Which Sustainable?

“That was a great meeting! Finally we’re going to make our exhibitions sustainable.”

“I agree! It’s about time we considered whether we can pay for these things.”

“What? I thought the boss was talking about the environment.”

“Wait, guys, wasn’t she talking about whether we can maintain them?”

“Sustainable” has become one of those dangerous-agreement words. We all nod when it gets used because it sounds responsible, thoughtful, and modern.

And it is. But like all dangerous-agreement words, it actually means several completely different things.

Sometimes “sustainable” means environmentally responsible. Lower energy use. Reused materials. Less waste. A clearer word might be “green.”

Sometimes it means financially possible in the long term. Can the museum afford to operate, repair, update, and staff the exhibition over time? A clearer word might be “affordable.”

And sometimes it means operationally manageable. Can the museum actually maintain the interactives, media systems, replacement parts, and daily operations? A clearer word might be “maintainable.”

These are not the same issue at all. Semi-related, maybe? But not the same.

What they have in common is that they are all about kinds of risk:

> environmental risk
> financial risk
> operational risk

Interesting.

Here’s the thing:

Which sustainable?

In the end, many exhibition disagreements are not disagreements about strategy. They are disagreements about vocabulary.

Warmly,
Jonathan

- - - - - - - - - - - -

MtM Word of the Day:
See above. :)