Melbourne in an effort to capture the tourist market. The scope of programs was exhaustive. In addition to what is now considered standard (an accompanying catalogue, late-​night openings, social and culinary events, themed workshops), the exhibition promoted its own song (available for sale in the gallery shop only), an exclusive film and a children’s book (NGV 2017, 22, 56; NGV 2018). In a further nod to the commercial legacy of nineteenth century expositions, the gallery has taken a decidedly commercial approach to exhibitions: ‘Our focus is to make [the gallery] a retail destination, not just a place to see art’ (Edgar 2014, 27). Returning to Albert Elsen’s definition, if one marker of a blockbuster is its ability to draw crowds (Elsen 1984, 24), this study has proved that exhibitions have had the pulling power to attract significant crowds in Australia for more than 150  years. If crowds still turn out for the latest must-​ see event, museums, art galleries and other institutions and commercial organisations will continue to promote them. This, it seems, is the

 195

Epilogue 195 vicious cycle of the blockbuster:  such events are, in the words of Sasha Grishin, a ‘drug of dependency’ for major collecting institutions (2009, 28, 29). Funding is contingent on quantifiable success measures, and large crowds raise expectations, necessitating a continued investment in more blockbusters to beat the last record-​breaking show (Gopnik 2013; Grishin 2009). This recalls the wartime origins of the term: blockbusters have become one weapon in the institutional arsenal. That exhibitions have become a numbers game (Pes, da Silva, and Sharpe 2017) –​how many visitors, their retail expenditure, flow-​on to the broader economy –​is also a reflection of global trends in which precarious financial times have created uncertainty for institutions, resulting in entrepreneurial speculation (Anderson 2007; Bradburne 2004; Ellis 2002). As Adrian Ellis has argued, building works and large-​scale exhibitions have been central to this new reality for museums (Ellis 2002; Ellis 2009). However, he also warns that these projects should be embarked upon with caution: ‘Dramatic and competitive physical expansion and large-​scale temporary exhibitions have, in a sense, substituted for an effective agenda of community engagement. These strategies have served as a way of generating buzz and money while interest in the traditional mission of the art museum was waning’ (Ellis 2009). Perhaps this is the most fundamental question that needs to be answered in light of contemporary Australian museums’ reliance on blockbusters. What are the real, long-​term costs of investing in popular exhibitions? As museums in Australia are forced to become more financially independent of government funders, can they still have a mission to educate, or is it survival of the fittest –​by whatever means possible?

References ACC. 2016. AlburyCity Annual Report 2015–​2016. Albury: Albury City Council. ACMI. 2017. Australian Centre for the Moving Image Annual Report 2016–​17. Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Moving Image. Adams, Sarah. 2017. ‘Regional Gallery Brings in the Big Guns’. ArtsHub Australia. Accessed December 19. https://​tinyurl.com/​y8wwcear. AM. 2017. Annual Report 2016–​17. Sydney: Australian Museum. Anderson, Maxwell L. 2007. ‘Prescriptions for Art Museums in the Decade Ahead’. Curator 50 (1): 9–​17. Bradburne, James M. 2004. ‘The Museum Time Bomb:  Overbuilt, Overtraded, Overdrawn’. The Informal Learning Review 65 (March–​ April). Accessed February 23, 2018. www.informallearning.com/​archive/​Bradburne-​65.htm. Edgar, Ray. 2014. ‘Enter Through the Gift Shop’. Age, December 13. Elliott, Simon, Shanthini Naidoo, and Adam Worrall. 2011. ‘Group Interview at the National Gallery of Australia to Discuss the Musée d’Orsay Exhibition’. Interview by Chiara O’Reilly and Anna Lawrenson. Ellis, Adrian. 2002. ‘Planning in a Cold Climate’. Presented at the Directors’ Seminar:  Leading Retrenchment, The Getty Center, Los Angeles, CA, July 21.

196

196 Epilogue Accessed December 20, 2017. www.issuelab.org/​resources/​10607/​10607.pdf? download=true. Ellis, Adrian. 2009. ‘The Recession and US Museums:  How to Compensate for the Loss of Philanthropic, Endowment and Visitor Incomes’. Art Newspaper 200 (March). Accessed February 21, 2018. www.theartnewspaper.com/​article. asp?id=17087. Elsen, Albert. 1984. ‘The Pros and Cons of the “Blockbuster” Art Exhibition’. In Art Museums Association of Australia: Occasional Papers, 1–​18. Melbourne: Art Museums Association of Australia. Fairley, Gina. 2015. ‘Is Our Blockbuster Diet Stale:  Who’s Choosing the Menu?’ ArtsHub Australia, September 17. Accessed September 20, 2017. https://​tinyurl. com/​yayvsnl5. Fairley, Gina. 2017. ‘The Value of the Regional Blockbuster’. ArtsHub Australia, September 22. Accessed May 17, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​yd57gqs4. Falk, John H. 2009. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Gopnik, Blake. 2013. ‘The Rush to the Box Office’. Art Newspaper 245 (April): 16–​17. Grishin, Sasha. 2009. ‘The Rise and Rise of the Blockbuster Exhibition’. Australian Art Review 18 (February–​April): 28–​30. KPMG. 2013. Economic Impact of the Victorian Arts and Cultural Sector. Melbourne: Arts Victoria. Kruijff, Peter de. 2016. ‘Some 6300 Like It Hot: Monroe-​Expo’. The Border Mail, May 8. Accessed March 2, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ya3oet6y. MAAS. 2017. 2016–​17 Annual Report. Powerhouse Museum. Sydney Observatory. Museums Discovery Centre. Sydney: Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. NGA. 2010. Annual Report 2009–​10. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. NGV. 2016. NGV Annual Report 2015/​16. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. NGV. 2017. NGV Annual Report 2016/​17. Melbourne: National Gallery of Victoria. NGV. 2018. ‘Vincent Van Gogh –​The Song’. National Gallery of Victoria. Accessed May 17. www.ngv.vic.gov.au/​vincent-​van-​gogh-​the-​song/​. Pes, Javier, José da Silva, and Emily Sharpe. 2017. ‘Visitor Figures 2016: Exhibition and Museum Attendance Survey’. Art Newspaper 289 (April): 2–​3, 6–​14. Pryor, Sally. 2011. ‘More Than Just Painting by Numbers’. Canberra Times, December 26. Shmith, Michael. 2014. ‘Feeling the Quinlan Effect’. Age, March 21. Stephens, Andrew. 2016. ‘Karen Quinlan, Mastermind of “The Bendigo Effect”’. Sydney Morning Herald, June 14. Accessed March 2, 2018. https://​tinyurl.com/​ yc4blfg8.

 197

Index

Note: Page numbers in italics denote Figures. Alderton, Steven 180–81, 183 Altick, Richard 18, 21 ancient world blockbusters 103–107, 106, 153–57, 154 Andy Warhol | Ai Weiwei (2015–16) 145, 191 Art Exhibitions Australia (AEA) 10, 93, 96, 98–100, 124 Art Gallery of NSW (AGNSW) 25, 30–31, 33, 47, 50, 55, 60, 69, 70–72, 71, 75, 83, 105, 109, 127–30, 145, 168; Ashton as Director of 59; Capon as Director of 109, 120; Missingham as Director of 71, 71–72, 76; temporary exhibition space of 106 Art Gallery of South Australia (AGSA, formerly known as National Gallery of South Australia) 31–32, 34, 57, 58, 69, 72, 75, 105, 147, 153, 169, 173; McCubbin as Director of 59, 69 Art Gallery of Western Australia (AGWA) 49, 121, 128; Carboni as Director of 121 art history, blockbuster exhibitions and 5–6 Art in Australia (journal) 50–52, 55 audience attendance and visitor numbers 9, 140; in 1950s-90s era 70, 76, 78–79, 82–86, 100; in 19th century 18, 21, 28, 33; in 21st century 1, 117, 124, 126, 128–30, 145, 147, 150, 152, 154–55, 170, 174, 178, 180, 191–95; blockbuster exhibitions as cultural capital for audiences 6–7; at cultural vs. sporting events 118; in early-mid 20th century 49–52, 55–56 Australian Art Exhibitions Corporation (AAEC) 70, 80–83, 81, 87, 98

Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA) 93–94 Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI) 125–26, 130, 149, 176–83, 177, 179 Australian content in exhibitions 85, 100, 166–73, 180, 183–84 Australian exhibitionary practice (1950s-90s): development of professional network and 74–75, 83–84; education and 73–74, 80, 84–85, 94, 98, 103; entrepreneurial model of AAEC and 82–84; exhibitions as public spectacle 18–19; government and state funding and 70, 73–74, 78, 82; infrastructure development during 70, 75–76, 92, 95; museum outreach programs in 44, 84–85; traveling exhibitions from non-art gallery institutions and 84–86; see also Australian Gallery Directors Council (AGDC); Visual Arts Board (VAB) Australian exhibitionary practice (1980s/bicentennial): bicentennial blockbusters and 92–96, 93, 104; collapse of AGDC in 1981 and emergence of new models of 96–99; International Cultural Corporation of Australia (ICCA)/Art Exhibitions Australia (AEA) and 98–101; museum institutional directors and 107–110; natural history exhibition blockbusters 101–104, 102 Australian exhibitionary practice (19th century): Australian contribution to international exhibitions and 19–20; civic role of exhibitions 17–18;

198

198 Index education and 16–17, 19, 25, 29, 32; influence of on contemporary blockbusters 15–16; infrastructure development from 16, 19, 22, 25–28, 27, 31–32; intercolonial exhibitions and 25–28, 27; participation in international expos and local previews of 21–25; professional capacity growth and 16, 19, 27 see also international expositions (19th century) Australian exhibitionary practice (earlymid 20th century): Art in Australia (journal) and touring exhibitions 50–52, 55; Carnegie report on funding, capacity and infrastructure and 43–46; education and 40, 44, 51, 53, 60; Federation and 40, 42–43; new exhibition spaces outside cultural institutions and 52–55; private investors vs. government support of 40–47, 56–57; World War II and 69 Australian Federal International Exhibition (1902–3) 40 Australian Gallery Directors Council (AGDC) 70, 74–80, 83–85, 87, 94–95; collapse of in 1981 96–99; Temporary Exhibition Spaces in Selected Australian Art Museums publication of (1979) 94 Australian intercolonial exhibitions (19th century) 25–28, 27 Australian Museum (AM, Sydney) 16, 23, 24, 43–44, 74, 84–85, 94–95, 101–104, 102, 127, 132, 153, 171, 176, 180–83, 181, 193; educational outreach programs of 44, 84; Griffin as Director of 85, 103; McKay as Director of 176, 180, 182 Australian scholarship 8–9, 100, 105, 108–109, 131, 181–83; defence of 167–69; institutional partnerships and 173, 175; new exhibition development models for scholarly research 169–73; scholarship as mandate of cultural institutions 9, 133, 148, 167; tension/criticism surrounding role of 133, 166–67 Barker, Emma 5, 143 Barry, Redmond 27 Bendigo Art Gallery 32, 191–92

Bennett, Tony 6, 17–18 Berryman, Jim 78, 98 bicentennial blockbusters 92–96, 93, 104 Blainey, Geoffrey 3 blockbuster exhibitions: ancient world blockbusters 103–107, 106, 153–57, 154; Australia’s geographic isolation and 3–4, 16, 43, 46–47, 51, 117, 141; bicentennial blockbusters 92–96, 93, 104; blockbuster as term 4–5, 195; blockbuster defined 5–6, 122, 194; as cultural capital for audiences 6–7, 193; fashion exhibitions and 149, 192; historical development of 3, 7–8; implications for educational mission of museums/ art galleries 8–9; influence of 19th century international expositions on contemporary 15–16; influence of early-mid 20th century exhibitionary practices on contemporary 52–55; loan reliance of 4–7, 32–33, 44–45, 51, 55, 59, 69, 74, 78, 92, 128, 131, 144–45, 182, 193; natural history exhibition blockbusters, 101–104, 102; pop-culture blockbusters 140, 144, 149–151, 168; scholarship and 8–9, 148, 166–69 see also Australian exhibitionary practice (1950s-90s); Australian exhibitionary practice (1980s/bicentennial); Australian exhibitionary practice (19th century); Australian exhibitionary practice (early-mid 20th century); buy-in exhibitions Boland, Michaela 127, 145 Booth, Charles 40, 47, 50–51 Bourdieu, Pierre 6 Boyd, Penleigh 52–53 Braden, Virginia 97–99 branding and brand recognition 110, 119–21, 129–31, 166–67, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182–83; buy-in exhibitions and 142–50, 152, 154–55, 157–58 see also Melbourne Winter Masterpieces; Sydney International Art Series British Museum (BM, London) 5, 85, 100, 103, 108, 128, 152–53, 155, 172–75 Burdett, Basil 57, 59 buy-in exhibitions 140–41, 149–56; object-less exhibitions and 157; branding and brand recognition

 199

Index 199 and 142–50, 152, 154–55, 157–58; experience exhibits and 156–57; impact of on museums 158; pop-culture and 144, 149; rise of 141–44 Callaway, Anita 19 capacity see professional capacity Capon, Edmund 75, 109, 120, 128 Carnegie report, on Australian museum and galleries (1933) 43–46, 73, 119, 175 Chanin, Eileen, Steven Miller and Judith Pugh 59 Chinese Exhibition: A Selection of Recent Archaeological Finds of the People’s Republic of China (1977) 80–82, 81, 130 Churcher, Betty 4, 92, 99, 108, 168 collaboration 167, 169, 173–75; intercolonial art loans in 19th century and 32–34 competition 95–99; in 1980s/ bicentennial era 108–110; buy-in exhibitions and 141; experience economy in 21st century 194; interstate in 21st century 117–18, 120, 123–29, 131, 167, 169, 192; local competition in 19th century intercolonial exhibitions 25–28; natural history museums and 101, 103–104 Cook, Banks and Australia (1970) 85 Courtauld Collection (London) 100, 108 Craik, Jennifer 122 Creative Capacity+: Arts for All Victorians 124 Creative Nation (first national cultural policy) 109, 122 cultural capital 6–7 Davenport Acker, Carly 171 David Bowie Is (2015) 126, 130, 149 Destination NSW 127, 132, 152 Dinosaurs from China (1982–3) 101–103, 102, 81, 168 diplomacy 3–4; in 1950s-90s era 8, 70, 72, 76–78, 80–83, 95, 105, 109; in 19th century 29–30, 32; in 21st century 171–72, 175, 183 Disneylandization of cultural experience 157

displays, - professional and international standards of 41, 56–57, 75, 84, 94–96 Dodge, Alan 108 Douglas, Lousie 42 DreamWorks Animation: The Exhibition (2014) 176–80, 177, 179 Duncan, Carol 17 Dundas, Douglas 52–53 economic sustainability and profit 193; vs. educational goals 132–33, 140, 142, 194–95 education: in 1950s-90s era 73–74, 80, 84–85, 94, 98, 103; 19th century Australian exhibitions and 16–17, 19, 25, 29, 32; blockbusters effect on 8–9; criticism of blockbusters and 167; early-mid 20th century Australian exhibitions and 40, 44, 51, 53, 60; vs. economic sustainability and profit 120, 132–33, 140, 142, 194–95 Edwards, Robert 98, 103, 105, 109 Egyptian Mummies: Exploring Ancient lives (2017) 152 El Dorado: Columbian Gold (1978) 82–83, 98 Ellis, Adrian 195 Ellwood, Tony 131, 149 Elsen, Albert 5, 122, 194 entrepreneurial model 82–84, 119 European Art Exhibition for Australia (1923) 52–54, 54 Events Queensland 126–27 exclusivity, single-venue exhibitions and 55–56, 104–105, 120–21, 123–28, 144–47, 193–94 Exhibition of British Art by the Royal Anglo-Australian Society of Artists (1890) 33 experience exhibits 156–57 Exposition universelle des produits de l’agriculture, de l’industrie et des beaux- arts de Paris (1855) 19–20 fashion exhibitions 149, 192 financial risks 4, 72, 76, 82, 85, 98–101, 119, 121, 126, 128–29, 131–32, 194; of buy-in exhibitions, 141, 143–44, 146–49, 153–56, 158 see also indemnity First Emperor: China’s Entombed Warriors (2010–11) 127, 130

200

200 Index Flying Fish Exhibits 181–82 Fraser, Malcolm (Australian Prime Minister, 1975–1983) 81, 81, 82, 95; Government of 99 French Painting today: Peintres Vivants de L’École de Paris, (1953) 69–73 Frost, Andrew 158 Game Masters: The Exhibition (2012) 176, 178–79 Getz, Donald 122, 130 Gibson, Lisanne 73 globalisation of culture 8, 20, 140, 149, 176, 177, 182 Gold of the Pharaohs (1988–89) 100, 103–107, 106, 124, 153 Golden Summers (1985–86) 100, 183 Goldfarb, Brian 15 government and state funding 9, 195; in 1950s-90s era 70–71, 73–74, 78, 82; in 1980s/bicentennial era 95–96, 98–99, 101, 106; in 21st century 118–22, 126–29, 173; buy-in exhibitions and 141, 143–44; in early-mid 20th century 40–47, 51–52, 56–57, 60 Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nation (London, 1851) 19–20; Australian participation and previews of 21–22 The Greats: Masterpieces from the National Galleries of Scotland (2015–16) 145 Grishin, Sasha 6, 166–67, 195 Guggenheim Museum (New York) 100, 125 Hall, Doug 101, 109, 117, 140 Hall, Michael and Heather Zeppel 122 Harris, Chris 166, 179 Haese, Richard 69 Harry Potter: The Exhibition (2011–12) 149, 151, 151 Haskell, Francis 130 Hawke, Robert (Bob) (Australian Prime Minister 1983–91) 95, 106, 109 Herald Modern Art Exhibition (1939) 57–60, 58, 69 Hermitage Museum (Saint Petersburg) 83, 100, 104–105, 126 Hoad, Brian 97 Hughes, Robert 140 Hunt, William Holman 47–50, 48. see also Light of the World, Australian tour of (1906)

Impressionists: Masterpieces from the Musée d’Orsay (2004) 124–25, 125, 147 indemnity 78, 96, 99–100, 108, 120–21, 156–57, 194 infrastructure development: in 1950s-1980s period 70, 75–76, 94–96; in 19th century 16, 19, 22, 25–28, 27, 31–32, 40–41, 41; in bicentennial year (1988) 92 Ingram, Terry 106 innovation in exhibitions 3, 8, 55–56, 107–108, 124; collaboration and institutional partnerships and 167, 169, 173–75; innovative economic model of AGDC 74–75; international touring exhibitions and 177–78, 180–83 institutional partnerships 173–75 Intercolonial Exhibition of Australia, (1866-67) 15, 26–28, 27 international art biennales and triennials (19th century) 7–8 International Art Exhibition (1936) 55–57 International Committee for Exhibition Exchange (ICEE) 144 International Cultural Corporation of Australia (ICCA) 4, 93, 97–101, 103–107, 106, 132 international display standards 41, 94–96 international expositions (19th century) 7–8; Australian contributions to 19–20; Australian participation and local previews of 21–25; influence of on contemporary blockbusters 15–16; infrastructure development from 16, 19, 22, 25, 31–32, 40–41, 41; seeing as learning and 16 see also Australian exhibitionary practice (19th century) Jones, Charles Lloyd 45, 51, 53, 59–60, 70, 72 Keating, Paul (Australian Prime Minister, 1991–6) 95, 109, 119 Knight, J.G. 15, 25–26, 28 Light of the World (1906) 47–50, 48 loans of artwork 4; in 1950s-90s era 69, 74, 76, 78, 82, 85, 94, 108–109; in 19th century 23, 25, 32–34; blockbuster reliance on 5–7; in early-mid 20th century 3, 42, 45–47,

 201

Index 201 50–51, 53, 55, 59–60; museum renovations and 145–48; single-venue exhibitions and 121, 128–29 MAAS see Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (MAAS, Sydney) Maas, Jeremy 49 McDonald, John 144, 168 McDonald, Patricia M. 85 marketing 5–6; in 1980s/bicentennial year 96, 102, 107; in 19th century 8, 30, 33; in 21st century 120, 122–24, 126–32; of buy-in exhibitions 141–44, 146–49; in early-mid 20th century 47; of international touring exhibits 3, 176, 180, 182 Masterpieces from Paris: Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cézanne and beyond: Post-Impressionism from the Musée d’Orsay exhibition (2009–10) 1, 2, 145–48, 146, 191 Matisse (1994-95) 100, 168 Melbourne Exhibition Building 40, 41 Melbourne Exhibition, in Connexion with the Paris Exhibition 1855 (1854) 22–23 Melbourne International Exhibition (1880) 31, 40 Melbourne Winter Masterpieces 123–26, 125, 130, 147, 154–55, 154, 176, 178, 191 Mendelssohn, Joanna 99 Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) 100–101, 108 Missingham, Hal 71, 71–72, 76 Modern Masters: Manet to Matisse (1975) 78–79, 79, 81 Monet in Japan (2001) 168 Mummy: Secrets of the Tomb (2012) 153 Murdoch, Keith 55, 57–60, 69 Murray Art Museum Albury (MAMA) 192 Musée d’Orsay (Paris) 1, 2, 124–125, 125, 145–148, 146 Musée du Louvre (Paris) 100–101, 153 Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (MAAS, Sydney, aka Powerhouse Museum) 30, 94, 127, 129, 149–53, 151, 156, 178 Museum of Modern Art (MoMA, New York) 59, 78, 79, 100, 121, 128, 157 Museum Victoria (Melbourne, aka National Museum of Victoria) 28, 84, 94, 101–103, 105, 106, 108,

126, 149, 153–57, 154; Edwards as Director of 103, 105, 155; Greene as Director of 156 National Art Gallery of NSW see Art Gallery of NSW National Gallery (London) 45, 184 National Gallery of Australia (Canberra, formerly Australian National Gallery) 1, 2, 4, 73, 95, 99, 108, 119, 129, 132, 145–48, 146, 166, 168, 175, 191; Churcher as Director of 4, 92, 108, 166, 168; Mollison as Director of 108; tourism and 1, 108, 117, 132; Vaughan as Director of 119 National Gallery of Victoria (NGV, Melbourne) 27–28, 44, 50, 57, 59, 73–76, 79, 81, 83, 100, 118–19, 124–26, 125, 130, 144–45, 147, 168, 191, 194; Lindsay as Director of 73, 76; Vaughan as Director of 117, 144 National Library of Australia (NLA, Canberra) 10, 73, 175 National Museum of Australia (NMA, Canberra) 73, 95, 109, 169–176, 177, 183; Morton as Director of 170–171 Natural and Industrial Products of New South Wales (1854) 23–24, 24 North, Ian 96 object-less exhibitions 157 Parry, Michael 129 Piacente, Maria 122 Picasso: Masterpieces from the Musée National Picasso (Paris, 2012) 145 Pickering, Michael 170 Pigott report (1974) 94, 119 Pompeii exhibitions 103–104 Pop to Popism (2014–15) 168 pop-culture blockbusters 140, 144, 149–151, 168 Portus, Martin 105 professional capacity: in 1950s-1990s period 74–75, 83–84; in 1980s and bicentennial year (1988) 92–96, 101; in 19th century 16, 19, 27; in earlymid 20th century 41–42 Queensland Art Gallery (QAG Brisbane, aka QAGOMA) 46, 94, 100–101, 108–109, 117, 127–28, 131–32; Hall as Director of 101, 109, 117–118, 140; Ellwood as Director of 131, 149

202

202 Index Queensland Events Corporation 127 Queensland Museum (QM, Brisbane) 84, 94, 106, 128, 153, 171 Rediscovering Pompeii (1994) 104 Renoir to Picasso: Masterpieces from the Musée de l’Orangerie, Paris (2002) 100 Rentschler, Ruth; Kerrie Bridson and Jody Evans 142, 143, 149 Royal Academy (London) 45, 184 Rusden, George W. 17 scholarship, blockbuster exhibitions and 8–9, 166–69; as mandate of cultural institutions 9, 148 see also Australian scholarship seeing as learning 16 Serle, Geoffrey 16 single-venue exhibitions 104, 118, 121–24, 128–29, 132, 193 Smith, Bernard 60, 69, 105 Songlines: Tracking the Seven Sisters (2017–18) 173 Spiders: Alive and Deadly (2015–16, aka Spiders: Life and Death) 180, 182 sponsorship 5, 120, 128–32, 131, 147, 166, 193; in 1950s-90s era 74–75, 80, 82–84, 99–101, 104–105 sporting event audiences 118 State Library of Victoria (SLV, Melbourne) (formerly Melbourne Public Library) 17, 23–24, 26–27 Surrealism: Revolution by Night (1993) 168 Sydney International Art Series 127, 130 Sydney International Exhibition (1879–80) 29–31, 30 Sydney MAAS see Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences (MAAS, Sydney) Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (TMAG, Hobart) 94 Tate (London) 45, 78 Terra Australis: The Furthest Shore 93, 104–105 Thomas, Daniel 75 Throsby, David 120

Titanic: The Artefact Exhibition (2010) 155–56 Tom Roberts exhibition (2015–16) 166 tourism 117–18, 122–24, 126–27, 142–43, 154–55, 173, 191–92, 194; influence on museum’s choice of exhibits, 132–33 transport of exhibitions 4; in 1950s-90s era 70–71, 75–76; in 19th century 31, 34; in early-mid 20th century 46–47, 50, 69 Treasure Ships: Art in the Age of Spices (2015) 169 Troughton, Geoffrey 49 Turner, Caroline 100–101 Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs (2011) 153–56, 154 Tutankhamun: His Tomb and his Treasures (2016-17) 156–57 Tyrannosaurs: Meet the Family (2014) 180, 181 Ure Smith, Sydney 45, 50–53, 56, 60 USSR: Old Master Paintings (1979–80) 83 van Barneveld, Kristin and Osmond Chiu, 119 Van Gogh Alive 157 Van Gogh and the Seasons (2016) 194 Victoria and Albert (V&A, London) 143, 152 Victorian Major Events Company (VMEC) 123, 127, 154 Visual Arts Board (VAB) 70, 77–80, 84, 97 West, Shearer 7 Western Australia Museum 49, 156–57 Whitlam, Gough (Australian Prime Minister, 1972–5) 78, 80, 95, 119 World War II 69 Yiwarra Kuju: The Canning Stock Route (2011) 169–73, 172 Yu, Peter 174 Zarobell, John 143–44