Ethical debate: Disposal
In the 1960s the Royal Academy (RA) sold a collection of drawings by Leonardo Da Vinci to the National Gallery to generate funds for general running costs.
With increasing financial pressure on museums, is there a risk that museums could begin to view their collections as assets and potential sources of income?
James Fenton, a former professor of poetry at Oxford, was commissioned by the RA to write a history that would offer an ‘outsider’s unofficial view’. The rampageous, scandalous soap-opera that he described makes it clear that the RA’s behaviour can hardly be seen as a valid precedent. The argument behind its decision to sell a Leonardo da Vinci cartoon in 1962 — it is now one of the National Gallery’s treasures — was that its independence needed to be preserved. Fenton points out that no organisation that pays the government a peppercorn rent of £1 for 999 years for its quarters in Burlington House can be called independent.
Increasing financial pressure on museums means there will inevitably be temptations to see the collections as a potential source of income. But a vital function of most museums is to acquire objects for posterity, so there must always be a strong presumption against disposal. Add to that the clear stipulation found in the International Council of Museums’ code of ethics for museums: ‘Collections are held in public trust and may not be treated as a realisable asset.’
Museums will no doubt be forced to continue to explore diverse avenues of funding. But if a museum is fulfilling its ethical obligations, it will never see its collections as a source of revenue.
Lalla Merlin, education and outreach Officer, South Molton and District Museum
In the local authority sector the financial pressure is intense. Council tax is capped and options for short-term income generation are limited mainly to the disposal of assets.
What are the options? Close museums (politically unpopular); lose storage sites (and pay commercial prices); cut staff (and fail to meet service targets, not to mention problems of morale).
Add to that the fact that it’s often a large amount that has to be found, and I can imagine that getting rid of valuable items, especially if they are easily sold, is tempting. What never reaches the pages of the Museums Journal is the constant battle to stay afloat that faces local authority museums when, as far as the finance department is concerned, a valuable work of art is the same sort of asset as a school playing field or storage depot.
It boils down to a choice — get rid of a collection item, or cut back on sites and staff and offer a reduced service that is vulnerable to more cutbacks because it cannot do the access and outreach work that is so vital to museums.
I don’t agree with the situation but I can see how such decisions are made.
Duncan Walker, registrar, Portsmouth City Museums and Records Service
With increasing financial pressure on museums, is there a risk that museums could begin to view their collections as assets and potential sources of income?
James Fenton, a former professor of poetry at Oxford, was commissioned by the RA to write a history that would offer an ‘outsider’s unofficial view’. The rampageous, scandalous soap-opera that he described makes it clear that the RA’s behaviour can hardly be seen as a valid precedent. The argument behind its decision to sell a Leonardo da Vinci cartoon in 1962 — it is now one of the National Gallery’s treasures — was that its independence needed to be preserved. Fenton points out that no organisation that pays the government a peppercorn rent of £1 for 999 years for its quarters in Burlington House can be called independent.
Increasing financial pressure on museums means there will inevitably be temptations to see the collections as a potential source of income. But a vital function of most museums is to acquire objects for posterity, so there must always be a strong presumption against disposal. Add to that the clear stipulation found in the International Council of Museums’ code of ethics for museums: ‘Collections are held in public trust and may not be treated as a realisable asset.’
Museums will no doubt be forced to continue to explore diverse avenues of funding. But if a museum is fulfilling its ethical obligations, it will never see its collections as a source of revenue.
Lalla Merlin, education and outreach Officer, South Molton and District Museum
In the local authority sector the financial pressure is intense. Council tax is capped and options for short-term income generation are limited mainly to the disposal of assets.
What are the options? Close museums (politically unpopular); lose storage sites (and pay commercial prices); cut staff (and fail to meet service targets, not to mention problems of morale).
Add to that the fact that it’s often a large amount that has to be found, and I can imagine that getting rid of valuable items, especially if they are easily sold, is tempting. What never reaches the pages of the Museums Journal is the constant battle to stay afloat that faces local authority museums when, as far as the finance department is concerned, a valuable work of art is the same sort of asset as a school playing field or storage depot.
It boils down to a choice — get rid of a collection item, or cut back on sites and staff and offer a reduced service that is vulnerable to more cutbacks because it cannot do the access and outreach work that is so vital to museums.
I don’t agree with the situation but I can see how such decisions are made.
Duncan Walker, registrar, Portsmouth City Museums and Records Service
