Great post Luke! You raised a lot of interesting questions. I have wondered about the disparity of cost between libraries and galleries and museums. I think it comes down to the kinds of programs and services that are run by the institution. As Ruth mentioned there are much more hidden costs related to exhibitions in art galleries and museums, particularly travelling exhibitions. Galleries and museums also have to constantly reorganise their space according to the exhibition and create didactic and marketing material to promote their exhibition so their costs are much greater.
I have to say I was very interested in your response to the exhibition itself. I went to see it a couple of months ago and was frankly insulted by the seeming lack of thought that had gone into the exhibition. I didn’t think the exhibition was worth $12. It was badly curated, badly hung (you could barely see some photos), the themes were incoherent and they failed to communicate anything meaningful about the development of photography in Australia. While they did provide didactic material but this was so full of art historical jargon I struggled to understand what they were trying to say and I have a degree in art history.
I considered pursuing a career in galleries but it was this kind of lack of consideration for viewers that made me switch to libraries instead. Libraries develop programs based on what their clients actually need. They consider accessibility of services and gaps in community knowledge and try to fill these, through programming. Galleries seem more concerned with promoting particular art historical narratives than educating their viewers. Their foremost concern is promoting culture rather than promoting education and I feel that less consideration is given to clients’ needs and wants than in libraries.
Sorry for the rant, it’s something that I feel quite strongly about.