Caring for the elderly

Stuart Davies, 01.02.2010

What should we do about the decline of county town museums?

One of the major developments we have seen in the last forty years has been the change in balance between the numbers of traditional, encyclopaedic, museums and those that focus on a particular building, site or subject.

When one remembers that virtually all of the National Trust and English Heritage properties fall into this latter category, along with, of course, visitor centres, it is easy to realise that the traditional multidisciplinary museum is not the dominant force that it was at, say, the end of the 1950s.

The more focused museums and visitor attractions have proved serious competition for visitors and for resources.

In the shire counties, for example, fifty years ago there would typically be only the county town museum and art gallery based in the historic county town, supported by the Borough Council. 

The museum and its curators would be active members of the county archaeological and natural history society, and the museum’s collections, drawn from everywhere within the county boundaries and beyond, were still growing through the generosity of donors and active fieldwork.

In the 1960s things began to change and there was an explosion of new museums, some covering similar territory to their older counterparts.

As the museum world became more professionalised in the 1960s and 1970s, so things like collecting policies challenged the traditional way of doing things.

The encyclopaedic county town museum found itself caught in an uncomfortable place. It was discouraged from collecting in the way it had, but to repatriate collections to the new museums made little sense, even when it was feasible.

Meanwhile, old county allegiances and their institutions were being gradually broken down by local government boundary changes and different market and transport configurations.

With the relative decline of county towns and their district councils came the relative decline of their museums.

Despite the opportunities afforded by the Lottery (and in a handful of cases, directly from Renaissance in the Regions) many of our county town museums are now under enormous financial and general resource pressures.

They are elderly: they (and their forerunners) have been around in their counties, collecting stuff and amassing knowledge for over 150 years.

And they have become gradually more impotent. Large collections, fine buildings and long traditions of public service fit uneasily with low resources, though for many people, these wonderful old institutions embody the essence of what a ‘real’ museum should be.

Can we really just stand by and watch them struggle?

Add your comment

Log-in if you want to post a comment.
Maurice, Head of Policy & Communication, Museums Association (MA Member)
25.02.2010, 09:27
Prompted by John's comment about 'citizens' entitlement to a certain level of museum provision' I want to float a thought that's been buzzing around my head for a few months. I say it like that because I'm not sure I agree with what I'm about to say and in any case I have far more questions than answers. We've got used to talking about museum provision as if it's akin to mainstream public services like health, education - or even libraries. For those services a model of 'citizen entitlement' makes clear sense. But perhaps an entitlement-based approach is wrong for musuems. As Staurt says in his comment piece the past few decades have seen a great diversification of museums and there's no common pattern of provision. Indeed, he says the once-standard town-based model looks increasingly anachronistic. So I wonder if we should give up on the idea of entitlement or universal provison and instead regard museums more like, say, restaurants. We accept that there's an uneven pattern of provision and accept regular closures and new openings. This could mean a rather different approach to policy and funding, based explicitly on promoting and supporting the best and not worrying too much if unpopular museums faded away, allowing space for something better to replace them one day. It would allow more change and experimentation and acccept the fact that great new museums tend to attract audiences better than declining ones. I'm not sure quite how this squares with sustainability. Certainly individual museums don't get sustained, but then resources are saved by not prolonging the life of places that are in decline. There's also John's question of what, if anything, is done to protect the collections. Certainly, as Ed says, some kind of system for managing decline could be helpful. Surely it's not beyond the wit of MLA, DCMS, HLF or a forward-looking charitable foundation to come up with some schemes to encourage museum reincarnation (as in rebirth after death rather than simple refurbishment). Or at the very least, a funding scheme that encourages real partnerships and takeovers so the currently successful can support the struggling, as in Colchester/Ipswich. One problem is that decisions about decline tend in fact to be the result of cuts-driven, or plain quirky, decisions by a local-authority. A greater funding mix would help - but I find it hard to see how you can get a truly diverse funding mix for a free-admission museum.
John, Curator, Cromwell Museum (MA Member)
17.02.2010, 16:30
Not convinced that it is time to turn off the switch on the established local authority museums that are struggling, but perhaps time for a wider debate on museum provision. Despite all the good things that have come from RinR funding there has still not been any coherent plan for museum provision emerge - and of course the timing is not good, but when was it? The great danger in accepting the view that museums should be put out of their misery is that the collections built up over a long period will be dispersed and a great deal would be lost. Surely there is a case to be made for a citizens' entitlement to a certain level of museum provision. The interest is there - witness the queues to see the Mercian hoard - if we go down the defeatist path that the traditional museum has had its day then we will make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Museum provision is as patchy and incomplete now as it ever was - and it has never been in many museum professionals interests to address that issue in a considered way.
Edmund, Director, Manx National Heritage (MA Member, MP Subscriber)
10.02.2010, 16:07
It is important to distinguish between broad trends that have impacted on this particular part of the museums sector and the performance of individual sites. One could add to Stuart’s analysis a few more factors. Many of the staff of “County” museums were longstanding and well respected members of their own community. They contributed to local scholarship and publication. Not motivated by pay and material reward they had little incentive to change and were singularly ill-equipped to withstand the onslaught of the 1980’s. Corporate Planning, Audience Development, Project Management, Performance Indicators – all essential skills and all at the expense of traditional (and essential) curatorial expertise and enthusiasm. Another factor or trend is the massive growth in localism. In uncertain times every community wants a sense of place and identity. Local history is democratic in a way County Museums have not been. Any group of interested people can set up an archive of old postcards and photographs. Oral history is easy now and new technology allows websites, exhibitions and publications to be done by amateurs. The Heritage Lottery Fund has facilitated the local agenda – and raised levels of quality alongside the volume of activity. If a “County” Museum has not participated in this activity then it will have lost the support and goodwill of its community. Without this there is no chance of getting political support and funding. One could also argue – with evidence – that the level of advocacy provided by the leadership of our sector has varied in quality and distribution. Free admission to National and “Renaissance” are an outstanding success - for parts of the sector but in many ways they have masked decline in other areas. Museums and Cultural Services are already at the top of the list for cutbacks in local government. It will be worse after the next budget and the election. Who is shouting from the rooftops? So what are we going to do about it? Apologies if this seems in poor taste but I was struck by Sir Terry Pratchett’s heartfelt desire, expressed in the recent Reith lecture, to be allowed to die at a time of his own choosing. If something is in terminal decline there comes a point when it is appropriate to consider ending its existence. We don’t have a mechanism for the orderly and planned closure of museums. Where is our expert panel to authorise the turning off the life-support? Where is the mechanism for redistributing the contents after death? The sector will be stronger if we manage decline actively.
Patrick, Website Editor, Museums Association (MA Member)
03.02.2010, 18:25
Another thought-provoking blog, Stuart. The critical issue, as ever, seems to be a lack of funding. With the decline of heritage lottery funding, constricted budgets for local authorities, and the long-term future of Renaissance unclear, some radical thinking is needed about whether, how, and in what way, we should restore these museums to their former glory.
Hide further comment


To read Stuart's previous blogs, please click here

Bookmark and Share