King Tut roadshow: Not enough class for Dallas and the DMA?

There's an interesting story in Sunday's DMN about the upcoming King Tut artifact exhibit, which is being held downtown October through May at the Dallas Museum of Art. Not being a big-time art aficionado, it was interesting to read the point-counterpoint of the article, which can be summed up pretty clearly. One side believes that having a high-profile exhibit such as King Tut will bring up to one million visitors downtown to the DMA, many of whom have never visited the museum, hopefully expanding the museum's reach into the community and paving the way for future growth. The other side believes that the carnival-barker atmosphere surrounding the Tut exhibit (remember, these are serious art people debating this issue, so carnival-barker is a relative term here) isn't worthy of a serious museum like the DMN, and the people who agreed to put the show on there should have their heads (and presumably their art credentials) examined.

I saw the last Tut show when it visited Dallas, and the pieces were amazing to see in person. Since that time, we had the good fortune to see thousands of additional Tut pieces at the national museum in Cairo, Egypt; there's something about the boy king that just makes people flock to see his retinue. I have no doubt the same will happen here in Dallas again this year. More importantly than whether the DMA is "too good" for this exhibit is the traffic the Tut show will bring downtown — just about the time that the new arts district really is taking shape. A chunk of the money for the district came from city taxpayers, who now will get a chance to see what we've paid for up-close-and-personal. That's the real benefit here for Dallas residents.

Comments

[Norman Alston]

The problem, as I understand it, is not that the show will be popular, but that popularity and associated economic success are the primary motivations for trotting the Boy King back out. Almost precisely the criticisms typically leveled at movie sequels; the first one was brilliant and meaningful, the second is neither and seeks only to exploit and profit from the popularity of the first.