Makeup
Museum (MM) Musings is a series that examines a broad range of museum
topics as they relate to the collecting of cosmetics, along with my
vision for a "real", physical Makeup Museum.  These posts help me
think through how I'd run things if the Museum was an actual
organization, as well as examine the ways it's currently functioning. 
I also hope that these posts make everyone see that the idea of a
museum devoted to cosmetics isn't so crazy after all – it can be done!

Today's installment of MM Musings will take a quick look at museum branding and how the Makeup Museum may build its brand. 

1.  The basics

What is a brand, and how is it different than a name or logo?   A brand is how an audience perceives your organizaton.  This Masters thesis on museum branding defines it thusly:   "In a nutshell, brand is the perception of a product, service, or company that people have in their minds. It also is what people say about a product, service, or company. Though a name or logo reflects the brand and is a visual form of each brand, a brand is more than just as a name or logo."  Museum marketing expert Jim Richardson agrees:  "Your brand is the perception that people have of your organization. It is
formed through everything you do, from how you present your collections
through to the service in your café." 

2.  Why do museums need a brand?

In order to
compete with other forms of entertainment and even continue their very
existence, in the past 20 years or so museums (and the nonprofit sector
as a whole, for that matter) have shifted to managing themselves like
businesses.  "The worth of cultural institutions [is] now mostly based
on
efficient/effective and transparent use of public funds, resulting in
the need for museums to find the perfect balance between high-quality
visit experience and market success in the form of high attendance
levels. Not only that, but museums also face further challenges as they
compete with other leisure providers for audience, donations,
partnerships and sponsorships."  (source) A crucial part of being a successful
for-profit is branding. 

Additionally, people are looking for ways to interact with a museum's contents.  Not content to be mere spectators, museum-goers increasingly use technology to gain a more comprehensive museum experience.  Branding is necessary to bridge the gap between a museum's traditional, static role and the visitors who expect a more participatory interaction. "The gradual migration of both museums and visitors into the
buzzing hyper-connected universe of Web 2.0 means that the relationship between
museum and visitor is ever more dynamic. Branding is key in facilitating
museums’ mutation from teaching institutions into cultural platforms for
discussion and sharing." (source)

3.  What makes a brand successful?

In order for a brand to be effective, it needs to get to the heart of your organization's mission.  As the president of an arts marketing firm says, "You have to tell people what you do, who you are, what your reason
for being is…otherwise, you leave it up to them."  Case in point:  the Guggenheim Museum.  James McNamara, president of the firm Arts Branding, notes,  "What the
Guggenheim understands is that each of its museums must embody the
Foundation’s original goals and must embody the attributes that are true
and unique to the Guggenheim brand…effective branding is honed over time and
reflects the original premise, the original idea, the reason for being.
Showcasing contemporary art in 1939 was certainly risky,
envelope-pushing, and trail-blazing at the time – attributes that are
still endemic to the Guggenheim brand today." 

4.  Branding for the Makeup Museum

How can the Makeup Museum build its brand?  Unfortunately, like acquiring a public space, developing a brand identity is a formidable task that will require significant resources – not so much to come up with branding ideas, but to implement them.  That said, a case study of the New Museum's re-branding has a concise outline of the process that can be loosely applied to the Makeup Museum.  The first step is to determine how a museum's mission can be applied to a brand identity.  "If the institution has a well-defined and compelling mission statement, it is in a better position in terms of branding.  This is because the first step of branding is to clarify identity including who you are, what you do, and why it matters. Differentiation starts by defining unique identity."  Indeed, it's necessary to highlight how your organization is different.   "[M]useums are different from one another and its appeal lies
exactly in its distinctiveness…positioning
position (e.g. as the most diverse museum in the area, the most
innovative museum, and so on) is the way in which a museum communicates
its unique values, being crucial to achieve differential advantage so
that the audience understands, appreciates, and is drawn to what it
stands for." (source)  This aspect of branding would be pretty easy, as I believe the Makeup Museum is the only contemporary cosmetics museum in the entire U.S.

But what is the overall message that I want to the Makeup Museum brand to communicate?  Here's the mission statement (which you can also find under Museum Information). 

– Preserve and document contemporary and vintage cosmetic items, both for beauty consumers and the general public.

– Promote these items as legitimate cultural artifacts by examining the design and artistic inspiration behind them.

– Explore the sociological and cultural impact these objects and their advertising have on consumers, particularly women.

– Research and record the history of the beauty industry and the culture therein. 

After the message been established, the work of translating this message into a brand and getting it out to the public can begin.  This is where things get tricky.  How would I get these four critical points into an appealing and effective brand identity?  I've come to the conclusion that while I have a good foundation for a brand (clearly defined mission and differentiation), the actual implementation is going to take a lot more research and time than this post allows.  So for now I will check out this book by museum marketing expert Margot Wallace, and follow her blog on the same topic. 

Any bloggers or museum pros out there – have you given serious thought to the notion of branding?

Related articles

MM Musings, vol. 8: free for all?

Makeup
Museum (MM) Musings is a series that examines a broad range of museum
topics as they relate to the collecting of cosmetics, along with my
vision for a "real", physical Makeup Museum.  These posts help me
think through how I'd run things if the Museum was an actual
organization, as well as examine the ways it's currently functioning. 
I also hope that these posts make everyone see that the idea of a
museum devoted to cosmetics isn't so crazy after all – it can be done!

(image from simpsonswiki.net)

The following exchange is an excerpt from an episode of the Simpsons in which Homer takes his daughter Lisa to the Springfield Natural History Museum, which is closing due to "lack of interest".

Homer: What do you mean by "suggested donation"?
Admissions clerk: Pay any amount you wish, sir.

Homer: And uh, what if I wish to pay… zero?

Clerk: That is up to you.

Homer: Ooh, so it's up to me, is it?

Clerk: Yes.

Homer: I see. And you think that people are going to pay you $4.50 even
though they don't have to? Just out of the goodness of their… (laughs) Well, anything you say! Good luck, lady, you're gonna need it!

*****************************************************************************************************

Today I want to discuss museum admission fees and determine whether the Makeup Museum would be free to visitors.  Obviously, since there are myriad factors that go into deciding such a thing, I don't know if the question will be settled today. But then, that is the whole point of MM Musings – to explore the various facets of an important issue for a would-be Makeup Museum.

Let's start with why museums shouldn't be free to visitors.  The most basic argument is that since museum outings are a form of entertainment, it's no different than charging people to see a movie or attend a sporting event.  The former director of the Met, Phillipe de Montebello, remarked, "What is it about art that shouldn't be paid for?"  Secondly, museums wouldn't be able to offer a broad range of programming and
activities unless their visitors pay.  According to LACMA director
Michael Govan, free museum admission "would severely limit the kinds and numbers of programs we could offer,
because our budgets would be smaller. When people are paying, and it's
less than a movie ticket, they are actually contributing to a museum
that serves a lot of people."  Finally, a museum devoted to cosmetics is considered a niche museum, meaning that it would most likely be out of the running for financial support from the local government or foundations, and thus would need every penny that could be generated from admissions income just to cover operating expenses.  

However, it's been my long-standing belief that museums should always be free.  For starters, the argument that they're like other forms of entertainment rings false – museums are more of a public service, like libraries.  Secondly, is anyone really going to be willing to pay?  An article at The Art Newspaper points out that "museums in major cities, especially those that attract tourists, by and
large charge for entry. Their counterparts in areas with fewer
international tourists or which rely on local visitors are more likely
to be free because they need those visitors to return…Regional cities have fewer tourists to exploit and, as a result, tend to
be more altruistic and community-minded. Of the museums surveyed that
do not charge admission, two-thirds were in smaller cities."  Baltimore is a prime example of this: the Walters Art Museum and the Baltimore Museum of Art established free admission in 2006.  I don't think people are going to fork over any money to visit the Makeup Museum when they could see world-renowned art for free at other museums in the city.  

Third, it's actually not as financially essential for a museum to charge admission as one would think.  A 2006 New York Times article reports that "according to the Association of Art Museum Directors, museums earn an
average of 5 percent of their revenue from admissions." And Art Info states that in 2010, only 3% of LACMA's budget came from admissions fees.  One may argue, while it's a small percentage, where are you going to make up the money gained from admissions if you make it free?  The New York Times article adds that "eliminating admission fees can attract new community support. When the
Contemporary Arts Museum in Houston stopped charging admission in 1995,
public donations increased enough to make up for the loss of income."  The L.A. Times notes that here in Baltimore after the Walters went free, the "income loss was made up from a combination of public funds,
private philanthropy and increased memberships from newly engaged
locals. Museum income fluctuations of 3% to 4% are so common as to be
insignificant; it makes sense to seize control of the one fluctuation
tied to visitors, because they matter most."  Additionally, contrary to popular belief, free admission does not mean an automatic decrease in museum membership either.

Lastly, there's the issue of accessibility, which is why I have unequivocally believed that museums should be free.  Says Timothy Potts, director of the Getty Museum in L.A., "In my mind there's no question that even a relatively small entry
charge is a major hurdle for many people. The ones you most want to
come, for whom that $6 is really quite a significant amount, they're the
ones you lose. The people who can afford to collect, have an art
history degree, go to museums around the world — they can still afford
it, they can still come. It's the people who haven't had all those
benefits, but you really want to open their eyes to what an art museum
represents, and they're the ones you lose by charging even a relatively
small amount."  An example of this is the recent price slash for low-income families at the Boston Children's Museum, which significantly dropped the cost of visiting after current discounts still weren't getting low-income families into the museum.  Free admission works:  in the six months after the Walters implemented free admission, attendance increased almost 40%, of which half were first-time visitors.  This spike held steady for almost four years, and what's more is that
nonwhite attendance has tripled.  I think every museum professional wants their museum to be accessible to everyone, especially those populations that wouldn't normally be able to afford the entry free.  The bottom line is that without free admission, museums could easily turn into "social halls for the well-off" (case in point:  the recent ejecting of a poor family at the Musée d'Orsay).  And I certainly wouldn't want the Makeup Museum to end up that way!

In looking at all these arguments, I think that while it would be difficult to fund the Makeup Museum initially, I'd have to have free admission, even for special exhibitions.  Not only because it seems like the right thing to do and I want as many people as possible to visit, but also because I think it would be sustainable.  The beauty industry makes literally billions of dollars a year – surely one of these gigantic companies would be willing to sponsor a museum centered on cosmetics, especially when their own products would be so prominently displayed.  I think I may still have a little "suggested donation" box, however – if for no other reason than to satisfy my own curiosity as to whether people would actually give money. 

If you were to visit the Makeup Museum, would you expect it to be free?

Related articles

MM Musings, Vol. 7: Conservation

Makeup
Museum (MM) Musings is a series that examines a broad range of museum
topics as they relate to the collecting of cosmetics, along with my
vision for a “real”, physical Makeup Museum.  These posts help me
think through how I’d run things if the Museum was an actual
organization, as well as examine the ways it’s currently functioning.
I also hope that these posts make everyone see that the idea of a
museum devoted to cosmetics isn’t so crazy after all – it can be done!

Conservation is a topic I get asked about frequently.  Whenever anyone hears that I collect makeup, their first question is always, “Won’t it go bad?”   I tend not to worry much about preserving the collection right now.  I only take objects out of storage and open the compacts for photography purposes; then, they are immediately closed and returned to their
storage space.  Since they are stored in my home I have control over
temperature and can easily make sure they’re not exposed to water, sunlight
or bugs.   (I do worry about fire when I’m not home!) However, conservation would definitely be a significant issue if the Makeup Museum were to occupy a physical space, with the objects on display 24/7. 

The top two would-be challenges, as I see them:

1.  There is very little precedent for the conservation of cosmetics.  Some collections, like that of the Shiseido Museum, contain cosmetics and most likely require full-time conservators, but how would a smaller museum based in the U.S. follow suit?  I think I would have to hire a professional to advise on proper display and storage techniques, as well as what to do in case of a natural disaster (hurricane, fire, flood, etc.).  Someone with this particular knowledge may be difficult to find.

2. Since so many of the objects have designs imprinted on the makeup itself, rather than carved into the outer compact, they would have to be kept open so that visitors could see the design.  In order to protect the colors from fading and dust accumulation, there would have to be some kind of anti-glare, UV-resistant clear plastic shield resting on the powder.  Where I would find such a thing eludes me (see above).  Also, what about cream-based products, like lipstick?  For example, I adore Paul & Joe’s cat-shaped lipsticks and blush sticks and believe they are must-display pieces, but you can’t exactly put a piece of plastic over them as it will stick and ruin the shape.

While it seems daunting, after a little research I believe the Museum’s collection can be well-preserved.  A cursory online search yielded millions of results for museum conservation, and there was one organization I found to be particularly helpful:  The  American Institute for Conservation.  The site is chock full of good information, and while it doesn’t offer any advice for handling cosmetics specifically, there is a section on how to properly care for metal objects (most makeup is housed in metal or plastic casing).  There’s also a whole page with books on conservation.  Most importantly, the AIC website offers a way for people to find a conservator in their area. 

While I’m not going to hire a conservator just yet – I already have Poe doing conservation for now, anyway –  I will take some of their advice.  While it seems silly, I may invest in some white cotton gloves, since according to the website, “oils and acids that are continuously secreted through
human skin are deposited on metal surfaces during handling, where they
cause corrosion and pitting…Metal objects should always be handled with clean,
white cotton gloves, or vinyl gloves with a pair of cotton gloves over
them to further prevent sweat from passing through to the object.”  I thought the worst thing that happens when handling a metal compact is that it gets yucky fingerprints, but apparently those fingerprints can actually damage the compact over time.  Other than that, I plan on being just as careful with the objects as I normally am.  It may not be possible to preserve makeup as long as more traditional pieces of art, but it’s still worth collecting and displaying as long as it remains in good condition.  In today’s breakneck-paced culture that includes temporary pop-up museums and one-day-long exhibitions, maybe some art isn’t meant to exist forever.

That said, I hope one day there will be entire academic programs and books on the conservation of cosmetics!

(image from museumheygirl.tumblr.com)

Makeup Museum (MM)
Musings is a series that examines a broad range of museum topics as they
relate to the collecting of cosmetics, along with my vision for a
"real", physical Makeup Museum.  These posts help me think through how
I'd run things if the Museum was an actual organization, as well as
examine the ways it's currently functioning.  I also hope that these
posts make everyone see that the idea of a museum devoted to cosmetics
isn't so crazy after all – it can be done!

MM Chief Technology Officer Little Ice Lodge Babo hunts for cookie apps.

For the previous installment of MM Musings I discussed virtual exhibitions and museums.  As a continuation of that conversation, I thought for this post in the series that I would again talk about museums going digital – but also mobile.  With the millions of apps out there, it's going to be tough for me to decide what would be most useful to virtual visitors for their mobile devices and how the content would differ from that of the Museum's website (of course, I'd only develop an app after the website has been overhauled). 

There are many obstacles facing museums in launching mobile apps.  A Washington Post article sums them up:  "Progress is hampered by the diversity of often mutually incompatible
user devices, software platforms and interfaces. Museums are often
thick-walled buildings with imperfect broadband and Internet access. And
there are chronic shortages of time, money and staff. Moreover, living
artists often restrict online reproduction of their works for fear of
unauthorized and commercial replication. And no one knows what visitors
need and want in terms of digital enhancements to the museum experience."  I think that last issue will be the most pressing for the Makeup Museum.  While I own an iPhone and have downloaded many apps, I'm really not sure what visitors would want in an app.  I'm assuming that it would mostly involve enhancement of the website's content.  Indeed, the article notes that "There is general agreement that the fundamental task for museums is to
expand and enhance digital presentations of their collections." Other than that, it would need to be something that could offer people something besides what's available at the website.

Fortunately for me, there are many trailblazing museums who have embraced the never-unplugged culture created by today's mobile devices and have developed some pretty practical and interesting apps.  I will now explore some categories of museum apps I've found and summarize how they might be relevant to the Makeup Museum.

1. Exhibition info with a twist

Many museums release general information apps to enable visitors to better navigate their collections or special exhibitions.  But this is fairly pedestrian – how can a museum develop an app that's worthy of downloading, instead of (or in addition to) visiting the website for basic information and images?  The Guggenheim in NYC presents a good example.  This museum released an app to accompany its retrospective of Maurizio Catellan, whose works were hung in a confusing jumble in the museum's rotunda.  The app helps viewers to make sense of the exhibition by allowing them "to see the hanging objects from four angles, zoom in and out, and
tap individual pieces to read snippets about them."  What makes this app unique is the fact that weirdo extraordinaire John Waters acts as a sort of app narrator, providing an introductory video and standing in for the voice of the artist.  This is a no-brainer for the Makeup Museum – I'd definitely want tons of information to be available via an app, but a way to make it somewhat interesting would be to develop an app that would also allow users to curate their own collections or exhibitions.  In this way they would get all the information about the objects but also be able to put their own spin on the Museum's collection, which is a little interactive as well (we'll get to that soon).

2. Replacing print content

Another way to get people to download a museum app is to provide information that is only available through the app itself.  San Francisco Museum of Modern Art did just that last year, releasing its 2011 annual report exclusively via an iPad app.  Unlike most annual reports, this is not a dry recitation of numbers, although important figures are included – it also features an animated tour of the museum's planned expansion and video interviews with artists and the museum director.  If the Makeup Museum were to finally occupy a physical space, I would definitely copy the idea of releasing an app with a virtual tour of the building.

3.  Interactive

I don't think I've ever downloaded any app that's meant purely for enjoyment rather than information.  However, in the case of the Makeup Museum, I could see coming up with an app that would capture the more playful side of makeup and allow for user interaction with the objects.  Since I'm still massively in awe of the NARS Andy Warhol collection, I'm going to highlight the Andy Warhol Museum's "DIY Pop" app as an example.  According to Art Info, "This app allows users to create a digital silkscreen inspired by Andy Warhol’s
classic pieces using their own photos. The app doesn’t simply add
blocks of color, but allows users to go through a multi-step process
(film positive, underpainting, screening) that sheds light on the actual
silk-screening process. Users have a pretty advanced degree of creative
control over the image —you can adjust hue, saturation, brightness, and
brush size in the underpainting stage to decide if you want to make
friends look like Marilyn or Elvis."

In looking at these examples, I think ideally the Makeup Museum would have one of each kind.  It's a bit hard for me to say exactly what would be in store for each of them since I still need to develop a more museum-y website first, and anything related to a physical space would be out since the museum, as of now, doesn't have one.  When the time comes though, I will be armed and ready thanks to both these examples and this blog devoted to the subject run by the American Alliance of Museums.

What would you like to see in a Makeup Museum app?

Makeup Museum (MM) Musings is a series that examines a broad range of museum topics as they relate to the collecting of cosmetics, along with my vision for a “real”, physical Makeup Museum.  These posts help me think through how I’d run things if the Museum was an actual organization, as well as examine the ways it’s currently functioning.  I also hope that these posts make everyone see that the idea of a museum devoted to cosmetics isn’t so crazy after all – it can be done!

Definition and examples

Museum Unbound defines a pop-up museum as a “short-term thing existing in a temporary space. A pop-up exhibition or pop-up museum is usually based on ad hoc contents, visitor contributions, and of-the-moment timing…these work a lot like events rather than exhibitions. There is the element of limited-time only. Pop-ups usually happen in an existing institution.”  The author points out that while pop-up museums usually occur within a permanent space, they don’t necessarily have to.  They can be staged, or even as “roadside attractions”, such as Baltimore’s very own Roadside Attractions exhibitions at the city’s annual Artscape festival (going on this weekend!)  Meanwhile, Nina Simon of Museum 2.0 describes a pop-up museum as a means for visitors to have a more participatory experience, citing the example of the Denver Community Museum’s experimental, temporary pop-up museum where visitors could submit their own pieces and share their stories in a number of ways.  Finally, back in January of this year Prada launched a 24-hour museum in Paris’s Palais d’Iéna designed by Milan-based artist Francesco Vezzoli.  It was divided into three parts, “each inspired by a particular type of museum space: historic, contemporary and forgotten. In each of the three sections, Vezzoli has created a ‘non-existent museum’ where he will show his personal tribute to femininity through interpretations of classical sculptures that make reference to contemporary divas. ‘They are my icons turned into sculptures and placed on marble pedestals,’ he explained.” 

(images from style.com and ifaparis.wordpress.com)

To read more about the museum and Vezzoli’s inspiration behind it you should check out the exhibition catalog.

In a nutshell, my definition of a pop-up museum is that it’s a temporary exhibition, lasting anywhere from a few hours to several months, that is staged in either a permanent or temporary space and may or may not involve visitor participation.  I get the sense that there aren’t really any strict rules, which may make it difficult to plan, but also gives one much more freedom in structuring it.

Implementation for the Makeup Museum

So how does one go about launching a pop-up museum?  Particularly one devoted to cosmetics?  There is a bit of a catch-22 – I think first I’d like to consider what visitors would want to see, which would determine the objects I’d choose to show and the overall exhibition design.  However, finding a location to actually have the pop-up museum is crucial, and the space itself might dictate what sort of objects could be included.  I think the feel of and the objects displayed in a pop-up museum for makeup might change based on whether it was housed in a cutting-edge gallery, a permanent museum, a more experimental art space, or at an arts festival.  For example, for a more traditional, permanant space here in B’more, say, the BMA, a pop-up exhibition on makeup from or inspired by the early 20th century would dovetail nicely with their amazing Cone collection.  Or if the pop-up took place in a gallery featuring contemporary artists, I would include artist collaboration pieces, e.g. Hiroshi Tanabe for RMK, Marcel Wanders for MAC, Anselm Reyle for Dior, Ai Yamaguchi for Shu, etc.

The second issue would be whether I’d want visitors to participate in the exhibition and if so, the extent to which they get involved.  My gut feeling is that there wouldn’t be any sort of participation beyond the option to leave feedback either at the site of the pop-up museum or online here.  If I wanted to go for a more participatory route, I could always ask visitors to submit their personal experiences and stories about cosmetics, or ask them to create artworks using makeup.  Frankly though, I’d prefer a more passive role for them – to just show some collection highlights and let visitors absorb them, at least to start with.  As I said earlier, that’s one of the great things about a pop-up museum:  there aren’t any rules, so launching several over the course of a few years or even months is a definite possibility.

So it looks like I’ve got my work cut out for me!  However, in writing this I think I’ve come up with a plan, or at least the first step – research locations in the city that would be willing to host a pop-up exhibition on makeup.  Rather than deciding about what objects I’d want to include up front as I originally planned, it seems the more logical way to go would be to find a space first and go from there. 

What would you want to see in a makeup-based pop-up museum or exhibition?

Makeup Museum (MM) Musings is a series that examines a broad range of museum topics as they relate to the collecting of cosmetics, along with my vision for a "real", physical Makeup Museum.  These posts help me think through how I'd run things if the Museum was an actual organization, as well as examine the ways it's currently functioning.  I also hope that these posts make everyone see that the idea of a museum devoted to cosmetics isn't so crazy after all – it can be done!

While I love museums, the one thing I don't love is not being able to touch the objects.  Even standing too close can sometimes set off an alarm. While there are exceptions, such as the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia (dedicated to children 7 and under) and  various "touch tours", efforts to enable those without sight to experience art by handling the objects, for the most part museums adhere to a strict no-touching policy in order to preserve the pieces on display.  This is in direct opposition to the human need to touch – we are tactile creatures who need to put our fingers on things to fully understand and appreciate them.  (It also runs counter to the notion that many of us will automatically want to do something that we're told we can't do – perhaps museums should use some reverse psychology by encouraging visitors to touch).  This fact is especially important to remember when it comes to makeup, and the notion of a makeup museum.

If you've spent any time at Sephora or the beauty counters at any department store, you'll notice how worn the testers are.  People shopping for makeup want to be able to not just see the colors but experience the texture of the makeup, to feel it on their skin.  Who doesn't spot a cream blush tester at a counter and not want to dip their fingers in to find out how emollient it is?  Or happen upon a sparkly eye shadow and not want to immediately swatch it to see how the shimmer appears?  This need to touch is especially noticeable when faced with brand-new products.  For beauty junkies in particular, there is nothing more satisfying than that first swipe of lipstick straight from the tube or watching a brush sweep across the hetchmarks of a shiny new blush.  It's also slightly problematic from a museum standpoint. 

My plan for a physical museum would definitely involve keeping the objects behind glass, with most of the containers open and covered with a anti-reflective, UV-resistant piece of plastic.  Because virtually all of the palettes have designs in the products themselves, they would need to be kept open so people could properly view them.  However, that would make it all the more tempting to touch – especially since, as previously noted, I'm guessing those most likely to visit a makeup museum (read: cosmetics addicts) would be particularly eager to plunge their hands into these mint-condition items.  And especially if some of the cases for these objects were kept behind a velvet rope, like cosmetic company Benefit's very first BeneTint:

(image from style.com)

To celebrate the store's flagship opening in New York City last year, Benefit installed a case displaying the very first bottle of their best-selling, rose-based liquid blush.  According to style.com, it traveled in an armored car from the company's headquarters in San Francisco and had two guards protecting it once it was on display.   I don't know about you, but once I see a velvet rope at a museum I'm seized with the urge to get past it, if for no other reason because I'm not supposed to.  And for this item, I'd probably be dragged out by the guards for pushing my nose up against the glass or even trying to remove it to be as close as possible to the object.

So, how do we resolve this?¹  How would a makeup museum reconcile the visitors' urge to touch the objects with the need to keep them pristine?   My solution, although imperfect, is to have a dedicated gallery or room just for swatching.  Brand-new items could be continuously donated by makeup companies.  Visitors could come in and play with makeup the way they would in a department store (but the items would be kept in much better condition than the often grubby, dirty testers you find in stores).  If it all possible, I'd have the same items that are out on display in this space so that visitors could get a little taste of what it would be like to wear the object.  And perhaps there could even be a kiosk where ever-changing free samples of makeup and skincare are provided and visitors could pick out 3 that appeal to them (sort of like Sephora's popular "pick 3" samples at their online checkout – many other online beauty retailers have implemented this perk).  Obviously a museum staffer would have to oversee it so that some bad apples couldn't take all the samples and run, but it would be a bonus for visitors and if the samples were always changing, a good way for them to be lured back to the museum.

Some questions to consider:  do museums' no-touch policies bug you?  And if you were a makeup museum visitor, would you like the idea of a "swatching gallery" containing the same objects you saw on display?

¹ For an excellent article on the line between no touching and encouraging visitors to touch, see this post by Nina Simon at Museum 2.0.

(image from museumheygirl.tumblr.com)

Makeup Museum (MM) Musings is a series that examines a broad range of museum topics as they relate to the collecting of cosmetics, along with my vision for a "real", physical Makeup Museum.  These posts help me think through how I'd run things if the Museum was an actual organization, as well as examine the ways it's currently functioning.  I also hope that these posts make everyone see that the idea of a museum devoted to cosmetics isn't so crazy after all – it can be done!

The inspiration for today's installment of MM Musings was a wonderful post at Worn Through on how a fashion museum decides on acquiring pieces for the collection.  The author divides what gets acquired into three distinct categories:  "the spectacular, the unique and the historically significant."  The "spectacular" denotes high-end fashion and costumes – the showshopping pieces to which visitors will flock.  The "unique" pieces are rare and hard to come by and therefore worthy of being acquired.  Finally, the "historically significant" are those which represent an important historical moment or era.  I'm using these categories to discuss how I determine what makes it into the Museum.  How does the Curator choose what's worth acquiring and what's not?

For contemporary cosmetics, the basis for collecting is slightly different than the categories outlined (I'd say for vintage cosmetics those three categories may hold, but that's a MM Musing for another day).  The first category, "spectacular" does pertain in a way to today's collectible makeup.  These are the pieces that are widely considered to be "too pretty to use" or have amazingly designed outer packaging – items that even people who have zero interest in makeup could appreciate.  Examples of the spectacular in the Makeup Museum include Chantecaille's butterfly eyeshadows, Dior's Tailleur Bar palette, and Clé de Peau's Vintage Holiday highlighters.

As for unique, there are definitely some rare pieces.  Makeup is a mass-produced commodity, of course, but some limited-edition items that were made in very small quantities available to only a lucky few.  Museum examples are the Chanel Lumieres Bysances palette (of which only 1500 were made), Lisa Kohno for Shu Uemura Advanced Cleansing Oil (available only at select duty-free shops in Asian airports) and the Lancôme Bearbrick (available only as a gift-with-purchase in Asia, and to the first twenty people who bought something at the boutiques on a particular day).

But the last category of historically significant doesn't quite pertain to my collection.  I don't own any makeup that was once used by famous people, and it's too early to tell how valuable (or not) the makeup I'm collecting will be to future generations.  Will the items I collect now clearly represent the new millennium?   Will people look back at these and have a better understanding of the era?  We just don't know yet. 

So, in addition to the "spectacular" and "unique", what other criteria do I use to decide which items are Museum-worthy?  I'd say the decisions behind my acquisitions are very much art-based:  1.  was the piece designed by an artist collaborating with the cosmetics company?  Or 2.  does the item remind me of a particular work of art?  If I answer yes to either of these, chances are it's gained entry into the collection. 

Another standard I use is whether I can visualize the piece in a future exhibition.  Sometimes an item doesn't sweep me off my feet – it's unremarkable in its design and doesn't have any artistic meaning, and by itself appears somewhat drab.  However, I might purchase it if I think it would round out an exhibition.  It might not be the star of the show, but it's valuable in terms of helping to articulate a particular exhibition theme.  An example of this is Laura Mercier's Gilden Garden shimmer bloc.  It's the not the prettiest floral pattern on makeup that I've seen, but it definitely would be useful in a garden-themed exhibition (possibly coming next spring).

Finally, I admit I buy some things for the Museum just because they're cute.  Case in point:  all of the Stila girl palettes.  I fell in love with the illustrations over a decade ago, and I haven't really recovered.  I would dearly love to have an entire wing of a physical Makeup Museum devoted to them.

To summarize, to choose which items belong in the Museum, I use the first two categories outlined at Worn Through ("spectacular" and "unique"), along with two more:  what I call "artistic merit" and, for lack of a better term, cuteness. 

What do you think?  Are these sound ways to decide what's Makeup Museum-worthy?  What criteria would you use?

(first image from museumheygirl.tumblr.com)