Before quitting town with some fancy blueprints and the sting of defeat, here’s one of the solutions the George Lucas Museum of Narrative Art might have explored: creating a defined space in the iconic Field Museum. It’s a pairing that may have worked well for both.
The museum within the museum could be a discreet entity, and intersect the two with bridging inter-actives at appropriate junctures.
Lucas wanted prime Chicago lakefront real estate for his museum. Check.
Lucas’ museum is all about telling the story of man, or the universe. Check.
Lucas was willing to invest millions or ultimately possibly billions. Check.
The Field Museum anchors Chicago’s lakefront museum campus. Check.
The Field Museum’s mission: inspire curiosity about life on earth. Check.
The Field Museum could use the sustained largess of a singular high profile patron. Check.
Instead, Lucas leaves town with nothing to show for his robust campaign to build, and the Field Museum remains, quietly innovating, reliably iconic, always looking for funds to do more and better.
Our society asks us to think creatively about getting what we want, and what we need in the cultural sector. I think those challenges can lead to solutions that may be far from the original vision, and could be better. You never know unless you try.