KEY POINTS:
Vanda Vitali has arrived at the Auckland War Memorial Museum with a shining reputation and new ideas. The new director believes, quite correctly, that more people will be attracted to the museum by innovative and attractive exhibitions and public programming. Already, she has offered evidence to support that
contention. When a rare, recently restored film, Heroes of Gallipoli, was projected on to the front of the museum in the lead-up to Anzac Day, it attracted thousands of people, many of whom probably had not been there for years. Under Dr Vitali's leadership, it seems, the museum is in for a considerable shake-up.
She sees this as part of a trend that, not without controversy, has seen many museums transformed from austere, somewhat unimaginative storehouses of cultural treasures. Those institutions' ambition now is to be lively, entertaining places that use interactive displays and suchlike to engage and educate visitors. Te Papa is an example of the new look. Auckland's museum has not exactly been a turn-off (visitor numbers rose from 400,500 to 600,000 a year between 2003 and 2007), but Dr Vitali places it at the other extreme - a traditional institution inhibited from "cutting-edge characteristics" by its size, complexity and branding.
She has a mandate from the trust board to achieve a new look, thereby improving the museum's "connection' with the city. Her means of achieving this are, however, ruffling feathers. First, there is concern over job losses that will result from organisational restructuring. Secondly, there is a fear that core museum displays may be downgraded or sacrificed in the interests of innovation. The latter worry goes to the heart of the debate on what museums should be. In the case of Auckland, this has a particular relevance.
The museum's strong point is undoubtedly its unique Polynesian treasures. This strength has been enhanced since an upgrade extended the floor area for exhibits by 60 per cent. That trove makes Auckland, in Dr Vitali's own words, part of a "couple of dozen" museums that sit in the top echelon worldwide. It is why most overseas tourists visit the museum. This is a far-from-idle characteristic given that such tourists comprise 45 per cent of visitors. They could well have far less interest in an institution that downgraded those treasures in the interests of what Dr Vitali says would be a greater relevance to Auckland's increasingly diverse population.
Given this, there is an acute need to strike a sensible balance between the traditional and the leading edge. Maori concerns about the museum's shifting focus suggest this is not being achieved. A director of the museum who oversaw its Maori collections is among those who have already lost their jobs. Now, some iwi are threatening to take their treasures out of the museum if the restructuring proceeds. The museum says its relationship with Maori remains unchanged. But the angry Maori words tell another story, and suggest bridges are in need of repair.
Dr Vitali, a Canadian, has been accused of being unfamiliar with the local context and the importance of the museum's war memorial role. The showing of the Gallipoli film should have put paid to the latter claim. But there remain questions over whether her plans recognise fully, and are sensitive to, the Maori and Pacific exhibitions. Her efforts to make the museum more relevant to everyday lives by delivering contemporary perspectives on history deserve every support. But the museum's traditional strengths should not be sacrificed in pursuit of that goal. If museums lose their authenticity, they lose everything.