Page 68

•TribalPaginaIntera.indd

CHANGE AT THE BISHOP MUSEUM Honolulu—On January 8, 2016, the Bishop Museum issued a press release that proved controversial. On the surface it was simple: “After a multi-year extensive 66 planning process, Bishop Museum will implement the next steps in its new strategic direction which will broaden the museum’s operating model through a sustainable mix of programs and activities while dramatically shifting the museum focus to center around the visitor experience. This new model prioritizes Bishop Museum’s Kapalama campus and includes a stronger emphasis on public engagement and outreach, continued campus improvements, and the disposition of assets that no longer fi t the long-term mission and goals of the museum.” ABOVE: The Pacifi c Hall of the Bishop Museum after its renovation in 2013. Photo courtesy of the Bishop Museum. ABOVE RIGHT: Hawaiian Hall at the Bishop Museum. Photo courtesy of the Bishop Museum. Anyone who has ever dealt with the Bishop Museum, which unquestionably holds one of the world’s great collections of Oceanic art, can only applaud any efforts that may result in “stronger emphasis on public engagement and outreach” and “continued campus improvements,” but it is the “disposition of assets that no longer fi t the long-term mission and goals of the museum” that has caused comment, much of it negative. The two most obvious elements of these assets are the 537 acres in the Waipio Valley that the museum has owned as an endowment asset for a century, and the fi fteen-acre Amy B. H. Greenwell Ethnobotanical Garden in Kealakekua, which was be- More disturbing are the following statements: “Bishop Museum will implement several key transformational changes, including a complete review of the museum’s collections and identifi cation of items for potential future disposition that are unnecessarily redundant or do not fi t the museum’s mission” and “a shift in the museum’s research operation toward serving as a home for fully funded mission-critical research.” What is considered redundant or not a fi t for the museum’s mission has been the subject of much discussion and trepidation. Shifting support of the museum’s staff and its research focus has been criticized as having the potential to making the Bishop irrelevant as a research institution. According to Blair Collis, the museum’s president and chief executive offi cer, “These are tough but positive choices that must be made for the sake of repositioning Bishop Museum for the benefi t of our grandchildren.” Just what these grandchildren will experience remains to be seen. We hope for the best but expect the Bishop to stay in the news for the foreseeable future. ABOVE: Charles Reed Bishop and Bernice Pauahi Bishop, San Francisco, September 1876. Photo courtesy of the Bishop Museum. queathed to the Bishop by Greenwell in 1974. The former is farmland, and concern has been voiced that its sale will displace families who have been there for generations. The latter is considered by many to be a signifi cant cultural resource, and any change is regarded with suspicion, although no plans have been voiced to change it in any way. The museum is attempting to tread carefully with regard to these matters, but the ten million or more dollars that it anticipates from the sales will go a long way toward offsetting the capital improvements that it proposes or has already implemented for its main campus. MUSEUM news


•TribalPaginaIntera.indd
To see the actual publication please follow the link above