University Art Museum

As far as the article went, there were two directors for the University Museum after the founder passed away. It started as a small, personal collection that happened to be held at the University and only the owner’s friend were invited to view the small collection of art. Once the collection was passed on to Miss Kirkoff, she found the collection too valuable to be hidden away and thought that it should be shared and expanded upon for the greater good of the University. She thought it should be used as a resource for the University’s students and faculty. Kirkoff made the museum into a learning facility that greatly benefited students and faculty on many levels. They found the museum to be a particularly valuable resource for its users in an educational aspect. However, once Kirkoff retired and the museum was handed over to the new director, whom all members of the search committee approved of, it fell to shambles. He felt that it should be open to the public and not just the University. Though his intentions were good, he failed to keep the audience of the university who said that the museum has become, “too noisy and too ‘sensational’ for students to enjoy the classes and to have a chance to learn.” The University Museum could be used for many different things. From holding art seminars and teaching classes to opening a world of art to people who, otherwise, may have never had such an experience. Both of the directions had different intentions for the museum so they ran it differently. I believe that the museum did best when Miss Kirkoff was the director. She saw the University Museum as an extension of the University itself and that it should be an educational and research facility for the University’s faculty and students alike to continue and expand upon their understanding of art. I understand that the second director found it important that the museum should be public and shared so that anyone who had an interest in art could visit and reap its