Strategic Layoffs or Sacrificed Stewardship? Museums at a Crossroads

In July 2023, the Art Institute of Chicago announced the elimination of 22 positions across curatorial and conservation departments. This followed similar moves earlier in the year by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA), which reduced its workforce by 18%, citing a decline in revenue and foot traffic since the pandemic. These decisions, while ostensibly financial, reveal deeper tensions within the cultural sector regarding sustainability and institutional purpose.

Layoffs of this scale are not confined to regional institutions. The British Museum, embroiled in controversy over missing artifacts in August 2023, concurrently paused new hires and froze existing vacancies in their curatorial teams. This left important heritage work suspended as the institution grappled with reputational and operational crises. The financial rationales provided—falling visitor numbers, rising maintenance costs, and inflationary pressures—are not fabricated. However, critics argue that such cuts often target the very departments responsible for the “public good” functions central to museums’ missions: preservation, education, and broad cultural engagement.

Dr. Susanna Avery-Quash, Senior Research Curator at the National Gallery London, has written extensively on the impact of staffing policies on institutional priorities. Speaking at a September 2023 panel on museum funding held at the Courtauld Institute, she remarked, “What becomes vulnerable under financial strain is less often retail or marketing divisions, but core curatorial infrastructure. It signals a shift in focus—away from scholarship and toward monetizable assets.”

This shift is reflected in the rising proportion of museum budgets allocated to visitor experience enhancements, such as digital initiatives and immersive exhibitions, which prioritize immediate audience engagement over long-term stewardship. For example, the Smithsonian Institution, while announcing a $200 million initiative in September 2022 to modernize its National Air and Space Museum, simultaneously reduced behind-the-scenes research roles across its broader network. The implications are dual-edged: while digital tools and exhibitions may draw larger crowds, the knowledge base and expertise required to contextualize artifacts are diminished.

One stark example of this tension can be seen in the recent restructuring at the Brooklyn Museum. In late 2022, it quietly laid off three archivists responsible for cataloging its extensive holdings of African and Indigenous artifacts, citing funding constraints. The museum’s decision coincided with its unveiling of a $50 million reinvestment in its lobby and dining facilities, funded partly by private donors and corporate sponsorships. For skeptics, this juxtaposition raises ethical questions about the prioritization of commercial appeal over intellectual labor. Private donors, whose contributions often come with explicit or implicit expectations, may unintentionally skew museum priorities.

Not all institutions, however, are acquiescing to these pressures. The J. Paul Getty Museum announced in March 2023 a new ten-year strategic plan that includes a commitment to increase its conservation staff by 15%. James Cuno, the Getty Trust’s former president, emphasized that the decision reflects a "long-term view of permanence, a luxury afforded by our endowment structure." Yet even the Getty's model, rooted in a $7.8 billion endowment (2022), is the exception rather than the rule within the sector.

Unionization efforts across the museum world also reflect resistance to reductions in core staffing. Since the pandemic, museum workers from MoMA PS1 to Philadelphia’s Museum of Art have secured union contracts calling for improved pay equity and job security. These labor movements are emblematic of growing frustrations with leadership’s perceived sidelining of staff expertise. As Zoe Watts, an educator and union organizer at the Whitney Museum, argued in a March 2023 op-ed in Hyperallergic, “When curatorial teams are seen as expendable, institutions risk undermining their very reason for existing.”

What remains unresolved is how museums will reconcile their simultaneous roles as economic entities and cultural stewards. The American Alliance of Museums (AAM) issued a report in May 2023 highlighting how reliance on earned income—ticket sales, gift shops, and events—has grown by 21% over the past decade, even for traditionally grant-funded institutions. This pivot leaves museums disproportionately vulnerable to the whims of tourism markets and economic downturns. AAM chair Laura Lott described the trend as “worrisome, yet unlikely to reverse without systemic funding intervention.”

The broader societal implications of these trends are profound. Museums have long been seen as loci of collective memory and public education. Their choices today will shape their ability to fulfill that role in the decades to come. If staffing continues to prioritize market-driven roles over scholarly ones, the consequences may extend beyond diminished research output to a fundamental erosion of trust in museums as neutral, knowledge-driven institutions.

Ultimately, the current crossroads forces the question: what is a museum for? As institutions increasingly face the pressures of operating like businesses, they risk losing sight of their primary mandate—care for collections and communities. Whether donor money, government support, or union advocacy can redirect this trajectory remains uncertain. What is clear is that the coming years will be decisive in determining whether the balance struck centers financial longevity or cultural stewardship.