THE ONCE LUSTROUS reputation of the Smithsonian Institution has lately been tarnished by a sequence of revelations about its personnel, finances and policy. The organisation’s chief executive resigned in March after an inquiry into his compensation and expenses. Another senior executive, the embattled head of Smithsonian Business Ventures, resigned two months later. These executives were chosen for their potential to bring business acumen to the Smithsonian – the largest museum and research complex in the world – in order to reduce its reliance on public funds. The financial benefits of this approach remain a matter of debate, although the signs are not encouraging. What is clear, however, is the damage that poor management and lax oversight have allowed. The activities and condition of the Smithsonian came under fresh scrutiny from the United States Congress during the spring: a Senate committee heard testimony about imperilled collections, dilapidated buildings, tainted business deals and conflicts of interest. It noted with dismay that the Board of Regents, which supervises the Smithsonian, had apparently been oblivious to numerous festering problems including a $2.5 billion maintenance backlog. Senators made it clear that continued support from taxpayers will depend on how well the Smithsonian can govern itself and attract private funds.

By an unfortunate coincidence, a comprehensive report by the External Review Committee for Smithsonian Arts was released a few days before the chief executive stepped down.1 This report cited several weaknesses that frustrate attempts to turn the Smithsonian’s art museums into first-rate operations: inadequate buildings, chronic underfunding, uneven collections, incoherent acquisition strategies and a tendency to dilute scholarship with heavy-handed cultural commentary. Many of these problems stem from the fact that each of the Smithsonian’s art museums has its own peculiar history and they have tended to grow separately rather than together. Although the Smithsonian began to develop an art collection soon after it was founded in 1846, six of its eight art museums are less than fifty years old. Some, such as the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, have narrow remits that follow museological conventions. Others, such as the National Museum of African Art, have yet to find their true identities. Art was a minor interest for most of the Smithsonian’s history, a poor relation to the scientific work that has always been its primary focus. Its art museums occasionally seem to be haphazard curiosities rather than bastions of authority with well-defined missions and clinically presented collections. This leads to some wonderful surprises. The Freer Gallery, for example, which contains a pre-eminent collection of Asian art, is also home to the Peacock room (1876–77), the interior created by J.A.M. Whistler for a Liverpool shipping magnate’s London home. More frequently, however, the museums struggle with the consequences of eccentric taste, vague expectations, tribal loyalties and aversion to risk.

The External Review Committee proposed several remedies that deserve careful consideration as the Smithsonian prepares its Strategic Plan for Smithsonian Arts, which will be presented to the Board of Regents in January 2008. The report notes, for example, that the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum in New York is squeezed far too tightly into its grand but hardly palatial quarters. The Committee recommends that the Cooper-Hewitt should focus on contemporary design and treat its historical collection as a resource for loans and collaboration. Rather than competing with the holdings of other neighbouring institutions, the Cooper-Hewitt could excel as a research facility and showcase for innovation. Overall, several persuasive recommendations stress the untapped potential for collaborative projects within and beyond the Smithsonian. As things stand, there is much duplication of effort and resources and little arm’s-length analysis of collections that have gaping holes alongside a surfeit of inconsequential works. Some consolidation is obviously warranted, and a more discriminating approach to acquisition and retention would help to dispel the impression that the Smithsonian is the nation’s attic.

Above all, the situation calls for a thorough reassessment of what role the Smithsonian should play in the art world. Its art museums are seldom able to compete with older, wealthier institutions, either in the scope and quality of existing collections or in the fiercely competitive market for new acquisitions. That said, few institutions can match the Smithsonian’s public profile, extraordinary popularity and culture of research. These strengths give the Smithsonian tremendous potential as a forum for a sustained debate on the role of art in society, as a laboratory for curatorial practice and – building on its already impressive research facilities – as a centre of scholarship with unrivalled public access. Given that the primary responsibilities of the Smithsonian are research and education – in the words of James Smithson’s bequest, ‘the increase and diffusion of knowledge’ – it is worth contemplating what kind of art museums can best serve these purposes.

If the Smithsonian’s art museums are to reach their potential, however, they must have the support they deserve. This is not simply a question of money. In recent years a tendency toward self-censorship has compromised the Smithsonian and placed its role as a public attraction in conflict with its role as an intellectual leader. Ever wary of political attacks and fulminating demagogues, the Smithsonian has too often sought to avoid criticism by editing exhibits and texts until they neither offend nor say anything of much import. Art, no less than science, requires the courage of its convictions; timidity invites disregard. A new culture of stewardship will do much to revive the Smithsonian but more is needed if it is to recover its good health. Without robust support for the highest standards of professional practice and academic freedom, new leadership would be little more than a belated, short-term response to the political consequences of mismanagement.

1  The report of the External Review Committee for Smithsonian Arts is available at www.si.edu/about/policies.htm.