INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FORCULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION
News
Reposted from AAM
Over the past decade, conversations about accessibility have increased within the museum field, and many organizations including AAM have identified it as a priority. There is not, however, a straightforward and approachable blueprint for increasing accessibility, meaning the museum workers tasked with doing so are often left wondering, “How do I get started?”
Heather Pressman and Danielle Schulz wrote The Art of Access: A Practical Guide for Museum Accessibility to answer this question and support museum practitioners on their accessibility journeys, regardless of the size, budget, or scope of their museum, by providing a range of starting points. Here we share three main guiding principles that every museum, regardless of size or focus, should keep at the forefront. Additionally, we highlight the work of three museums—The Henry Ford, the Intrepid Museum, and the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art—to shine a light on exciting ways accessibility and inclusion have been integrated into programs and evaluated.
When engaging diverse audiences, simply putting up a welcome sign is not enough. Meaningful inclusion entails opportunities for members of disability communities to advise on and design accessible public programs, exhibitions, and spaces from the very beginning. People with disabilities should be the ones leading the conversation about their own interests and needs, a principle summed up in the expression “nothing about us without us.”
When this is not the case, and outsider perspectives and opinions (however well-meaning) overshadow the conversation, it can perpetuate stereotypes and misconceptions that only cause further barriers to access these spaces and programs. To avoid this, museums only need to follow practices they have used with other visitor groups for years, such as organizing advisory committees, focus groups, and community panels. Just as parents can give feedback on the effectiveness of a family gallery game, wheelchair users can identify inaccessible routes within a gallery, or a neurodiverse visitor can inform the ideal location of a quiet space. Be sure to talk to multiple people with disabilities in the process, however—no one person can speak on behalf of everyone.
There is a range of ways to approach this undertaking, depending on the scale of the museum’s needs and resources. On the more time- and resource-intensive (yet higher-return) end is convening an advisory committee that meets anywhere from monthly to quarterly to provide regular input on museum policies, practices, and long-term strategic guidance. An ideal accessibility advisory committee consists of people with diverse experiences and abilities (who are compensated for their time) who can bring to the table both a level of community expertise as well as an interest in being a change agent within the museum. In the middle of the continuum, requiring moderate resources yet yielding a fair amount of impact, is populating already existing advisory committees or focus groups with people from different disability communities, a significant identity group that is often overlooked in recruitment. Finally, on the least intensive end of the continuum is simply asking for feedback, then listening. Create an email address (access@yourmuseum.org) whose sole purpose is to receive questions and concerns about accessibility supports and barriers. Business cards with this address can be printed and stored at your front desk, even carried by staff, for easy and far-reaching distribution to visitors. This should be promoted widely on your website and marketing materials so as to encourage usage, and ideally monitored regularly and by more than one person who can respond to this feedback in a timely, respectful, and honest manner.
Tapping into diverse disability communities as content experts can be extremely helpful to building a better museum. Oftentimes ideas unearthed during feedback sessions or submitted as general inquiries can lead to important learning opportunities for—and changes to—the entire museum.
Sometimes, often unknowingly and with the best of intentions, people use words or phrases in everyday conversations that are ableist, meaning insulting or discriminating to people with disabilities. Very often, ableist words show up in the language museum staff use to speak about people with disabilities and the programs or support materials they use. This can come in the form of euphemisms intended as niceties that are actually patronizing and divisive. For example, this can include describing bathrooms and parking spots as “handicapped” rather than accessible, using overly negative terms like physically or mentally “challenged,” describing people as “suffering from” or “afflicted with” their disabilities, and calling support materials or accommodations “special” items. It can also include using the words “normal” or “regular” to refer to people without disabilities or their experiences and needs. The same goes for avoiding made-up terms that are a substitute for disability, like “differently abled” or “handi-capable.” Disability is not a negative word, and using euphemisms or substitutes only succeeds in reinforcing the stigma around disability as something to be ashamed of. Disability should be valued as an equal, and valued, aspect of the diversity of our visitors.
Avoiding ableist language is sometimes easier said than done, as perceptions of what language is most inclusive are constantly shifting. Five years ago, for instance, person-first language (speaking of the person first and the disability second, e.g. “a person with autism”) was considered best practice, while now identity-first language (describing a person’s identity as closely tied to their disability, e.g. “an autistic person”) has increased in popularity. Museums can maintain inclusive communication by keeping up to date with research and writings by disability and social justice advocates and regularly reviewing any written materials for negative or outdated terminology or euphemisms.
In a museum, accessibility is everyone’s responsibility. Really. Frontline staff need to be prepared to field requests for sensory equipment. IT or digital staff need to ensure the museum website is accessible. Educators need to ensure that every child can participate in a field trip. Evaluators need to meet visitors of all abilities where they are to learn why they are coming to their museum and what they need to be able to engage.
The list goes on, and so does the list of resources necessary to fulfill these tasks: funds to purchase sensory support materials, hire website audit specialists, pay ASL interpreters for focus group facilitation. This is not to say that accessibility must be expensive, but it must be expansive. There are low-cost and free ways to make museums more accessible, which we share more in our book, but this mindset of shared responsibility for accessibility is the bigger takeaway.
Even if you cannot make the case for allocating financial support across a variety of departmental budgets, how can you bring together a cross-departmental group to both discuss the successes and weaknesses of your museum’s accessibility practice and share the expertise and knowledge that abound in your staff? Considering that one in four people have a disability, there are very likely people on your staff who either themselves have a disability or know and love someone who does. How can you harness this shared knowledge and lived experience?
Furthermore, learning from other colleagues and organizations and their unique accessibility journeys can help guide and motivate the work we all do. In this dynamic field where terminology and best practices are constantly shifting and developing, no single person or organization could possibly possess all the information. For that reason, we’ve gathered some examples from across the field of museums doing exceptional accessibility work, and gotten them to share how they’ve done it. We hope hearing about their journeys will help you start yours toward welcoming people with disabilities into your museum in a truly inclusive way.
In 2015, The Henry Ford created its first accessibility-focused position, signaling its commitment to build an intentional accessibility program for its community. As of today, the museum offers about fifty accessible programs per year, including touch tours and virtual verbal description programs for people who are blind or have low vision, sensory-friendly events for people who are on the autism spectrum, and programs for people who are living with dementia and their care partners.
Collecting feedback on these programs was challenging at first. At the sensory-friendly events, for instance, asking attendees to fill out a paper survey before leaving did not lead to much feedback. Attendees were often distracted or in a hurry, and there was no email list for a post-visit survey, as the events were open to anyone without registration. To help get the feedback staff needed, the museum formed an Autism Advisory Group in 2017. This group, which comprises parents and teachers of individuals with autism, as well as several individuals who are themselves on the autism spectrum, shares thoughts and suggestions for sensory-friendly events. Group members have even walked with The Henry Ford staff through several events beforehand to identify potential sensory triggers.
Eventually, the events changed to requiring pre-registration, allowing staff to send pre-visit materials and a post-event survey. This saw a much higher response rate than the paper survey, most likely because attendees could respond on their own time. Over the years, the surveys have asked various open-ended questions: “What were the positives of your visit?” “What could be improved upon for next time?” “What impact does the availability of sensory-friendly offerings have on your family/group?” and “What topics/themes would you like to see in future programs?” Staff have received some heart-warming affirmations, such as, “For many of us parents of children on the spectrum, just having a safe space to let our children be themselves is amazing. … Being at an event that is designed for our children brings a level of comfort we can’t get at ordinary events,” as well as some incredibly valuable feedback they have been putting into action.
The Henry Ford charged admission for the first several sensory-friendly events; however, feedback from both the surveys and the advisory group drove home the importance of keeping tickets at a low cost or free. Not only is affordability an inherent issue for many families, but many also do not know how long their family member(s) with autism will be able to last at an event before needing to leave, meaning the investment in admission can be difficult to justify. As one attendee commented, “The fact that these events are offered at no cost is a game changer. … There is no pressure to ‘get our money’s worth’ and so we can enjoy what my son can tolerate and leave without regrets.” This feedback inspired the museum to apply for a successful IMLS grant, a large portion of which now provides free admission to the sensory-friendly events.
Feedback has changed numerous other aspects of how sensory-friendly events are formatted and implemented, from including start/end times for each activity on visual schedules that are sent in advance, to setting comfortable sound and light levels, to sending reminders to bring a sweater to air-conditioned events, to checking people in on a list for some of the events rather than giving them paper tickets.
Overall, the feedback that The Henry Ford has received on its sensory-friendly programming has been significant to the success of these programs. It has helped ensure that they are meeting their audience’s needs and incorporating their interests. Staff look forward to continuing to use feedback as much as possible to help plan programming in the years to come.
Designing for accessibility can be particularly challenging for historic sites, which have to balance preserving spaces not originally built with accessibility in mind with serving and welcoming the public today.
Centered on a landmarked 1943 aircraft carrier, with collections including a submarine and a Concorde, the Intrepid Museum is full of potential physical and sensory barriers to access. Regardless, when we began our accessibility journey more than ten years ago, it was imperative to start somewhere, deciding on the first step and taking it. We began by considering the institution’s strengths and seeking direct feedback from audiences. For example, when the museum reopened after an extensive renovation, educators began noticing that self-contained classes of students with developmental disabilities were booking guided school programs even though the museum did not have programs specifically designed for them. Through conversations with teachers and colleagues, and, later on, through surveys, educators learned more about the appeal of the museum for these groups and created more customized programs and approaches for these groups. They also began offering free American Sign Language-interpreted (and ASL-led) tours, as well as verbal description and touch tours to both individuals and groups. These initial programs have grown to a robust menu of specialized public and by-request programs, as well as more general inclusive public programs with accessibility baked in.
Accessibility is about more than specialized or inclusive programs, however, and considerations around infrastructure, exhibitions, and customer service have also increased over time. As part of the museum’s renovation, for instance, elevators and lifts were added to a few key areas to reduce (though not fully resolve) barriers to physical access. The exhibits and facilities teams also followed guidelines for auditory and visual accessibility by installing hearing loops in the box office and at audio features around the museum, adding captioning to videos with sound, and following best practices for lighting and for the size, color, contrast, etc. of print labels and signs. Visitor Services and other front-of-house staff also have training sessions throughout the year on welcoming visitors with disabilities, helping to decrease potential attitudinal barriers and to ensure that staff know the choices they can provide visitors.
Evaluation has been essential to each of these steps toward increasing accessibility at the Intrepid Museum. As part of an initial seed grant to develop sensory-friendly programming for children with autism and their families, the museum brought in the non-profit consultant group Autism Friendly Spaces to conduct initial assessments and provide feedback on pilot programs and set up a Parent Advisory Council. The council provided in-depth feedback on planned and past programs and later helped advise on the development of resources for all visitors, such as a general social narrative, a sensory guide and sensory kit, and a specialized maker camp for children with developmental disabilities. Several years ago, we recognized a glaring gap in our council of adult self-advocates, so we started recruiting for them to join as well and renamed the group the Autism Advisory Council.
We also send surveys to program participants, which provide insights from a wider range of people. As the museum moved into creating more physical environments and interactive elements with the hope to be accessible to all, staff began employing prototypes, user testing, and focus groups. When developing a permanent, accessible exhibit about the technology and history of the submarine Growler, for example, they conceived an exhibit element that would let people feel the subtle vibrations of a moving submarine. Partners from the Stevens Institute of Technology helped construct a prototype. User testers were drawn from various groups, including the NYC chapter of the Hearing Loss Association of America, local advocates of people who are blind or have low vision, and members of the Autism Advisory Council.
More recently, the museum began work with the NYU Ability Project under an IMLS Leadership Grant on developing accessible sensory tools for interpreting historic sites. In this project, NYU and the Intrepid Museum worked with seven historic sites to identify access challenges, prototype solutions and, through the process, develop a toolkit which will be freely shared. Advisors included leadership from Access Smithsonian and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Also enlisted in the process were disability advocates, the majority of whom are also self-advocates, who gave feedback and insights for the historic sites.
As we continue to work toward a more accessible and inclusive museum, our evaluation efforts increasingly engage the self-advocates throughout the process. Building off of the Autism Advisory Council and our work with self-advocates on the sensory tools project and exhibit prototyping, we are pursuing and setting aside funds to compensate user/experts for their time and expertise when sharing more extensive feedback. For example, thanks to support from the FAR Fund, Autism Advisory Council members will receive an honorarium for attending quarterly meetings, in addition to the year of family membership they already receive for meeting the minimum requirements. Similar honoraria will also be provided for other user/experts who participate in in-depth or repeated evaluations of upcoming projects, such as an “Innovation Deck” (maker space) or online mobile guide, at different stages. Likewise, for the museum’s upcoming web redesign project, we are contracting with the Institute for Human Centered Design (IHCD) to provide guidance and feedback throughout the development process, including from their team of web accessibility experts and from their pool of disabled user/experts.
Accessibility work, especially in historic sites, is always a work in progress. At the Intrepid Museum, basic evaluation work helped kickstart our efforts and has only continued to enrich our work as we engage more deeply and regularly with our diverse disability communities.
When the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art began to engage community partners for our d/Deaf* Culture Project, we received feedback that the Nelson-Atkins was a “hearing person’s museum.” While we intend to create an inclusive museum as an institution, our community was nonetheless telling us that they did not feel the space included them.
Funded by a three-year grant from IMLS, The d/Deaf Culture Project is a suite of interrelated products and activities designed to provide quality and accessible programs for visitors who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH). We engaged Garibay Group to conduct a summative evaluation using a culturally responsive approach. Evaluation activities included focus groups, on-site survey intercepts, on-site interview intercepts, and participatory data analysis and feedback sessions. In practical terms, this meant:
Making evaluation accessible was not as easy as consulting a checklist and implementing accommodations. A major part of the work included consulting with experts in d/DHH accommodations. Luckily, as part of the project, we were able to hire a program coordinator who was a member of the local d/Deaf community, Lucy Crabtree. Already established community partnerships were expanded to serve as an advisory panel throughout the project and beyond. By implementing reflective practices, we were able to create several products and activities with the help of our advisory panel. The museum began to use CART captioning for programming, lectures, and webinars. We hired art teachers fluent in ASL and implemented monthly in-person and virtual ASL tours. Products that were adjusted due to partner feedback include filming of ASL vlogs (video blogs featuring staff and community members that introduce visitors to the museum and galleries), ASL video guides (ASL narration of artworks in the museum collection to provide an immersive in-gallery experience), and the creation of a Teacher Advisory Board. Most importantly, we heard from our partners that more emphasis should be placed on the annual Deaf Cultural Festival as a focal point for engagement.
Staff and partners involved in this project needed to recognize our limitations, implicit biases, and knowledge of the subject we were addressing. By prioritizing reflective, sustainable practices and implementing consistent partner-driven analysis activities and products we can shift and change to create a truly collaborative experience for all that can be continued into the future.
See Original Post
Reposted from Security Management Magazine
More than a quarter of U.S. adults say they are so stressed most days that they can’t function, according to a survey from the American Psychological Association (APA). So, what’s the source of this stress? Everything.
Nearly two in five adults (37 percent) reported that when they are stressed, they can’t bring themselves to do anything, the survey found, and around a fifth of adults reported forgetfulness (21 percent), an inability to concentrate (20 percent), and difficulty making decisions (17 percent) in the past month due to stress. For adults under the age of 35, 46 percent said they are so stressed they cannot function, and that rate is even worse for Black adults under 35—with 56 percent reporting debilitating stress levels.
Stress can be overwhelming for many people—even when they can still function through it. Adults ages 18 to 34 and 35 to 44 were more likely than older counterparts to report feeling overwhelmed by stress most days. Younger women in particular face high stress levels, with 62 percent of women ages 18 to 24 reporting they felt completely overwhelmed by stress most of the time, the APA found. Furthermore, 25 percent of U.S. adults reported that in the prior month, they often felt difficulties were piling up so high that they could be overcome, and 30 percent of adults said they were so stressed they feel numb.
“Consistent with psychological science, results from this poll revealed that when adults are feeling stressed, around three-quarters (76 percent) reported there are aspects of their lives that were negatively impacted. Specifically, their mental health (36 percent), eating habits (33 percent), physical health (32 percent), and interest in hobbies/activities (30 percent) were among the top aspects negatively impacted by stress,” according to Stress in America 2022, the APA survey. Psychological research on both humans and nonhuman animals revealed that the effects of stress on the brain, immune system, our gene expression, susceptibility to physical illness, mental illness, and subsequently on people’s ability to engage in necessary daily tasks can be long lasting, and even intergenerational.”
Stress levels are also impacting job engagement, found the Conference Board. Survey results released in October showed that a third of U.S. workers report decreased engagement, even though 82 percent say their level of effort on the job is at the same level or higher. In addition, more workers want to quit their jobs, but few are planning to do so because of fears about a looming recession.
What factors are driving these heightened stress levels? The APA singled out four key areas.
The survey found that 70 percent of U.S. adults do not think people in the government care about them, and 64 percent said they feel their rights are under attack. This sentiment is so high that 38 percent of U.S. adults have considered moving to a different country in response to the current political environment.
Specific demographic groups were more likely to feel that their rights were under attack, especially members of the LGBTQ+ community (72 percent) and adults with a disability (68 percent). Women were more likely than men to say they do not feel protected by U.S. laws (49 percent vs. 40 percent).
“Our children are going to inherit a better world than we did.” Would you agree with this statement? Most U.S. adults (62 percent) did not. In addition, 63 percent disagreed with the statement, “I feel our country is on the path to being stronger than ever.”
The future of the United States was a significant source of stress for 76 percent of adults, and 66 percent said the current political climate is a significant source of stress in their lives. Furthermore, 68 percent said this is the lowest point in U.S. history that they can remember.
Social schisms are also stressors. Among Black adults, 75 percent said the racial climate is a significant source of stress, compared to 56 percent of white adults.
Many survey respondents said that race relations (41 percent), women’s rights (38 percent), and LGBTQ+ rights (30 percent) are getting worse in America.
Money is often a stressor, and when inflation enters the arena, it exacerbates concerns, the APA found. The vast majority of U.S. adults surveyed (83 percent) said inflation is a source of stress right now, and for 55 percent of those people feeling stressed by money, finances have been a cause of fights or tension in their family, compared to 41 percent of the general population.
Adults with an annual household income of less than $50,000 were more likely than those with a household income of $50,000 or more to say the main source of stress is having enough money to pay for things in the present, such as rent or a mortgage (72 percent vs. 48 percent).
More than half of all U.S. adults surveyed (56 percent) said they or their families had to make different choices during the past month due to a lack of money.
Violence, crime, mass shootings, and gun violence are significant stressors for 75 percent of U.S. adults, especially Latinx adults (83 percent), the APA found.
Three-quarters of adults agreed that mass shootings were a significant source of stress, and women were more likely than men to say mass shootings were a stressor for them (78 percent vs. 69 percent). Women were also more likely to consider gun violence in general a significant stressor (75 percent vs. 69 percent), and Black women and Latinas were more likely to cite this.
Reposted from ArtNews
On Sunday, fake blood was hurled at a painting by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec in a Berlin museum, in an incident reminiscent of recent climate protests, though officials have yet to release a motivation for the attack. The individual, who was taken into police custody, also glued themselves to the wall beside the work.
The work, titled Clown, is being examined in the Alte Nationalgalerie’s restoration workshop. The head of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, Hermann Parzinger, said in a statement that the painting was not significantly damaged.
“I am shocked by this further senseless attack on art, which in this case obviously cannot be assigned to any climate-politically active group,” he told the news agency dpa. He added that the museum staff will “continue to do everything we can to protect the art in our collections while keeping them accessible with as few barriers as possible.”
The incident seemed to share similarities with climate actions by the group Letzte Generation, which earlier this month splashed mashed potatoes across a Claude Monet painting in Postdam. Their tactics draw on protests led by the U.K.-based group Just Stop Oil, which has garnered attention because its activists have glued themselves to paintings.
Just Stop Oil protesters threw tomato soup on Vincent Van Gogh’s Sunflowers at London’s National Gallery. Last week, an activist wearing a Just Stop Oil shirt attempted to glue his head to Vermeer’s Girl with a Pearl Earring as another protestor attempted to pour red liquid over him.
The Alte Nationalgalerie incident happened on the same day that members of Letzte Generation pasted themselves to the handrails beside a dinosaur skeleton at Berlin’s Natural History Museum. The group said in a statement that, “just like the dinosaurs back then, we are threatened with climate changes that we cannot withstand. If we don’t want to see ourselves threatened with extinction, we must act now.”
The Alte Nationalgalerie is closed today for cleaning and will reopen on Tuesday. Charges for trespassing and property damage have been filed in both cases in Berlin.
Reposted from Blooloop
Hamburger Bahnhof, a contemporary art gallery in Berlin, has turned off its Dan Flavin work for the first time in 26 years in response to the energy crisis.
The neon work of art usually illuminates the facade of the museum’s building, but in a bid to save money on energy costs, Hamburger Bahnhof has turned off the lights.
The artwork, which features green and blue fluorescent tubes, has greeted guests since the gallery opened in 1996.
“It is important that we as an internationally renowned museum set an example in the current situation and make our contribution to saving scarce resources,” the institution’s co-directors Sam Bardaouil and Till Fellrath said in a joint statement.
“We hope that this difficult step for us will also inspire rethinking sustainable museumplanning in general.”
The museum’s decision comes after an announcement in July by Bettina Jarasch, Berlin’s senator for the environment, that the architectural lighting for the city’s monuments would be shut off to conserve power.
These include the Brandenburg Gate and Victory Column. The rules currently only apply to public buildings. However, private cultural organisations including Hamburger Bahnhof and the Julia Stoschek Foundation are doing the same.
“Anyone that has a public voice, whether in a small organization, or the Hamburger Bahnhof as the national gallery of contemporary art, has the responsibility to use it wisely in contributing to the general questions of the society it operates in,” Fellrath told The Art Newspaper.
“In that sense, we do see it as one of our main tasks to lead the discourse on issues of sustainability, diversity, and inclusion.”
“We are sure that many museums are asking similar questions at the moment, lastly also due the skyrocketing energy prices that will have a significant impact on cultural funding at large,” he added.
Currently, the Flavin installation is set to be switched off until the end of March 2023.
Reposted from AZ Central
Six years before a valuable Willem de Kooning painting was stolen in 1985, the director of the University of Arizona Museum of Art warned that security needed to be beefed up at the small museum.
But university administrators, who have since retired, didn't act on those warnings, according to memos obtained by The Arizona Republic as part of a public-records request.
Museum officials on May 8, 1979, requested that additional police officers be assigned to the building, cautioning that:
"The museum's good fortune in avoiding major theft or vandalism so far is strictly a matter of luck," the memo said. "As the art museum becomes better known, this luck will quickly dissipate."
"Woman-Ochre" is now back at the museum after being discovered in a New Mexico estate sale in 2017. And the university is once again faced with safeguarding a treasure even more famous and more valuable than when it was stolen.
In the years the painting went missing, works by the Dutch-American artist de Kooning exploded in value. University officials are no longer publicly releasing a value, though as recently as 2015 "Woman-Ochre" was valued at up to $160 million.
$100M de Kooning painting returned:How a museum is honoring those who brought it home
The 1979 memo which was copied to then-UA President John Paul Schaefer, requested that two members of the campus security force be on duty during operating hours as a "minimal ounce of prevention."
But when the de Kooning painting was stolen in 1985, it was common to have only one University of Arizona police officer on duty at the museum, according to subsequent memos.
When the theft occurred, it was the day after Thanksgiving and only one campus security officer was present at the museum. Two student workers were on duty. But no staffer was in the second-floor gallery when "Woman-Ochre," was cut from its wooden frame. Like many small museums at the time, there was no video-camera system to capture the theft.
Museum officials acknowledged security lapses. The museum's director, Peter Bermingham, pushed university administrators for more funding for more security officers, TV cameras and gallery attendants.
In a memo written a few days after the theft, he reminded then-Provost Nils Hasselmo of "several recent conferences" about the need to improve security that had been held with "various university officials (prior to the theft)."
Failure to take action could jeopardize the museum's ability to borrow art from other museums for special exhibits, he warned, and could hurt the museum's ability to get donations.
Hasselmo initially rejected the request, citing "strapped" resources for the current year in a December 20, 1985 memo. He suggested the museum curtail hours instead. Bermingham replied that cutting back hours would have no effect on security quality during open hours.
Hasselmo later agreed to a modified proposal.
Seven months after the theft, in June 1986, the museum installed a new security system. Upgrades included a $24,000 closed-circuit television system, as well as hiring two full-time security guards and several part-timers, rather than relying on University Police.
The administrators named in the 1980s memos have long since retired; Hasselmo and Bermingham are no longer alive. Schaefer, the former university president from 1971-1982, said in a recent interview with The Republic that he didn't recall memos related to museum security.
"That was a long time ago," he said, adding he was no longer president when the 1985 theft occurred.
The "Woman-Ochre" theft remains infamous in museum security circles.
On Nov. 29, 1985, a man and a woman walked into the University of Arizona Museum of Art as the building opened.
It was a holiday week with only a few staffers on hand.
Police believe the woman distracted the single security officer while the man walked upstairs and cut the valuable de Kooning painting out of its frame. Unobserved, he rolled up the canvas, stuffed it under his winter jacket and the couple fled in a rust-colored sports car.
John Barelli, who oversaw security at New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Artfor 30 years, described the de Kooning crime as a "theft of opportunity."
"It was an opportunity and — boom — they took it," he said in a recent interview.
University police enlisted the help of the FBI and released a composite sketch of the suspects. But within months, the investigation hit a dead end.
The painting vanished for 31 years, until it was discovered in 2017 in the home of a deceased, elderly New Mexico couple in an estate sale.
When "Woman-Ochre" was recovered, the university covered the cost of installing a new camera system, said Olivia Miller, the museum's interim director and curator.
The museum increased security in preparation for the painting's return to exhibit, she said. She declined to discuss security costs but said ongoing costs, such as security staffing, are part of the museum's annual budget and are supported by a combination of funding sources, including state funding, museum endowments, and admission fees. The museum has a total annual budget of about $1 million.
She declined to discuss the increased security measures except for one detail that is visibly apparent:
"Woman-Ochre" and its original wooden frame are encased in a clear, acrylic display case using museum-quality material known as Optium Museum Acrylic.
"It might not always be in a case forever," Miller said. "But we think that just given its history, given what it's been through, given what the museum has been through, it's a step we just needed to take."
National security experts say acrylic cases, or glass, over paintings are increasingly common, especially on smaller paintings that thieves could try to smuggle out.
One of the world's most famous paintings, the "Mona Lisa," on exhibit at the Louvre Museum in Paris, is protected by bulletproof glass. The protection came in handy last summer when a man disguised as an old woman jumped out of a wheelchair and smeared cake across the glass.
More recently, climate protesters threw soup at Vincent van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” in London’s National Gallery, causing minor damage to the frame but leaving the glass-covered painting unharmed.
UA museum officials said it was important to display "Woman-Ochre" in the original wooden frame the painting was cut from in 1985. That simple frame wouldn't accommodate an insert of acrylic or glass into the frame so they had to encase both the painting and frame in acrylic.
The Republic contacted three national experts on museum security, who aren't involved in the university's security plans but are familiar with how museums safeguard their paintings.
Steve Keller, a museum security expert based in Florida, who helped write national security recommendations for museums, said the protection for paintings has changed dramatically since the 1980s. The de Kooning theft "would have been much harder to pull off" with current security technology, he said.
Brazen thefts, like the de Kooning heist, aren't common, according to Rob Layne, vice president of Layne Consultants International in Denver. But to prevent them, museums typically have a range of protections.
Here are security measures commonly used at museums today:
Video surveillance, digital video and cameras with monitoring capabilities are some of the biggest advancements in museum security. Video analytics are computer software that allows museums to monitor and analyze video surveillance. The painting and the area surrounding the painting are programmed into the software. If this image is disturbed by someone getting too close to the painting or touching it, an alarm goes off.
Barelli, the New York City security consultant, said he would place cameras in places where they were visible to visitors — to act as a deterrent against theft or vandalism— and also in locations where they weren't visible to capture any attempted vandalism or theft.
Radio-frequency identification, known as RFID technology for short, uses radio waves to keep track of paintings, sculptures or rare books. Tiny RFID tags are affixed to the art. An alarm triggers if someone moves a painting from its location.
Global Position Devices are often used when art is loaned to other museums or has to travel. A tracking device attached to the painting's wooden crate sends a satellite signal that is processed by a receiver. Museum security can see the location of the GPS device and its movements, allowing them to track the art in real-time.
GPS was used to track "Woman-Ochre" in September when the painting traveled 500 miles back to Tucson from the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles where it had been undergoing restoration. Museum officials also kept in contact by text and phone with a museum staffer who rode along with the painting in the truck. The truck was further escorted by two SUVs filled with a half-dozen officers from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Security staff, visitors and volunteers are a critical part of museum security. Experts say it doesn't matter how much an organization spends on technology if the staffing structure isn't there to support it. In-house security is common at many museums. Contract security guards are brought in as supplements for special events when more people are milling through the galleries.
At an evening reception to celebrate "Woman-Ochre" on Oct. 7, The Republic counted at least four security guards — dressed in elegant suits and equipped with earpieces — in the first-floor gallery with the painting. More security guards lingered outside the gallery's entrance and exit.
At least two University of Arizona police officers were on hand in the lobby, dressed in uniforms and bulletproof vests.
On that evening, "Woman-Ochre" wasn't going anywhere.
And when the exhibit opened to the public the next day, there was an added level of protection.
"Woman-Ochre" was already behind an acrylic glass case.
Let’s be clear: physical security infrastructure is the target of many cyber criminals. IP cameras, access control systems, visitor kiosks, and related systems are by their nature attractive targets because they have compute, storage, and networking (as traditional IT systems do).
But because they are Internet of Things (IoT) devices, the solutions used to secure IT systems simply won’t work for them. Once breached, physical security systems can enable many other forms of attack on an organization, including planting ransomware, launching Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, exfiltrating sensitive data, and potentially putting control of security systems in the hands of criminals.
Especially as the ability to create deepfakes based on real video footage becomes more sophisticated, ensuring that physical security data is untampered and suitable to be used as evidence adds to the focus on hardening physical security systems.
During the last few years, studies and industry security alerts have shown that most organizations do not sufficiently harden and protect physical security systems. Just ask yourself: Are all your camera devices on the latest and most secure version of firmware? Are your device passwords maintained and unique in accordance with your corporate policies? Are any of your devices authenticated using 802.1x certificates, or having traffic between devices encrypted using TLS/SSL certificates?
If you answered no to most of these questions, it suggests that you’re at high risk of your physical security systems being breached and exploited.
Hardening physical security systems is hard! The starting point is identifying all the devices on your network, something that many security teams struggle with because of the scale of devices, their locations, and the long-lived nature of IP cameras. Whether using an IoT security platform that can do it for you, or by using a dedicated asset discovery solution, a complete inventory will drive all efforts in hardening those systems.
Another factor that makes physical security systems more difficult to protect is the heterogenous nature of such systems. Very few organizations have just one make or model for cameras; most have several types, all with unique mechanisms for updating and securing them. Also complicating hardening devices is how they are often on isolated—or segmented—networks.
Reaching across multiple network segments to access the devices requires specialized technology, otherwise a lot of manual effort is consumed securing devices one network segment at a time.
Despite the barriers listed above, there are now more automated and purpose-built solutions to harden physical security—and in general IoT/OT—devices. The key functions of these automated systems are to:
One advantage physical security teams have in implementing more rigorous methods for hardening their devices is that those systems are the most prolific and widespread IoT/Operational Technology (OT) devices in most organizations. As IoT/OT security becomes more visible at all levels of the organization, it is an opportunity for physical security organizations to take the lead corporatewide on IoT/OT security.
Since cybersecurity is a team sport, who should your teammates be? One best practice is to form an IoT Committee within your organization, with members from the CISO/CIO staff, as well as departments that manage IoT/OT devices like manufacturing, facilities, and logistics.
Organizations who have already formed such teams have also found an important side benefit: the processes used to monitor and harden physical security systems provide important data to other parts of the organization (compliance and audit, cyber insurance negotiations, public reporting, and so forth), increasing the strategic value of the physical security team.
By 2024, more than 75 percent of CEOs will be personally liable for cyber breaches, according to predictions and analysis from Gartner. Keeping your CEO and board of directors informed and aware of the efforts to harden physical security and IoT/OT systems will help to ensure that resources are made available to be successful in preventing cyber criminals from exploiting these systems.
Finally, consider making hardening your physical security into an industry issue: engage with others in your industry who share these same problems. During the last few years, several industry-level organizations—both existing and new—have made sharing best practices and information on threats more efficient and robust.
For example, the Real Estate Cyber Consortium publishes detailed information and guidelines on hardening and securing physical security and IoT systems specific to the commercial real estate business. Check within your industry if that exists or consider forming one because the types and methods of attacks will be similar across the industry and collectively the sector will be more resilient from that effort.
Whether through deploying automated cyber hygiene and service assurance solutions, documenting and sharing best practices, or fostering internal coordination across multiple departments, now is the time to take action.
Reposted from The Observer
Two climate activists were arrested after throwing tomato soup on a Vincent Van Gogh painting hanging in London’s National Gallery and gluing themselves to the exhibit wall.
The demonstration, which took place this morning (Oct. 14), is the latest escalation in a series of protests across Europe which have art institutions rethinking security protocols and American museums worried the demonstrations may spread.
Today’s protestors targeted a glass-covered 1888 Van Gogh entitled Sunflowers, according to a statement from the National Gallery. “The room was cleared of visitors and police were called. Officers are now on the scene. There is some minor damage to the frame but the painting is unharmed,” wrote the museum, which confirmed the two demonstrators were arrested and the painting is now back on display.
The action was planned by Just Stop Oil, a U.K. climate group, and carried out by Phoebe Plummer, 21, and Anna Holland, 20. “Is art worth more than life? More than food? More than justice?” asked Plummer during the demonstration, after opening a can of Heinz soup and tossing its contents on the painting behind her.
“This is not a one-day event, this is an act of resistance against a criminal government and their genocidal death project,” reads a press release from Just Stop Oil. “Our supporters will be returning—today, tomorrow and the next day—and the next day after that—and every day until our demand is met: no new oil and gas in the U.K.”
Just Stop Oil demonstrators have glued themselves to artwork in prominent U.K. museums over the past few months, targeting London’s Courtauld Gallery and Royal Academy of Arts, in addition to museums in Glasgow and Manchester. In Italy, climate group Ultima Generazione has staged similar protests at Florence’s Uffizi Gallery and the Vatican Museums, while German environmental organizers from Letzte Generation Group struck museums in Berlin, Munich, Dresden and Frankfurt over the past month. All three climate groups are funded by the Climate Emergency Fund, a California-based fund founded in 2019 by philanthropic millionaires to support environmental activism.
“They certainly are persistent. For a while there they were just touching the frame and not doing much else, but this is getting ridiculous,” said Steve Keller, a museum security consultant whose clients include the Smithsonian and Washington D.C.’s National Gallery of Art. The escalation of protests signifies a U.S. demonstration will likely occur soon, according to Keller, who said American museums have become worried and begun formulating response plans. “I know they’re concerned,” he said.
However, U.S. museums probably won’t be willing to make any significant security changes until they are targeted, said Keller. “Museums are very slow to react on something like this.”
Implementing strengthened security protocol is a delicate balance in museums, he said. Intensified screening measures are often rejected because they make for an unfriendly environment, while barriers around high-value artwork lessen the experience for average museum-goers. Keller recalled how barriers placed around artwork at the Uffizi Galleries, which took place in the early 1990s after bombings, “totally destroyed the visitor experience.”
Museums are an ideal target for protests because of their high profile and soft security, according to Keller. “Demonstrators are not likely going to be in a situation where someone gets shot by a security guard,” he said.
Despite the fact that art institutions so far haven’t visibly implemented any new security changes in light of the protests, Keller believes this will likely change soon. “If it happens three more times, museums may change their thinking about this.”
It’s no secret that active shooter incidents are becoming increasingly common in the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found that there had been a 100 percent increase in such incidents between 2016 and 2020, doubling from 20 incidents to 40.
Adding to the danger, active shooter situations unfold rapidly and pose a high risk of injury or killing. Plus, these incidents cost organizations billions of dollars annually while dramatically affecting the productivity and morale of employees.
Well-considered procedures and strategies are essential to help mitigate the risks from active shooters. Some of the most effective active shooter response strategies pertain to Run. Hide. Fight. training, physical security measures, and environmental design discouraging criminal behavior. But identifying the best technique amid chaos can be tough, with indecision possibly incapacitating stakeholders and putting employees’ lives in imminent danger.
There’s an urgent need to develop a universal set of actions to help organizational stakeholders make better decisions regarding active shooter incidents. Acting quickly and decisively can be the difference between life and death.
After a thorough analysis of four case studies, the author found that a multidimensional strategy—one that combines the strengths of different response strategies—is best for minimizing harm in active shooter incidents. This type of strategy could prevent nearly 50 percent of casualties in an active assailant incident while significantly enhancing an organization security program’s effectiveness.
While a wealth of research supports the success of one-dimensional strategies for responding to active shooter incidents, this approach isn’t entirely effective for preventing these events and minimizing loss. Additionally, most existing studies focus solely on incidents in specific locations, such as healthcare facilities, places of worship, and schools.
This limited perspective reduces the likelihood of identifying a comprehensive range of strategies that may prove helpful in these events.
Let’s assess each major active shooter response strategy in detail:
Run. Hide. Fight. The three-step training model was quick to garner recognition as of the most effective active shooter response strategies.
However, it fails to address the “freeze” response that prevents people from deciding the best course of action during an emergency. This can happen with trained individuals as well. In addition, the Run. Hide. Fight. approach is based on linear thinking. With conditions changing by the second in active shooting scenarios, victims can’t afford to evaluate their actions in a sequence.
Finally, this approach is critiqued for pushing people to act as heroes and commit to fighting the shooter. Training to attack an armed opponent takes years to master. Some believe that by including a “fight” option, you are placing people in a no-win situation where they will not survive. Conversely, some believe it reinforces a victim mindset. The criticism is that having run and hide as two options could foster people’s nonaggressive mindsets, leaving them unprepared to fight.
Physical security measures. Early warning systems, security cameras, and armed security guards significantly improve the effectiveness of an active shooter response. But organizations often face challenges when implementing these security measures in particular locations, including schools and hospitals. Besides, such security measures require large investments, which not all organizations can afford.
Additionally, some staff members in settings with ample security measures don’t use them or bypass them because of the lack of training or operation failures. This was the case at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where security failed to lock a gate that later allowed the shooter unrestricted access to the campus. Additionally, there was an operational failure of the locking mechanism at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, which again allowed the shooter unrestricted access to the school.
Environmental design. Incorporating design elements like glazed glass windows and ballistic barriers is a helpful strategy for discouraging criminal behavior and keeping active shooters at bay. Relying on this approach alone doesn’t prevent active shooter incidents or reduce casualties, though. The high cost also acts as a barrier, leaving organizations with poor design features that fail to deter active shooters.
So, what’s next? Look into multidimensional active shooter responses.
Reposted from The Washington Post
Police detained an American tourist at a Vatican museum after he disfigured two ancient Roman sculptures by hurling them to the floor, authorities said Thursday.
The man toppled the artwork on Wednesday at the Chiaramonti Museum, which is part of the Vatican Museums and home to one of the most important collections of Roman portrait busts.
Italian newspapers reported that the man grew angry because he was not allowed “to see the Pope.” A representative for the Vatican Museums told The Washington Post that his motive was unclear.
Photos shared on social media, and confirmed by the museum representative to The Post, showed the damaged busts strewn on the marble floor. One had lost part of its nose and an ear, the museum said.
A police spokesman said the 65-year-old had been in Rome for about three days and appeared to be “psychologically distressed.” He was given an aggravated property damage charge and released, the spokesman said.
The man had a paid ticket and appeared to be there alone, one of 20,000 visitors that day, Vatican Museums spokesman Matteo Alessandrini said.
“He smashed the two busts to the ground, one after the other,” Alessandrini said. Both of the toppled heads were from the ancient city of Rome, with one depicting an elderly man, and the other, a young man.
When the first hit the ground, “the loud bang echoed through the long gallery,” he said. Two Vatican police officers stationed within the museum arrived within minutes and took the man into custody.
Technicians are now working to reassemble the damaged sculptures, which had been swiftly taken to the museum’s restoration lab after the incident.
The pieces were fixable but would require 300 hours of restoration work, according to Alessandrini. “The scare was bigger than the actual damage,” he said.
Rick Steves, who runs a Europe travel business, said that although all artifacts in the museum could be considered precious, the damaged pieces were relatively insignificant.
For Steves, the downside of such incidents may also be “the loss of access to beautiful art in general.”
To avoid other incidents, the museum could choose to put more security up, as was the case after a notorious artwork assault in 1972. That year, a Hungarian geologist attacked Michelangelo’s Pietà in St. Peter’s Basilica with a hammer, damaging the Carrara marble sculpture depicting the Virgin Mary holding Jesus after the crucifixion. The statue was later repaired and put behind bulletproof glass.
“The reality is you can’t even see the Pietà from the angle Michelangelo wanted you to see it,” Steves said. “He wanted you to be up close.”
The Vatican museums, where millions of people a year flocked before the pandemic, reopened last year after coronavirus restrictions closed them or curbed opening hours.
Reposted from The Guardian
Britain’s libraries and museums are preparing to act as warm havens for people unable to afford to heat their homes in the winter months.
Ministers are being called on to provide urgent new funding so public buildings can cope with a surge in visitors during the coldest months.
The buildings will be part of a network across the country which will provide warm shelter to help reduce excess winter deaths linked to freezing conditions.
The call for support to ensure key public buildings can keep their doors open comes as organisations across the country are being confronted with vast increases in energy bills. One care homes group told the Observer that its annual energy bills are rising from £1.5m a year to £7.7m.
Alistair Brown, policy manager at the Museums Association, representing the museum sector, said: “Museums will be relied upon to respond to this crisis, but many will be struggling to heat their own spaces.
“People are beginning to understand the scale of the crisis and we don’t want to reduce the hours that museums are open.”
Catalyst Science Discovery Centre and Museum in Widnes, Cheshire, said last week that the quote for renewing its annual gas contract had risen from £9,700 to £54,362.
Isobel Hunter, chief executive of Libraries Connected, which represents the public library sector, said: “Central government should provide councils with additional funding this winter to meet rising energy costs, which would help ensure libraries stay open as vital warm refuges for their communities.”
Paul Drumm, of GLL, a charitable social enterprise that operates libraries in Greenwich in south-east London, said the borough’s libraries had already spent £28,000 on new seats and other furniture to prepare for the increase in visitors during the winter months.
He said: “We are acutely aware of the huge impact that the energy crisis will have on many living within the local community. We will be promoting our libraries as designated ‘warm spaces’ for those who can’t afford to heat their homes.”
The libraries and museums will be part of a national network of warm hubs provided by local councils, community groups and charities. South Cambridgeshire district council issued a tender earlier this month for a contract to deliver “a series of warm hubs from community buildings” to support those at risk from the cold.
Meanwhile Care England, which represents 4,500 care services, said operators were facing up to 500% increases in energy costs, with some considering reducing the number of elderly people they take from hospital wards or shutting their care homes in order to survive.
“Care services across the country will have to close this winter unless the government takes immediate action. Some providers just won’t be able to go on – they will collapse,” said Professor Martin Green, chief executive of Care England. “There is no cap on energy costs for care homes and elderly care home residents do not get any rebate from the government.”
Analysis by the consultancy BoxPower shows that care homes were paying energy costs equivalent to £700 per bed every year. But this month homes are being quoted the equivalent of £4,027 per bed for those wishing to purchase energy from October. This is an increase of around 437% in energy cost per bed in a 12-month period.
Brunelcare, which provides sheltered housing to 1,400 people and runs seven care homes in Bristol and Somerset, was forced this month to sign a new annual energy contract worth £7.7m because prices were rising by £100,000 a day. The charity was paying around £1.5m a year until last year.
“We’re in an absolutely impossible situation,” said Oona Goldsworthy, the chief executive of Brunelcare. “I’ve had one of the worst weeks ever and I’ve been through Covid so I know what hard times are like. We are being completely abandoned again.”
A government spokesperson said it had made £3.7bn of additional funding available to local authorities, which they can spend on adult social care. “No national government can control the global factors pushing up the price of energy, but we will continue to support businesses, including care homes, in navigating the months ahead,” a spokesperson said.
Headteachers say they are faced with a “double whammy” of spiralling energy bills and an increased 5% pay rise for teachers. An executive headteacher in a multi-academy trust, who oversees a number of inner city secondary schools and asked not to be named, said: “I’m already at the bare bones of support staff. We won’t replace any staff as they leave.” His schools are already rolling two classes of children together to cover temporary staff gaps.
Dan Morrow, chief executive of the Dartmoor multi-academy trust in Devon, said it was now a “race to the bottom” for schools, and the effects on children “will be profound for generations”. His trust needs to find an extra £800,000 for utility bills this year, and £900,000 for pay increases.
QUICK LINKS
ConferenceMembershipTraining & CertificationDonate to IFCPP
TRAINING & EVENTS
1305 Krameria, Unit H-129, Denver, CO 80220 Local: 303.322.9667 Copyright © 1999 International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection. All Rights Reserved
Contact Us
