In an era when taxpayers are overprotective of their disposable income and unappreciative of any art beyond the confines of their smartphone apps, I don’t envy the complicated role of the museum curator. Your purpose in society is to sort through millennia of art history, negotiate the opportunities to host the cream of the crop, settle for what’s available, and present the results to an audience that hopefully finds it all enlightening and engaging enough to leave behind some dollars on their way out. Best-case scenario: their donations and gift shop purchases are just enough to fund the next exhibit, cover the staff’s wages, and maybe even buy yourself a new tie.

Sadly, not all museums are enjoying the best of times today. Here in my hometown, our very own Indianapolis Museum of Art has struggled to recover after $89 million evaporated from their endowment in the 2008 recession. A recent Indianapolis Star interview with its new director, Charles Venable, revealed a few ideas the museum hopes to implement in order to recover lost ground, some of which have raised eyebrows of local patrons: a Matisse exhibit with a sizable surcharge (admission to IMA is normally free); late-night cocktail parties; and possibly an exotic car show. A few cost-cutting measures have already been taken, but financial stability can’t be achieved merely by clicking your heels three times and repeating the mantra, “Do more with less! Do more with less! Do more with less!” That way lies not wish fulfillment, but bankruptcy.

Rightfully concerned, Venable cites in that article one disappointing example of a recent Islamic art exhibit that drew seven thousand viewers but cost half a million dollars to stage. In simple math terms, the museum shelled out over seventy bucks a person, when their hopes were likely vice versa. That might’ve been a sound investment if those people spent $200 apiece in the course of their visits. I’m guessing that didn’t happen.

Ultimately, enticing more patrons through the doors, and convincing them to share their dollars, will be necessary to the museum’s long-term viability, same as any other business. In my mind, those dollars would come from one of two sources: large quantities from small numbers of upper-class patrons, or small quantities from large numbers of other-class patrons. Though Central Indiana has its share of well-to-do citizenry, the majority of them have fled to Indianapolis’ northeast suburbs and clustered far away from the IMA’s westside location, which is within a few miles’ range of two different, scary, decidedly not-upper-class neighborhoods. If Carmel residents can’t be lured from their gated safe havens for art’s sake, then it’ll be up to Joe Average to save the day. But how do we attract Mr. Average despite his malnourished sensibilities and his apathy toward things that existed in other cultures or centuries? How can any art museum in our nation hope to survive in today’s culture?

I’ve seen a few other art museums besides the IMA — the Milwaukee Art Museum (which was used as a setting in Transformers: Dark of the Moon); the Denver Art Museum; the MoMA in Manhattan; and two of Chicago’s own, the Contemporary Art Museum and the Art Institute of Chicago (though that visit was two decades ago). By and large they seemed to be doing fine, but how many other, lesser art museums are suffering for the cause?

Clearly it’s time to boost that head count by pandering to the masses. Why not try a few new game-changing tactics, such as:

* Gift shop souvenirs that aren’t priced for Saks Fifth Avenue customers.

* Replace the fancy, organic, health-conscious museum cafes with McDonald’s or Five Guys.

* Face-painting clowns in the lobby for the kids.

* Replace the overused “art museum” label with a new, catchier euphemism — e.g., “picture place”, “craftwork expo”, or “dreamtime galleria”.

* Have employees wear amusement-park-style suits designed to look like famous painters. What child wouldn’t want their picture taken with a stuffed, waving, nine-foot-tall Pablo Picasso?

* Fill a room with dozens of giant-sized HDTVs hooked up to premium cable channels. Invite folks to come enjoy the “art” of television.

* Feature some video game art with a fully stocked, competitively priced gamer storefront on the side.

* Provide an area with tables and easels where visitors can create their own art. Above the area, hang a banner asking, “So you think you can do better?”

* More mass-appeal exhibits guaranteed to be noticed by today’s assorted generations:

— “Lolpets: the Secret Kingdom”
— “World’s Greatest Vinyl LP Covers”
— “Velvet Elvis Clearance Sale”
— “Justin Bieber Magazine Photo Collection”
— “The Wonderful World of Smartphone App Icons”
— “Food Labels from Your Childhood”
— “Nudes! Nudes! Nudes! Nudes! Nudes!”

* Have paintings compete against each other in voting competitions, judged by visitors: losers get voted off the walls, condemned to a dusty storage room, and replaced by new paintings. If you really want to spice things up, set the losers afire while everyone watches.

* Have the concierge sell lottery tickets.

* Free beer.

* Starving artist fight club.

* Host something sports-related. Anything sports-related. Sports are like human catnip.

If all else fails, I can think of only one last drastic solution: relocate the museum to the middle of those fancy, art-appreciating suburbs. If the money won’t come to the museum, maybe the museum can come to the money.