Letters to the Editor

by the Readers

To Merge or Not to Merge

I want to applaud The Philadelphian as a great idea [City Space, "The Philadelphian," Bruce Andersen, Aug. 12, 2004]. Philadelphia's museums, both large and small, do need to unite. Every year, we are confronted by these terrible budget battles and the question of what is "worth" our tax dollar. Our art museums have all been created because they house valuable historical and interesting artifacts that we have come to enjoy viewing. I believe that by banding together they can creatively survive the city's budgetary roller-coaster ride and continue to offer us the unique blend of art and artifacts that both residents and visitors enjoy.
Robin Albright
University City

On the chance that any readers thought Andersen's ideas were reasonable, it would be valuable to look at them carefully and consider what would happen if Philadelphia's cultural institutions were reconfigured under a Smithsonian model.

He claims that "this idea makes sense whether you look at geography, finance or marketing." He is wrong in all three cases.

While the Smithsonian is a kind of one-stop shopping destination for cultural tourists, it is frightfully separate from the life of the city. Washington is a city of neighborhoods struggling for survival — sort of like Philly.

Though he praises the positive economic impact of the cultural sector, the claim that consolidation will reduce overhead sounds irresponsibly like campaign rhetoric. Duplicate purchases of paper clips and copier paper are not the source of museums' financial woes. Or is Andersen suggesting that we cut personnel costs? Or start closing buildings and consolidating collections? It's silly to write that, under some sort of overarching structure, "the stronger museums could help the weaker museums financially," especially when it comes just a breath after admitting that even the strong are in "alarming" condition.

The notion that museums as diverse as the Franklin Institute and the African American Museum or the Rosenbach Museum and the Independence Seaport Museum could be effectively marketed by a single agency is far-fetched at best.

Andersen suggests we pay for his idea with an increase in the local sales tax. The idea of a regional culture tax has been floating around Philadelphia for at least 10 years. The burden of paying for the Smithsonian is spread over more than 130 million taxpayers; we're not so lucky in a region facing negative population growth where people feel overtaxed already.

But none of this gets at the truly dangerous aspect of Andersen's theory: that arts and culture organizations should work together (as they already do, when it serves their interests) rather than "compete." Any so-called fragmentation of the Philadelphia cultural community is probably its greatest strength. It ensures that a vibrant conversation takes place between traditions. It affords opportunity for marginalized groups to mount exhibits within their means without waiting their turn from major institutions. And perhaps best of all, it makes audiences choose what they want to do instead of smugly implying that by seeing one venue they've seen "the Smithsonian."
Gerard Brown
Center City

Correction

Due to an editorial error in last week's cover story ["Game, Set, Life," Deborah Bolling, Aug. 19, 2004], Jawan Crawford was misidentified as Devin Edwards. Devin was featured on the cover, Jawan on the first page of the story. City Paper regrets the mistake.

— Respond to this article in our Forums — click to jump there