Glitch and Glamour On Blockbuster Exhibitions, Contemporary Lynx

Claude Monet, Lucien Freud, Amedeo Modigliani… you’ve heard of these artists, right? The largest museums in the world know that you do. And, if you’re reading an art magazine, chances are you’ve also encountered them through these museums’ key money-making activity: the blockbuster exhibition. There may be museum nights and virtual tours but there’s nothing like a famous name, glistening in bright letters to draw the crowds in. 

Exit through (the VR room, the cafe and then) the gift shop

Regardless of the different galleries’ business models, visitor numbers are always the primary measure of success and proof that the museum is funding-worthy. Even the largest organisations must supplement their income with the visitors’ hard-earned cash. It all began when Egypt’s ‘Treasures of Tutankhamun’ came to the British Museum in 1972 and long queues of museum-goers waited patiently to see King Tut’s mask, resulting in 1.7 million visitors and making it the museum’s most attended exhibition of all time. Since then, the largest national galleries worldwide have been making the most of retrospectives and big-name exhibitions, which, more recently, are often also what Instagram influencers’ dreams are made of. 

We live in an experience economy where a memorable art encounter may be valued above a new piece of clothing, but for that to happen, the experience needs to be special enough. This is where the blockbuster exhibition comes in, with its all-encompassing Gesamtkunstwerk immersion which continues outside of the display itself: you can take home the artwork-inspired merchandise from the gift shop; leave with a belly full of themed food from the overpriced cafe, and often some quick snaps for your faithful Instagram followers too. For this, we brave the long queues and overcrowded rooms, so let’s take a look at some examples of past exhibitions at the Tate Modern — the leading blockbuster organiser.

An integral part of the 2019 exhibition ‘Olafur Eliasson: In Real Life’ was the gallery cafe. The menu, resembling an exhibition blurb, stated that ‘The dining experience mirrors the communal and collaborative environment of the studio; the space itself has been transformed by sculptures, lights and furniture by the artist.’ The vegan, organic dishes came with the percentage of CO2 emissions produced, in contrast to an average home-cooked meal with meat. For those climate-conscious of us with a little bit of spare time, the proposition of an eco-lunch would be a natural extension of the art-viewing experience, only this time engaging different senses and even more money. Similarly, during the ‘All Too Human Exhibition’ featuring works by Lucian Freud and Francis Bacon, Tate Britain were advertising an accompanying event with ‘Dinner and Wines.’ The event description seductively stated that ‘sommeliers will be on hand throughout the evening.’ Perhaps it’s all down to Bacon’s humans-as-meat imagery, but is that really the kind of art that would make you hungry?

At the 2017 ‘Modigliani’ exhibition not only did the audience crowd around Amedeo Modigliani’s sensuous nudes but there was also a prominent VR section allowing visitors to take a look around the artist’s ‘Ochre Atelier’. It involved sitting down in a designated spot, putting on a slightly sweaty VR headset and looking around the artist’s workspace. ‘The scene was meticulously researched from first-hand accounts from the artist’s friends and even showed the remains of what he had for lunch.’ There were long queues once again, and for the uninitiated, VR is not always the most comfortable reality, but it worked well to break up room after room of portraits and nudes. This is especially important for a modern audience, where attention is a commodity in short supply. 

Financial necessity vs. environmental cost

Such blockbuster exhibitions require sponsors: whether it’s individuals who wish to see their name in vinyl letters on the wall or, to once again use the UK example, Tate's most controversial ex-sponsor, BP. Other than the obvious implications of tarnishing the brand’s image with an oil giant’s money, there exists a risk that private donors will push for loans of work by artists in their collection to increase their value: ‘Typically, billionaire philanthropy will privilege flagship expansions rather than maintenance and upkeep.’ With endangered integrity and questionable sponsors, are these exhibitions really worth it?

‘There’s no doubt that blockbusters are necessary in the cultural and financial economy of a non-profit institution (...) — a successful show with lots of visitors helps to fund [their] other activities.’ The phenomenon is an interesting one because despite the gimmicks and the glamour, the admissions income on its own contributes less funds than expected. Given the extensive marketing and effort involved in organising and promoting blockbusters to the public, it would be unsurprising to assume that the majority of the galleries’ income comes from ticket sales, but this is far from true. In the year 2018-2019, the total funds of Tate Galleries in the UK (Modern, Britain, Liverpool and St Ives) was £120,238,000 with public funding from the DCMS (Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport) amounting to £37,566,000. This is supplemented by Tate’s own fundraising activities resulting in funds from institutions like The Arts Council and the City of Liverpool, totalling at £80,429,000. Admissions themselves only accounted for £10,941,000 – around 9%, and this was largely complemented by trading income from activities surrounding the exhibitions, such as events, cafe and gift shop sales. We must remember that public funding, which is essential to these organisations’ existence, is granted based on agreed performance indicators, the first of which is the target number of visitors per year (achieved with 8,158,000 visitors for the year 2018-2019 in the case of Tate). While the ticket sales are an important, but not dominant source of income, visitor numbers are absolutely crucial in securing further public funds and clearly demonstrate the significance of the blockbuster to the galleries’ financial prosperity.

There are many issues with the blockbuster model, including a drop in visitor numbers shortly after a show instead of sustained interest, yet the most blindingly obvious one is the high price of tickets. There is no way around it, because the costs involved in organising a headline exhibition are astronomical, with the bulk of the budget going on insuring the artwork on loan. It might not seem too out of the ordinary to the regular museum goer with a stable job, but with a ticket to a temporary Tate Modern show costing between £13-£22, it would be an expensive day out for a family of four. Similarly, a single ticket to the Met Museum costs £20 ($25). Entrance to the Kraków National Museum’s temporary exhibitions costs around £5 (20 PLN) per person. Despite high visitor numbers seemingly proving that these shows are popular attractions, they are simply not accessible to everyone. 

There are significant environmental costs attached to large-scale exhibitions too, predominantly because they are almost always ‘loan shows.’ They demand exchanges and loans of artwork, often from multiple countries in order to create a rich enough body of work that it would be worth paying for. This involves packing materials, cases, couriers and transport of both the art and the staff. 

Although the ‘increasing mobility of museum collections encourages the dissemination of knowledge, international cooperation and cultural dialogue,’ the urgency of the climate crisis looms heavy over every industry and the art world is not exempt. Blockbuster shows create a much larger carbon footprint than an exhibition of works from the existing collection would — one that does not need to be flown halfway across the world. Museums should have no choice but to prioritise accordingly.

Shopping centre Monet

‘Will our galleries and museums become shopping malls with some nice objects you can browse?’ It seems that we may be heading in this exact direction. When a collection of paintings by Claude Monet is being shown in a shopping centre, does this diminish their value or make them more accessible to a wider audience of… shoppers?

In 2014 ‘Master of Impressionism — Claude Monet’ was the first exhibition featuring the French master’s work in mainland China. It was exhibited in an underground level of K11, a trendy shopping centre in Shanghai. The blockbuster attracted 340,000 visitors who could admire Monet’s ‘Water-Lilies’ one minute and browse the new season’s collection of Dolce & Gabbana the next. Here, the blockbuster became part of the regular offer of entertainment for affluent visitors, with little need for accompanying programmes of panel discussions. Perhaps the ultimate blockbuster, the exhibition itself became an openly commercial product to be accessed in the most commercial of surroundings. 

Not just another white guy show

Even the largest galleries have to compete for visitors, not only with each other but with cinemas, theatres and increasingly Netflix, so they choose that which we know and love. ‘In terms of choices around exhibition programming and displays, museums are having to gravitate towards projects that are going to guarantee a return and which tend to build on pre-existing popularity, reducing the scope for encounters with unknown art forms.’ This safe approach is a key reason for the homogenous offer across the largest galleries worldwide.

Allowing younger, more experimental and diverse work in its place would mean taking a risk, a decision far from desirable at a time of continuous cuts to the culture sector worldwide, and one that seemingly, is not likely to yield a return. ‘Economic pressure forces institutions to focus on the financially most viable audiences which can risk the neglect of more diverse audiences and programming.’ Yet, perhaps this is the path to a more sustainable practice for these large organisations, as shown by the example of Atlanta’s High Museum, whose director Rand Suffolk states: ‘You can always do another white guy show, but that doesn’t mean you should.’ 

Instead of planning the next five years’ worth of blockbusters, the museum decided to opt for a more locally-focused strategy, and as a result between 2015 and 2017, the number of people of colour visiting the High Museum’s increased from 15% to 45%. How did they do it? In 2017, out of the 15 shows presented, five highlighted artists of colour, like Dox Thrash and Ronald Lockett. The way the museum allocates its funds is also key: 40% of the budget goes on promoting it as a space for families, to avoid advertising the museum as a destination only to be accessed through its current largest show. The High Museum’s approach highlights an important shift in the current thinking about blockbusters as a model that cannot be sustained in the long term.

Future of the blockbuster post COVID-19

The above considerations have taken on a different meaning now, with museums having to hatch post COVID-19 plans and adapt to the uncertainty around audience responses and travel restrictions. Sharon Matt Atkins, director of exhibitions at the Brooklyn Museum, suggests that instead of blockbusters, art organisations should focus on creating ‘must see’ events instead. In the new socially distanced world museums will have to offer compelling reasons to visit and return ‘even if the overall attendance numbers will be lower due to safety protocols and physical distancing guidelines.’

This can be achieved by drawing on existing collections for the wealthier organisations: ‘presenting bodies of work from a single source, and/or collaborating with partner institutions.’ Matt Atkins suggests that the future will include single or fewer-lender exhibitions, as well as ‘thought-provoking collection activations.‘..No more shoulder-to-shoulder crowds, pushing through to see a single piece of work from across the ocean.

Blockbusters are sources of revenue, world prestige and visibility. Perhaps it’s a romanticised view, but it can be said that their scale is where the appeal of the blockbuster lies: it provides a temporary escape from the world, from the moment you show your expensive ticket to the gallery assistant to stepping out of the heavy glass doors. Being face to face with great works of art is always a memorable encounter on some level, so if you can afford it, you probably won’t miss the next big Tate show. Yet, considerations of environmental repercussions and the obvious lack of diversity in representations of lesser known, more local artists must be taken into account if museums want to play their role as a truly sustainable and effective post-pandemic cultural oasis.