The CEO observes that: ‘his brain moved—without limitation—from what might enhance a customer’s life, to what that would mean to them and how they would benefit, to how this would change the world’.

The outcome of that was the CEO committed to himself: ‘I would no longer see barricades. Stumbling blocks would now be seen as stepping stones to something better, or something to crawl over or walk around. Previous limitations would now be a mere triviality, at worst a slight inconvenience’.

So museums should set strategies that enhance a visitor’s life, how they would benefit and they might help change the world. Then the museum would be truly relevant. Perhaps CT might be able to create an embracing offering for the MLAs which would facilitate the thought process to enable them to develop their future state and develop the strategies to achieve that - a best practices model, building on CT’s current practice offerings. The sector should embrace developing relationships with technology and search companies to help in this ‘future state’ visioning, as these are the companies that develop the delivery capabilities.

Thanks again for the thought provoking and articulate blog.

The www museum need only pay for the IT hosting infrastructure and the license fees/right to digitise the objects, not huge acquisition costs of the artefacts themselves. That way the establishment and collection cost of the Museum would be trivial compared to current institutions (we would be accessing their collections)

I would offer that Steve might have challenged the core thinking of what a museum is. Starting with a mission statement - perhaps something along the lines of: To disclose and make public; to release or be extended into the open, allowing access.

Given that premise, a series of questions would be crafted (certainly covering the points which you raised) PLUS what does our museum look like? Is there the requirement for this to have a building which stores artifacts which one can view?

Noting that a long-time ‘rival’, Bill Gates, founded Corbis (look at what they are doing for the Bettman Archive), perhaps that gives some clues as to the construct which Steve Jobs might have evolvedfor a museum? I envision one which ‘extended into the open, allowing access’ and (to borrow from another well known name) aptly names “Musée Sans Frontières”. This would deliver www access to quality reproductions, in 2 and 3 D and with Apple developing true 3D displays (look at the possibilities today from the likes of http://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca employing technology from the likes of http://www.arius3d.com ).

As for money making, educational institutions and corporations would pay subscriptions for such a service delivered to ‘commercial’ appliances, and reproduction fees whereas individuals might have free access to 2D content and pay for a premium or fee for service which delivers the i3D experience. I believe we will see this before you and I shed our mortal coils

A Steve Jobs run museum will no doubt have an iconic modernist facade. Just like the electronic devices, renowned for its architecture and energy efficiency, every detail, the faucets in the bathrooms, front desk, chairs, will be executed with grace and style, this museum will be renowned and visited for its architecture alone.

This museum will have the most talented member cultivation staff and marketing staff to forward the museum agenda, it will eclipse all other museums by a long shot both in terms of budget and visitation.

Here is the rub…

The Art collected and displayed in the museum will be homey, caring, familiar, maybe a whole section dedicated to Norman Rockwell. Put simply, the art displayed and the curatorial mission of the museum will explicitly display art that does not challenge the viewer. Familiar objects to which we share a collective cultural sentimentality, nostalgia, solemnity.

Apple success lies not in their fantastic hardware design (arguably the best) but in catering to nostalgic sentiment with their interface design. the key strength in their interface design is that it makes the user think:

“I know how to use this!” (which is always a false promise)
instead of
“Looks like I need to learn to use this.” (which is always the case)

Indeed, people will leave that museum feeling empowered with a sense of their own cultural literacy. But it will be a carefully crafted powerful illusion. They will not be more comfortable with art that challenges their preconceived Ideas then before they entered this imaginary institution doors.

However I take issue with the idea that “Steve’s museum exists everywhere, in different forms and with differing emphasis”. That’s a reassuring thing to say but it isn’t true.

The vision that is outlined is probably best represented by a privately owned and run museum with no public mission. There’s a great example in Tasmania’s Museum of Old and New Art (http://mona.net.au). A well designed end-to-end experience; commercially successful; uncompromising in its vision; and yet delivering great public outcomes for the whole of the small island state at the bottom end of Australia. There’s a short interview (hopefully not region locked!) with the owner David Walsh here - http://www.abc.net.au/arts/stories/s3119200.htm.

Publicly funded museums will always struggle with demands to meet the needs of diverse communities and be compelled by politics and boards to do things that run counter to a singular vision. On one hand that is good thing, but on the other hand we all know it can devolve into a ’serves no one particularly well’ kind of experience.

BTW there’s a very good piece on the reaction to Jobs from Giovanni Tiso that is well worth reading - http://bat-bean-beam.blogspot.com/2011/10/reality-is-broken-on-death-of-steve.html