Who should take the lead in cultural strategy?
David Anderson, Issue 111/03, p16, 01.03.2011
Our sector is experiencing radical change of a kind we have not seen for decades.
The scything down of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has left a strategic and operational gap that Arts Council England (ACE), as a multi-sector agency, cannot easily fill. And the bonfire of the quangos means that local museums have less practical support and less opportunity to speak and be heard nationally.
The cuts have accelerated a growing division between national and non-national museums. National museums are suffering but many non-nationals will fare much worse, to the point where some may not survive and some may do so only in reduced form.
The allocation of public funding tells only part of the story. The bulk of sponsorship and private giving goes to a small number of major institutions in London. These disparities of wealth across the UK in museums, as in many areas of society, are becoming ever more extreme.
There is also a widening gap, in cultural policy and practice, between England, and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The latest example is the proposal by the British Museum to reduce funding for Wales for the Portable Antiquities Scheme by 90% from April 2012, in order to protect funding for its English beneficiaries.
We need, then, to decide how we will run ourselves. What will be the role of bodies such as the Museums Association (MA), the core museums, the federations and the National Museum Directors’ Conference (NMDC)? One of the key issues is leadership.
Will it become yet more centralised and London-centric? It would be easy for money, power and access to ministers in London to translate into assumed leadership of museums, but is this really what the sector needs?
There is an alternative, more democratic model that recognises the need for strong local leadership. The English regions have distinct identities. When you are in Yorkshire or the south-west, you know it.
The core museums and federations have a much closer understanding of the needs of their local audiences and museums than London-based bodies. The federations and the MA are accountable to a broad base of museums and museum professionals in a way that ACE and NMDC were never designed to be – their strengths lie elsewhere.
It is now time for the MA and NMDC to recognise that, in terms of governance, the United Kingdom has ceased to exist as a cultural entity. Culture is a devolved responsibility, but our professional bodies have yet to adapt to this new reality.
Each of the four nations (except, significantly, England) has its own museum or cultural strategy. There may be value in UK-wide initiatives, but these can only be developed through mutual agreement and cannot, in future, be assumed.
The same principle could be applied to regional initiatives in England. The difficulty of the top-down model as operated by some major museums is that it tends to meet the needs of the provider rather than the presumed beneficiaries. Local museums often work more closely with their communities, and have a more socially inclusive agenda.
It is important that future development of strategy, and control of the funding that supports it, should lie, as far as possible, with regions (and nations) through the leadership of the core museums and federations. Pan-national organisations – and particularly the MA – may have a role to play, but only within a framework of accountability.
David Anderson is the director general of Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales
The scything down of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has left a strategic and operational gap that Arts Council England (ACE), as a multi-sector agency, cannot easily fill. And the bonfire of the quangos means that local museums have less practical support and less opportunity to speak and be heard nationally.
The cuts have accelerated a growing division between national and non-national museums. National museums are suffering but many non-nationals will fare much worse, to the point where some may not survive and some may do so only in reduced form.
The allocation of public funding tells only part of the story. The bulk of sponsorship and private giving goes to a small number of major institutions in London. These disparities of wealth across the UK in museums, as in many areas of society, are becoming ever more extreme.
There is also a widening gap, in cultural policy and practice, between England, and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The latest example is the proposal by the British Museum to reduce funding for Wales for the Portable Antiquities Scheme by 90% from April 2012, in order to protect funding for its English beneficiaries.
We need, then, to decide how we will run ourselves. What will be the role of bodies such as the Museums Association (MA), the core museums, the federations and the National Museum Directors’ Conference (NMDC)? One of the key issues is leadership.
Will it become yet more centralised and London-centric? It would be easy for money, power and access to ministers in London to translate into assumed leadership of museums, but is this really what the sector needs?
There is an alternative, more democratic model that recognises the need for strong local leadership. The English regions have distinct identities. When you are in Yorkshire or the south-west, you know it.
The core museums and federations have a much closer understanding of the needs of their local audiences and museums than London-based bodies. The federations and the MA are accountable to a broad base of museums and museum professionals in a way that ACE and NMDC were never designed to be – their strengths lie elsewhere.
It is now time for the MA and NMDC to recognise that, in terms of governance, the United Kingdom has ceased to exist as a cultural entity. Culture is a devolved responsibility, but our professional bodies have yet to adapt to this new reality.
Each of the four nations (except, significantly, England) has its own museum or cultural strategy. There may be value in UK-wide initiatives, but these can only be developed through mutual agreement and cannot, in future, be assumed.
The same principle could be applied to regional initiatives in England. The difficulty of the top-down model as operated by some major museums is that it tends to meet the needs of the provider rather than the presumed beneficiaries. Local museums often work more closely with their communities, and have a more socially inclusive agenda.
It is important that future development of strategy, and control of the funding that supports it, should lie, as far as possible, with regions (and nations) through the leadership of the core museums and federations. Pan-national organisations – and particularly the MA – may have a role to play, but only within a framework of accountability.
David Anderson is the director general of Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales
Add your comment