Ethical debate: Freedom of information
Under the Freedom of Information Act museums are getting more enquiries about the value of objects in their collections. Museums try to encourage appreciation of cultural rather than fiscal value. Is there any harm in the public knowing the financial worth of its heritage?
Financial valuation of works of art is inherently difficult and of limited use. While valuation is necessary for insurance purposes, insurance proceeds cannot replace a destroyed work of art.
The financial value of a work does not add to the appreciation of the collection and it rather misses the point: a museum might dispose of works from time to time to enable it to acquire other works, but it will be restricted from selling works in order to fund other public services. Releasing financial details can also have the unwanted effect of encouraging theft.
Seeing collections only in terms of their financial value improperly turns a nation’s cultural heritage into a notional figure.
Anita Sadler, solicitor, Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
It seems curators are petrified of having the general public — the people who pay their wages — ask questions about how much items have cost to acquire. Why shouldn’t people know where their money is being spent?
Curators are the guardians of public money not good taste. Our museums operate in a commercial environment where there is competition to acquire exhibits, therefore the public should have the right to check if our institutions are getting value for money.
The art world has for too long been a cosy closed-shop with too few people dictating what should be acquired. People who have the privileged position of being able to spend public money should appreciate the trust we are putting in them.
Good curators should have nothing to fear from a more detailed examination of their books. It is only the lazy and self-indulgent who will be worried about having to explain why they have paid too much for items in their institution.
Matthew Davis, director, John Connor Press Associates
Here in Scotland a journalist recently requested a number of local authorities disclose full inventories and valuations of all works of art held in public buildings. The code of ethics 3.18 states that museums should encourage the cultural rather than financial value of items.
The harm is not in the public being aware of the financial value of collections but the fact that this knowledge detracts from them. When journalists make these kinds of requests, are they concerned with a wider public interest? Or is this a convenient newsworthy item on an
otherwise quiet day?
Emma Roodhouse, museum curator, Falkirk Museum Store and Workshop
Financial valuation of works of art is inherently difficult and of limited use. While valuation is necessary for insurance purposes, insurance proceeds cannot replace a destroyed work of art.
The financial value of a work does not add to the appreciation of the collection and it rather misses the point: a museum might dispose of works from time to time to enable it to acquire other works, but it will be restricted from selling works in order to fund other public services. Releasing financial details can also have the unwanted effect of encouraging theft.
Seeing collections only in terms of their financial value improperly turns a nation’s cultural heritage into a notional figure.
Anita Sadler, solicitor, Bates, Wells & Braithwaite
It seems curators are petrified of having the general public — the people who pay their wages — ask questions about how much items have cost to acquire. Why shouldn’t people know where their money is being spent?
Curators are the guardians of public money not good taste. Our museums operate in a commercial environment where there is competition to acquire exhibits, therefore the public should have the right to check if our institutions are getting value for money.
The art world has for too long been a cosy closed-shop with too few people dictating what should be acquired. People who have the privileged position of being able to spend public money should appreciate the trust we are putting in them.
Good curators should have nothing to fear from a more detailed examination of their books. It is only the lazy and self-indulgent who will be worried about having to explain why they have paid too much for items in their institution.
Matthew Davis, director, John Connor Press Associates
Here in Scotland a journalist recently requested a number of local authorities disclose full inventories and valuations of all works of art held in public buildings. The code of ethics 3.18 states that museums should encourage the cultural rather than financial value of items.
The harm is not in the public being aware of the financial value of collections but the fact that this knowledge detracts from them. When journalists make these kinds of requests, are they concerned with a wider public interest? Or is this a convenient newsworthy item on an
otherwise quiet day?
Emma Roodhouse, museum curator, Falkirk Museum Store and Workshop
