Ethical debate: Loans [3]
Museums are faced with the challenges of decreasing acquisition budgets, growing purchase costs, stretched resources, over-crowded stores and an increasing demand to use their collections in innovative ways.
In this environment, should museums still use public money to buy objects that won’t be on permanent display?
There is nothing in the code of ethics that calls on museums to acquire objects, but the Museums Association’s (MA) definition of a museum describes them as ‘institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens’.
Collections are at the heart of museums and define the work they do
and, with the exception of a few static or closed collections, the acquisition of new objects can play a vital role in reinvigorating and developing collections.
The MA’s Collections for the Future report described acquisitions as a key way of creating dynamic collections.
Collections for the Future and the findings in the Art Fund’s The Collecting Challenge survey point to a significant decline in acquisitions by museums, and there is growing concern that many museums no longer have the funds or the expertise to actively collect.
Perhaps initiatives such as the planned £3m investment by the Heritage Lottery Fund might help to address this problem.
However, the need to increase the number of acquisitions has to be balanced against the obligation to ensure that any use of public funds delivers public benefit. Therefore, museums really do need to consider the ethical imperative to ‘acquire items only after thorough consideration of its longterm value and how it will be used’ (5.2 code of ethics).
Museums must have a clear understanding of the potential uses for new acquisitions, because collecting objects that aren’t used or displayed ‘for future generations’ is no longer justifiable or sustainable.
At a recent conference on acquisitions the deputy director of the MA, Maurice Davies, called for greater clarity around the purpose of collecting.
He highlighted three reasons for collecting that were recently identified by a director of a national museum — the need for collections to reflect the society they serve in order to contribute to a sense of local, regional and national identity; to continue acquiring to ensure collections provide access to worldwide contemporary creativity so that they can remain a source of inspiration for future generations; and acquisitions as one of the best ways of ensuring that specialist curatorial knowledge continues to improve.
Museums will always struggle to find the funds for acquisitions and
increasing the levels of loans is an excellent way for museums to create opportunities to review collections and begin to view them in different contexts.
Hopefully, the MA’s Effective Collections project will be able to assist
museums with this.
Caitlin Griffiths, adviser: professional issues, Museums Association
In this environment, should museums still use public money to buy objects that won’t be on permanent display?
There is nothing in the code of ethics that calls on museums to acquire objects, but the Museums Association’s (MA) definition of a museum describes them as ‘institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens’.
Collections are at the heart of museums and define the work they do
and, with the exception of a few static or closed collections, the acquisition of new objects can play a vital role in reinvigorating and developing collections.
The MA’s Collections for the Future report described acquisitions as a key way of creating dynamic collections.
Collections for the Future and the findings in the Art Fund’s The Collecting Challenge survey point to a significant decline in acquisitions by museums, and there is growing concern that many museums no longer have the funds or the expertise to actively collect.
Perhaps initiatives such as the planned £3m investment by the Heritage Lottery Fund might help to address this problem.
However, the need to increase the number of acquisitions has to be balanced against the obligation to ensure that any use of public funds delivers public benefit. Therefore, museums really do need to consider the ethical imperative to ‘acquire items only after thorough consideration of its longterm value and how it will be used’ (5.2 code of ethics).
Museums must have a clear understanding of the potential uses for new acquisitions, because collecting objects that aren’t used or displayed ‘for future generations’ is no longer justifiable or sustainable.
At a recent conference on acquisitions the deputy director of the MA, Maurice Davies, called for greater clarity around the purpose of collecting.
He highlighted three reasons for collecting that were recently identified by a director of a national museum — the need for collections to reflect the society they serve in order to contribute to a sense of local, regional and national identity; to continue acquiring to ensure collections provide access to worldwide contemporary creativity so that they can remain a source of inspiration for future generations; and acquisitions as one of the best ways of ensuring that specialist curatorial knowledge continues to improve.
Museums will always struggle to find the funds for acquisitions and
increasing the levels of loans is an excellent way for museums to create opportunities to review collections and begin to view them in different contexts.
Hopefully, the MA’s Effective Collections project will be able to assist
museums with this.
Caitlin Griffiths, adviser: professional issues, Museums Association
