Nina Simon writes:

People often ask me which museums are my favorites. I don’t like to give a list. I’ve only visited about 0.01% of the institutions out there and I suspect that the other 99.99% includes some real gems. But when I really think about it, all my favorites (so far) have one thing in common. It’s not the extent to which they are participatory. It’s not their size or type or subject matter. It’s the extent to which they are distinctive, and more precisely, idiosyncratic.

I visit lots of perfectly nice, perfectly forgettable museums. The institutions that stick with me are the ones that have a peculiar individuality. In some cases, that’s based on subject matter, as at the Museum of Jurassic Technology or the American Visionary Art Museum. Other institutions are idiosyncratic in their relationship to their environment, like the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art in Denmark, or to their community, like the Wing Luke Asian Museum in Seattle. Some are scrappy and iconoclastic, like the City Museum in St. Louis or the Brazos Valley African American Museum, whereas others are august stalwarts like the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. While most of my favorites are small (idiosyncrasy is easier to maintain without too many committees), some are quite large--places like the Exploratorium where a singular ethos infuses a massive facility.

Idiosyncratic institutions aren’t just quirky and weird. Their directors have big visions that they pursue unapologetically. They are staffed by people who feel incredibly passionate about the vision and their place in it. These institutions are often more connected to their specific, local communities than more generic institutions. They are akin to local news organizations and charities. They reflect the soul of the community and can be responsive to its unique interests and needs. They are places that people point to with pride and say, “that’s our place.”

Even the business world is getting wise to the power of idiosyncrasy. In Seattle, coffee lovers can enjoy charming, handmade touches in a funky café called 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea. But 15th Avenue is not a small community-owned place. It’s a Starbucks. Over the last year, Starbucks has been opening stores in a few US cities with a very different look--one that emulates the do it yourself, community vibe of locally-owned coffee shops. Whether you think this is a brilliant move or a corporate swindle, it demonstrates that even a large company with a highly branded, consistent image sees the benefit of individualizing offerings to different markets. Starbucks can’t be a small funky startup, but it can try to look like one.

And so I cringe when museum directors proudly show off 4D theaters and galleries filled with exhibits purchased from outside institutions or firms. Why are museums trying to become more consistent rather than celebrating their idiosyncrasies? To some extent, it’s externally driven. Funders and potential donors tend to look for particular benchmarks of professionalism (appropriately), and few are comfortable funding the most risky or tightly focused institutions. But that’s only part of the story. Most institutions move away from idiosyncrasy on their own accord. I see four significant internal reasons for homogenization in museums:

1. As money gets tight, museums look for exhibits, program strategies, and revenue streams that are “proven” by other institutions’ successes, rather than charting their own potentially risky path.

2. The increasing professionalism of museum work, including interpretative planning, arts marketing, and educational planning, has produced a set of best practices that are frequently used as templates. Learning from each other is important, but we should use best practices as starting points, not copy machines.

3. Many museums no longer employ in-house exhibit developers, relying instead on a short list of contractors and consultants. Design firms’ projects often have a common look across different institutions which is more unique to the firms than the constituent communities.

4. Small museums, which are most likely to cultivate local, distinctive voice and approaches, often have an inferiority complex. Rather than asserting their uniqueness, they try to emulate large museums.

The institutions that seem most prey to a “cookie cutter” approach are science centres and children’s museums. These institutions have three additional reasons for homogeneity:

1. The audience cycles frequently as families “age out.” Institutions may feel less of a need to offer something unusual or distinctive if the audience will keep refreshing every few years.

2. The content is often seen as not being community-specific. Science is science, and waterplay exhibits are waterplay exhibits. Many science centres were launched at the same time as millennium projects and share common content, even if their local audiences and industries are quite different.

3. These museums have undergone the fastest growth in the industry in the past thirty years. There is a big business of selling exhibits, copies of exhibits, and exhibit recipe books, and many individuals who start new institutions rely almost entirely on these vehicles to fill their galleries.

This is a particular shame because children’s museums and science centres have the greatest opportunity to introduce young visitors to the special delights of a uniquely community-focused, idiosyncratic approach. The best children’s and science museums are deeply community-interrelated, often in ways that are hard to discern from the exhibits when experiencing them casually. They may feature community gardens or exhibit labels in languages tailored to locals. They may employ local artists to help create visitor experiences. They may build their exhibits to accommodate the interests and needs of particular families and school groups they have known and worked with for years. Or they may just have an unusual and distinctive spirit or ethos behind their work.

I understand why retail establishments benefit from becoming bigger, more homogeneous, and more distributed. People like to buy from chains because they know what they are going to get. But consistency should not be the number one value when it comes to providing visitors with educational, aesthetic, social, and hopefully transformative experiences. I’d argue that one of the top reasons people DON’T visit museums is that they think they already know what they are going to get. Especially when it comes to small museums with limited collections, a distinctive personality is often the best thing the institution has to offer. And idiosyncrasy can turn the most cynical visitor into someone wide-eyed with wonder and surprise. A museum is not a museum is not a museum. Let’s keep it that way.

Nina Simon

Nina Simon is an independent exhibit designer based in Santa Cruz, Calif. She is the author of The Participatory Museum and the Museum 2.0 blog.