Washington, DC: The Carlyle Group and Community Mapping

Action
Our very first travel stop was Washington DC. After visiting with Linda, Steph, and Helge, we met with Sarah for a day of museuming. Our visit to the National Building Museum started well, with a ground-floor exhibit about concrete, a photo montage of construction workers at LA’s Walt Disney Concert Hall, and a diverse gift/book shop. All the while, we circled around the building’s cavernous interior hall, which was being elegantly furnished for what appeared to be a conference luncheon. Unfortunately, our expectations for the Renate and Josh Welcome Gala were seriously disappointed, as we soon discovered that the setup was instead for a dinner celebration of the Carlyle Group (massive international military corporation and prime stakeholder in the occupation of Iraq).

The museum’s third and final exhibit complicated matters further. “Investigating Where We Live” showcased a program in which DC kids in low-income areas critically explored and creatively documented their neighborhoods. Armed with cameras and museum assistance, 10-14 year-old kids created interactive poster displays explaining what their community meant to them and questioning neighborhood assumptions. Some of the displays were quite bold, posing challenging questions about new apartment buildings (“Who do you think will live there?”), graffiti (“Would it be art in your neighborhood?”), and recent upscale developments (“Do you think they will improve the neighborhood?”).

Reflection
We were very conflicted. On one hand, the museum instigated and proudly displayed a community-based program that creatively engaged kids in neighborhood issues and encouraged them to challenge destructive processes such as gentrification and urban renewal. On the other hand, the museum accommodated and proudly welcomed one of the world’s most destructive corporations. Why should a museum dedicated to celebrating buildings go to bed with a corporation invested in destroying buildings?

On closer consideration, this seemingly unusual cooperation might not be so strange. After all, the concrete exhibit was sponsored by the Lafarge corporation – which, as we read, happens to make some of the world’s most advanced concrete products! And while the Carlyle Group is a major player in the war effort, its work often involves developing and redeveloping infrastructure (including buildings). More generally, museums and cultural institutions throughout the US (and elsewhere) are increasingly collaborating with corporations and relying on corporate sponsorship, as government funding decreases or stagnates. Depending on whom you ask, this is known as public-private partnerships, co-branding, or the privatization of public museums.

Question
Was the museum’s community-based program a token attempt to compensate for the corporate influence? Or did it represent the true interests of the museum staff, expressed to the extent possible considering the museum’s need for financial sponsorship? Or was the corporate involvement beneficial overall, by allowing the museum to offer more and better exhibits? How should corporations be involved in museum funding and programming? What can we learn from existing corporate involvement in DC and elsewhere?