WHERE DO THEY STAND?: FILIPINO MUSEUMS IN THE LAST CENTURY

MUSINGS ABROAD

BY: KRISTEN MCLAUGHLIN

Introduction

The Philippines has been a country of recent international interest. From Cold War-esque standoffs with China over land claims to President Rodrigo Duterte's contested war on drugs consisting of the murders of thousands, the Philippines is currently undergoing a major shift in policy, mentality, and government.

Whenever a country gets a new, questionable leader, something that I always wonder about first is the status of culture: museums, heritage sites, archaeology, art, and so on. What happens to it? Where does it sit on a list for someone like Duterte and his government? Today, I will be writing a brief overview of the situation.

The Philippines

A map of the Philippines and surround nations. Source.

The Philippines is a collection of 7,107 islands located in the junction of three seas: The South China Sea, the Philippine Sea, and the Celebes Sea. The Philippines was not always one nation, and in fact has a long and complex history of trade between islands as well as with China and Japan, as far back as the 3rd century, with Muslim Arabic settlements landing in the southern islands in the 1300s and retaining control until the 1600s.

In the 1500s Magellan, a Portuguese explorer who worked for the Spanish crown, landed in the southern region. Despite his death soon after, Spain continued to send explorers to the islands and retained control for roughly 356 years.

In the l898, the Spanish-American war changed the face of the Philippines, when the US attacked a Spanish base in Manila. Spain conceded defeat and gave control of the islands to the USA. One month later the Philippines declared independence under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo. The USA was strongly opposed, which led to guerrilla war until 1901. Under the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, the Philippines was granted independence in 1946 and became the Republic of the Philippines. We can tell from this basic summary that the Philippines has centuries of colonial history, which still affects it today.


Making Museums in the Philippines: 1901-1998


What has been the trend in Philippine museum development in the last century? The first government museum was created under American colonial policy as the National Museum of the Philippines. In the first quarter of the 20th century, places that were rapidly urbanizing, such as Manila, became gathering places for Filipino artists. It was a time of museum creation. During WWII, much heritage was lost with the invasion of opposing forces. Under 3 years of Japanese occupation, the museum division was dismantled and approximately 95% of the museum's collection holdings was destroyed. This demonstrates war's destructive toll on a nation's cultural heritage and patrimony.

The National Museum of the Philippines in Manila. Source.

The Marcos era of the 70s was seen as the time of "high art", with many art galleries and cultural centres - as well as military museums - being opened. With the 80s and 90s and a new democratic government, these systems were reorganized to be more educational, local, and scientific; for example, this is when the Archaeology Division of the government came into being to help promote pre-Spanish Philippines history. More recently, ecomuseums have become a popular trend to showcase traditional craftwork.

Around 2011 and 2012, the government came under fire from journalists for not supporting museums and heritage conservation or protection enough, with national museums operating on budgets so small air conditioning had to be shut down on weekends and important collections left to grow moldy and rot.

Cultural Policies Under Duterte

But what does all of this history mean for the present? What are the museums in the Philippines today? One place to start is by looking at how the current president, Duterte, sees culture and heritage and if it has a place on his list (above or below murder?).

Man of the People or Human Rights Violator? Rodrigo Duterte. Source.

As of yet, all that I can find are policies on economic growth, the decentralization of power, and of course, his war on drugs. Based on his typical dictator-style leadership, it is possible to assume that he may promote certain aspects of culture if only to support the continued promotion of Philippines history and self-identity, similar to the Marcos era of the 1970s.


Museums and Repatriation

So far, it is interesting to see how museums are functioning under Durterte's leadership. Earlier this year, he made the Presidential Museum virtually accessible to everyone in the Philippines for free. The Presidential Museum houses artifacts and documents pertaining to the leadership of the Republic of the Philippines.

He has also been a strong supporter of repatriation of Filipino artifacts, particularly those that tell a story of Filipino independence. For example, as recently as July 2017, he has been vocal about the USA returning the Balangiga Bells from a 1901 Filipino uprising and particularly brutal US backlash. The bells have not yet been returned.

The Balangiga Bells are currently displayed in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Source.

Memorializing Duterte Regime: Now and in the Future

Interestingly, two museums have been created in Duterte's honour: one in his childhood home and one in the high school he attended. Both museums focus on Duterte himself and his assent to power.

This may tell us more than we realize about the focus of museums and culture under Duterte, and how he wants to be remembered into the future. The idea of Duterte and his current regime is a hot button topic, both in the Philippines and around the world. Despite not a lot of information on cultural policies and museums being out there, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next several years in this regard.

Do you have any thoughts on the current leader of the Philippines and what it may mean for cultural patrimony on the islands?

A RESEARCH RABBIT HOLE: STUDENT EMPLOYMENT AS CULTURAL POLICY

RESEARCH COLUMN

BY: ROBIN NELSON

In light of Katie’s post on research addiction that discussed her ‘research rabbit holes,’ I am going to talk about one of mine, which has turned into a chapter in my thesis. Prior to beginning my thesis, I had defined cultural policy as whatever a government says it is, varying across jurisdictions (Grey 2010). However, during my interviews I kept hearing about the benefits and challenges associated with the Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED) program. Through SEED the provincial government provides non profits with student employees for eight to ten weeks. While SEED does not fit within my original definition of cultural policy, the program provides museums with student employees during the summer and, therefore, has a major influence on public programming. As such, I began looking at other policy definitions and employment programs as cultural policy – entering a research rabbit hole.

There is just so much I could learn!

An alternate definition of cultural policy, which I am now using, is any state action that effects “the cultural life of its citizens” (Mulcahy 2006, 267), including the SEED program. Within this definition, I have distinguished between implicit and explicit policies. An explicit cultural policy “deals directly with culture” (Throsby 2009, 179). An implicit cultural policy “influences culture only indirectly, the overt intention of the policy being directed elsewhere” (Ibid, 179). For instance, SEED’s objective - that is, to “provide students with employment related to their skills and education…. while enabling them to finance the continuation of their education” (PETL 2013, 3) - is not explicitly cultural. However, SEED has a direct impact on culture when museum employment is effected.

Student employees allow museums to accomplish more than they can with only volunteers and/or limited permanent staff.

SEED influences museum public programming because museums need people to plan and implement their public programs. In museums with few or no permanent staff, one paid employee for two months completely changes what they are able to offer and how they can operate. For instance, many New Brunswick community museums only open regularly for the eight to ten weeks that they have students to work as guides

On the surface, SEED sounds like a great government program for museums and students – museums get employees that they would not otherwise be able to afford and students gain skills and money. However, there are several longstanding issues with its implementation:

1. Politicians distribute SEED to the nonprofits and, as such, the selection criteria is  unclear.
2. SEED positions are usually eight weeks (There is also a longer Priority Employment program through SEED, but those positions are only ten weeks.)
3. The SEED jobs have gotten shorter over time.
4. There are delays in notifying museums as to whether they will receive SEED/PEP, meaning some summers museums have been preparing to open for the summer before they know how many, if any, students they will receive.
5. There is a lack of consistency as there are no multi-year contracts.

These issues raise questions regarding the best use of government funding. For instance, the quantity and quality of the student applicants may be effected because the contracts are shorter than a university summer, museums do not know what positions they have until May or June, and museums cannot guarantee a good employee can have the same position the following year.

SEED is not the only student employment program influencing museums in Canada. Most notable, the federal government provides funding through Young Canada Works. I am interesting in hearing about people’s experience with this form of employment. Do you have any experiences with student employment programs? What other challenges do you think this employment structure presents for museums? What are some benefits for the students and employer?

MUSEOLOGY AND CULTURAL THEORY: NB POLICY ORIGINS

THESIS COLUMN: SPECIAL ISSUE

BY: ROBIN NELSON

As some of you know, Nicole, Katie, and I did a reading course over the fall semester on Museology and Cultural Theory. The course covered a broad range of topics that we find interesting and we have each written a paper within our broader research interest for the final paper. As part of the course, we will have a colloquium on Wednesday, January 7th at 12pm, location to be announced. We would love some feedback, so please come! Over the next week we will each write a Musings posts to give you an idea about what we will discuss.

I like to think my research is interesting. Source.

The paper that I am presenting will contribute to chapter one of my thesis and serves as the foundation for my research. After tracing the development of cultural policy from 1967 to 2014 in New Brunswick and highlighting significant historical events, I discuss policy origins, discourses present over time, and the influence of individuals on policy development. As I will not have the time to present all of my ideas, my colloquium presentation will focus on the origins of cultural policy in New Brunswick and how the framework has continued to shape government action influencing museums. As part of our course we read Susan Ashley’s (2005) “State Authority and the Public Sphere,” which identifies the Canadian Centennial Celebrations (1967) and the release of the National Museums Policy (1972) as defining moments in the development of Canadian museums. My analysis similarly considers the Centennial and national policy, but also discusses the influence of the welfare state model of governance that was popular in the 1960s and promoted by the federal government. Further, I consider New Brunswick as having a distinct context, such as the election of its first Acadian Premier with social policy objectives. Within my discussion, I argue that policy origins reflect a “French” or “Architect” approach with certain limitations and this framework has continued to influence policy direction.

Now, I will answer a few questions from Costis, Nicole, and Katie:

Nicole: What are some of the core aspects of New Brunswick’s relation to the rest of Canadian national cultural policy?

A Robichaud memorial monument in Saint-Antoine, NB.

One of the major elements that distinguish cultural policy development in New Brunswick is bilingualism. Some scholars argue that the province has formed two distinct cultural policies: one valorizes what is traditionally called the arts, culture, and/or heritage and the other is a linguistic policy. These policies developed concurrently and in association with one another because Premier Louis J. Robichaud implemented the Equal Opportunity Program (EO) in the 1960s, which centralized services in order to provide equal access to all residents regardless of their language or location in the province. The centralization of services through the EO enabled the province to take advantage of federal programs, such as the National Museums Policy announced in 1972. I realize that I am not being very clear, but this link between language, the social reforms, and cultural policy takes time to elucidate. As such, this will be one of the main points I discuss in the colloquium!

Katie: You have previously mentioned that there are many small cultural institutions in New Brunswick. Is the “welfare state model of governance” still a significant influence on the province’s cultural policy? If so, how are these smaller cultural sites sustained?

The Fredericton Region Museum has a history of provincial support. I found a grant application stating they have received support since 1948. 

McGuigan’s definition of a state discourse defines the state as the key agent in cultural policy - that is, the welfare state model of governance seen after the Second World War. McGuigan (2004) argues that in the 1960s governments enacted educational and cultural public policies “in the name of ‘access’ to opportunities and pleasures that were previously denied to most people” (2004: 40). This discourse contributed to the foundation of cultural policy in New Brunswick and access continues to be a justification for programs funding museums. Guided by a dialogue of access, the Government established a system of operational funding that provides around sixty community museums with operational funding. However, the funding is not a lot and around 75% of the community museums and historical societies that receive grants through the Community Museum Assistance program receive less than $10,000. With less than $10,000 in operational funding, most of these museums do not have a full-time staff person. They are summer tourist offerings by necessity because that is the only time they can get money for staff (through the provincial Student Employment and Experience Development (SEED)). SEED is thus as critical, if not more so, than the operational funding to small museums in sustaining the museums. I actually discuss this program in the third chapter of my thesis, which I am trying to write now!

I look forward to answering any questions you may have! Source.

If you would like to hear more please ask some questions and/or come to our presentation on the 7th! Also, check back Wednesday to read what Katie will be presenting on!

SUBWAYS AND PUBLIC ART: A RESEARCH PAPER

RESEARCH COLUMM

BY: RACHEL LEATON

Editor's Note: Rachel Leaton is a second year MMSt student who received her BA (honours) in History majoring in Museum Studies from the University of Western Ontario. She has an interest in both history and art history, having interned at Museum London and worked for the Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives as well as the Peel Region Police's historical object collection. If you are a Museum Studies student engaged in research for a work, volunteer, or school project that you would like to share, please contact Robin Nelson.

This research is from a paper written for MSL2340H Issues in Cultural Policy and Contemporary Culture. My paper looked at public art in the Toronto subway system.

Public transit systems are part of urban living and they require unique design considerations. The primary concern of design in transit systems is efficiency and rapid service. While a transit system must be able to accommodate multitudes of people, the community around the space needs to be able to view these spaces as constructive. The relationship that Toronto has with the subway began in 1954 with the subway going from Union Station to Eglinton. While this subway was loved, it was a utilitarian space and did not feature design beyond an attempt to make the space open and allow for the movement of people.

Subway systems around the world use art and design to improve their buildings. Instead of one look that they are known for, Toronto's subway has gone through many different models and each phase reflects a different approach, making it a rich ground for study. There have been periods when the artwork in the Toronto subway has been placed in a very top down manner. Yet, there have also been periods when the work has been done in a very community based manner.

There are two projects, which fit under the top down model. The first example is the 1978 Spadina line renovation. The second is the Arts-on-Track program, which produced the renaissance of Museum station.

This is one of the more enigmatic and popular pieces front he 1978 renovation, James Sutherland's Spadina Summer Under All Seasons. James Sutherland. 1978 'Spadina Summer.' Toronto Transit Commission. From Transit Toronto.

The 1978 mass renovation of the Spadina subway line was a first for the TTC. They chose prominent Canadian artists who produced diverse pieces. These art works were framed as Toronto joining the ranks of world-class cities with beautiful and renowned subway systems. However, the renovation of the Spadina line in 1978 included several pieces that had to be removed and did not continue after the initial investment.

View of Museum Station showing the themed columns which reflect both the ROM and the Gardiner Museum. Rachel Leaton, 2014.

The Art-on-Track program formed in 2005 to renovate three stations of the Young-University-Spadina line. The three stations were chosen for their proximity to major Toronto cultural landmarks, the Royal Ontario Museum and the Gardiner museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Four Seasons Opera House. While the stations reflect the area, the stations chosen are selective and only Museum Station was ever realized.

A view of the mirrors from Source/Derivations by Allan Harding MacKay. Rachel Leaton 2014.

The other model, which can be seen in the Toronto subway, is a community model. This is a model that is being used by the TTC as they renovate and built new stations. The renovation of Pape station provides an example of how art can be introduced into subway stations. The station was renovated to provide better access for those with disabilities. This allowed the opportunity to renovate the appearance of the station, which they did by installing art by Canadian artist Allan Harding MacKay titled “Source/Derivations”. This work displays manipulated images from around the station printed on mirrors. This model is more sustainable as stations are always going to need to be upgraded (due to new technology and laws) and the TTC is putting away funds to allow for art to be introduced as well.

The next project in this community approach is the murals, which have been made for the construction hoarding on the renovations at Coxwell and Woodbine stations by the Young Artists in Transit project. These murals have been painted by local youth under the guidance of artists Jim Bravo and Andrenne Finnikin. They focus on the themes and history of the community. While these works are only temporary pieces they show a commitment to bringing the community into the process of change happening to the subway stations. These murals also show an understanding of the length of time and the amount of destruction that renovations can have on the space.

Mural Projects at Coxwell and Woodbine. Young Artists in Transit. 2013. From Toronto Transit Commission.

My research arrived at the conclusion that the community-based model is preferable both for its financial and infrastructural sustainability as well as for the way it involves the community. The next time you are on the subway, or any designed space really, I urge you to look around and think of how the surroundings make you feel. Why do they make you feel this way? How could it be improved? I would love to hear your experiences in the comments below.

Sources consulted

Ewing, Reid and Keith Bartholomew. 2013. Pedestrain & Transit Oriented Design. Washington: Urban Land Institute and American Plannning Association.

McIlveen, Eli. 2010. 'Art on the TTC.' Transit Toronto, Public Transit in the GTA Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow Last modified March 17. http://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0008.shtml.

Metropolitan Toronto. 1978. Spadina Subway Art and Architecture Tour. Toronto: Toronto Transit Commission.

Status Report Arts on Track University Subway Renaissance Program. 2008. Toronto: Toronto Transit Commission.

The TTC Story: Transit in Toronto, The story of the development of public transportation in Toronto, from horse cars to a modern, high speed subway system.1969. Toronto: Toronto Transit Commission.

Toronto Transit Commission. 2013a. 'Pape Station Improvements' http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/Station_Improvements/Pape_Station/index.jsp.

Toronto Transit Commission. 2014. 'TTC Mural Projects at Coxwell and Woodbine.' http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Projects/Station_Improvements/Coxwell_Station/Coxwell_Mural_Project.jsp.

"KILLING OUR BABIES": A WISE ADVISOR'S ADVICE

RESEARCH COLUMN

BY: ROBIN NELSON, KATIE METHOT, NICOLE RITCHIE

In order to feature a greater variety of student research, we are changing the content of the Thesis Column to a Research Column that will highlight a different student’s research every second Thursday. For the first post, the three thesis writers, Katie, Nicole, and Robin (me!), collaborated to write on a concept that we have all been thinking about: killing our babies.

We get very attached to our ideas

Killing our babies is something that our advisor, Alan Stanbridge, recommended. He meant we cannot research everything we have found interesting and we need to learn how to put aside something we have written or engaged with. This has proved difficult but necessary in order to focus our research as we move forward.

Nicole's babies....she prefers kittens to tiny humans

NICOLE RITCHIE

Well, I have spent the last year developing my thesis. This cycle included drafting my initial thesis concept, focusing and researching it, formatting it into a SSHRC proposal and an official thesis proposal, and then reading throughout the summer. Now, it is September and I am faced by a committee that wants a (fluid) structure drafted as well as a tentative first draft deadline and proposed defense date. While part of me wants to panic, Alan’s advice to kill my babies (or maybe shelve them for later?) is undeniably useful. Sitting down to craft this framework for my ~100 page project, I start to notice where I can plug my summer reading in, where my reading needs to focus, and, most importantly, what really isn’t necessary. Luckily, in my opinion, I am currently applying to doctoral programs, so I can shelve my babies for future research, reading lists, and exploration. Thus, for my thesis, I need to direct myself towards only what matters, using my time and energy effectively in order to get the project done within its parameters, not beyond. The most difficult part to accept is that I can’t read everything relevant or potentially relevant for my thesis. Sometimes that maternal instinct is hard to kick, who knew? Anyone else suffer from this parental affliction?

Knowing it is time to let something go doesn't make it easy

 ROBIN NELSON

At the moment, I am transcribing my interviews (it takes forever) and, at first, I thought I had to transcribe everything because anything could be useful at some point (right?). My babies are massive sections of individual interviews and in one case an entire interview that, while interesting, are not relevant to the themes I plan on discussing. As I talk about my research, I have realized that I will write about the relationship between community museums and the Heritage Branch, the Exhibit Renewal Program, and (possibly) the SEED program (student summer employment). I do not have the time to discuss everything the government does that influences museum public programming in only a hundred pages. As such, sections dealing with the Collection Inventory Program and other financial programs are no longer being transcribed. While an argument could be made (and is by some of my participants) that funding to collections increases knowledge of the collections leading to better programming, sacrifices have to be made! This has sped up the transcription process, my hands hurt less, and I am left with shorter documents to analyse with a better focus. Does anyone have transcription horror stories they would like to share?

Some concepts are more gleefully disposed of than others

KATIE METHOT

Meeting with Alan, chatting about my summer research, and introducing the concept of 'killing our babies' couldn't have come at a more opportune time. Over the last week I've been interested in German broadsheet prints from the sixteenth century. Is it necessary for my thesis? No. Do I think they're super interesting? Yes. Despite how much I have enjoyed researching broadsheet prints, this topic is for another time or perhaps for my PhD (hopefully sometime in the not-so-distant future). Consequently, I've chopped it from my research and set it aside for later. Instead, I am refocusing to continue my interviews and to begin categorizing my existing research into chapters. Over the next few months, I will be structuring my arguments, and adding to holes in my research, not looking at German broadsheet prints (regardless of how clearly interesting they are). Now I am looking realistically at what I want to get accomplished with this project, while also seeing how it can grow in the future. For now, I'll be leaving my babies alone for another time. Can anyone else offer advice (or sympathy) for staying focused on a research topic?

THESIS REFLECTION

BY: ROBIN NELSON

Canadian provincial cultural policies are interesting because no one level of government is responsible for “culture.” Instead, a region may be influenced by federal, provincial, and municipal policy. The origins of provincial cultural policies in Canada reflect different funding frameworks, which have subsequently been shaped by distinct regional concerns and priorities (Gattinger and Sainte- Pierre 2008). In addition, past patterns of support for the sector, which differ provincially, help shape its treatment in subsequent budgets. Despite these historical differences in provincial cultural policy development, Canadian cultural policy analysis has primarily been conducted at a federal level (Gattinger and Sainte-Pierre 2008), which is why, I believe, my thesis is important.

Hopewell Rocks, New Brunswick

I want to spend this post answering a question that I am sometimes asked when discussing my thesis: Why use NB as my case study?

1) The most obvious answer is that I am from NB, but there are also some academically justifiable reasons.

2) There are three general support structures for the “arts”: i) the French or direct model where the government is the patron, ii) the English or indirect model where the government funds arms length organizations who then support the “arts,” and iii) the American or private model, which involves privatized support. Within Canada, provincial frameworks often represent one of these models but have evolved into more hybrid approaches.

The framework for Government of New Brunswick (GNB) intervention is distinctive. GNB has a tradition of direct involvement in cultural funding, influenced by the province’s position as Canada’s only officially bilingual province. As argued by Gattinger and Sainte-Pierre, “the conception of a culture that is based on biculturalism is an important provincial characteristic” (2008, 175). Within the historical development of the province’s cultural policies, living one’s own culture and speaking one’s own language are understood as rights guaranteed by the government (2008, 175). GNB, therefore, has a history of direct involvement in “culture” due to its role as guarantor.

3) The province has had an articulate and comprehensive cultural policy, Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, since 2002 that purportedly guided government involvement in heritage funding (until the recent release of Creative Futures: A Renewed Cultural Policy for New Brunswick). Additionally, prior to 2002, the province had a less well-known heritage policy, From Partnership to Stewardship. The Canadian government and some of our provincial governments do not have a similarly articulated policy (which doesn’t mean “cultural policies” are not enacted, only that there is no official and comprehensive policy that guides intervention).

4) New programs (the Museum Network, the Exhibits & Activities Grant, and the Museum Collection Inventory Program) were introduced with the implementation of Cultural Policy for New Brunswick, influencing museum public programming.

5) In 2012, the policy began a renewal process, which involved extensive consultation. The public given the opportunity to present their ideas and submit their thoughts in writing. These documents have served as good sources of information in preparation for certain interviews.

6) From 2002 to 2012 NB policy implementation was influenced by several contemporary events, such as two changes in provincial government - meaning three different governments with distinct priorities oversaw the policy during that time - and a provincial as well as global economic downturn. The Heritage Branch, which administers funding to museums, was also housed in four different departments during the period examined. All of these factors may have influence policy outputs and museum programming, which is something I am investigating in my interviews.

What do you think about my selection of NB as my core focus? What pros or cons might I have missed?