'In the midst of the darkness and brutality of war, museums have seized all available opportunities for spreading the light of learning and culture. Their amazing development during the past 20 years has been tremendously accelerated - not retarded as was first anticipated - by war conditions.'
Sixty years ago, towards the close of the second world war, this editorial in Museums Journal reflected on the effects of the conflict (Museums Journal April 1945, p1).
By contrast, the general conception of the wartime museum is now one of decline - the result of the enforced closure of museums, the underground storage of precious objects and the depletion of curatorial staff.
So why did contemporaries present such an alternative view and can knowledge of this period be of any relevance to museum policy today? The outbreak of war coincided with the debates arising from the publication of Frank Markham's Report on the Museums and Art Galleries of the British Isles (1938).
Many of the issues Markham identified, such as inadequate finance for regional museums, the lack of government recognition of the role of museums in education and the need for appropriate salary scales for staff, remain familiar concerns today.
The intervention of the war shelved the government's consideration of Markham's reforms and prevented them from being put into effect. But the report still had a considerable influence on museum staff, who responded to Markham's vision of closer cooperation between museums and the increased use of 'visual education' through the means of temporary travelling exhibitions.
He called for collections to be linked to current issues in order to 'make it obvious to the man in the street that he is part of history'. On the eve of a war that would encompass the entire population, curators recognised the opportunity to fulfil this responsibility.
They embarked on a period of experimentation in display and exhibitions that attracted large audiences and, above all, new visitors. Early fears that museums would be closed during the conflict were quickly dismissed by a Museums Association (MA) campaign to gain government approval for the service to continue.
This was granted in January 1940 and it is estimated that between 1938 and 1948, 640 out of a total of 800 museums remained open. Those most affected by closure were the London-based national museums (with the notable exception of the National Gallery).
This had the result of shifting attention and resources to the regional museums and enabled a renaissance that anticipated the recommendations of the Regional Task Force by some 60 years.
Since their most highly prized exhibits were now in storage for reasons of safety, regional museums found themselves having to re evaluate their reserve collections or look at new ideas and concepts to create the themes for display.
The use of temporary exhibitions became the cornerstone of wartime museum activity and the pooling of knowledge and resources between museums created a network for the circulation of shared exhibits.
The introduction of modern art and design to new audiences was a major development of the period. It was most clearly seen in the travelling exhibitions featuring the work of the Official War Artists or the Design and Industries Association, which were shown at the National Gallery before embarking on tours around the regions.
Regional museums also created their own exhibitions, such as Moore Piper-Sutherland, which was devised by Philip Hendy, the then curator of art at the Leeds City Art Gallery. This exhibition toured the Midlands and the north of England during 1941 and 1942 to popular acclaim, attracting an audience of 52,000 in Leeds, while being voted the best exhibition in 12 months at the Leicester Museum and Art Gallery.
Exhibitions such as Ballet Décor and Design (1943) were shown in conjunction with visits to towns by touring ballet companies and following the lead of the National Gallery, regional museums were quick to broaden their appeal by offering concerts in their galleries.
Such events showed the curiosity for new experiences that existed among museum visitors and confirmed that museums had adapted to recognise visitors' wartime needs. Curators also began to listen to the views of their audiences to a greater degree than before.
A survey undertaken at the Leicester Museum in 1942 on the subject of temporary exhibitions captured visitors' impressions of the changing museum climate and analysed their reasons for visiting.
It elicited responses such as: 'I come whenever there is a special exhibition, as I find the permanent collection on the whole uninspiring,' and: 'No [I am not a regular visitor], but I have been to this exhibition three times with progressive appreciation.'
This greater empathy with audiences led to the democratisation of the museum space as local communities were encouraged to make their own contributions to displays.
Pictures from Halifax Homes, an exhibition from 1942, show paintings and drawings owned by the town's citizens and can be seen as an early forerunner of the People's Shows devised by the Walsall Museum in the 1990s.
The Social History of British Life exhibition, created by students of the Sheffield College of Arts and Crafts, was shown at the Geffrye Museum and allowed children to directly engage with the display - a new concept in an era dominated by the glass case.
In line with Markham's plea for museums to reflect current issues, objects gained further meaning as tools to demonstrate scientific and geological concerns, to highlight agricultural issues associated with increasing food production, and to draw attention to public health.
Museum exhibition skills were in demand in order to transmit the messages of national publicity campaigns.
But government support came at a price - while the increase in temporary exhibitions was centrally funded for the first time through organisations such as the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts, museums were also obliged to show exhibitions devised by the Ministry of Information (MoI) that were more blatant in their propaganda.
The MA distributed these exhibitions but they were met with distrust by many curators who often tried to tone down the theme of the displays or refused to cooperate at all.
But the MoI's resources did help modernise display techniques and introduced the use of film projectors in museums - on the understanding that MoI films were shown on alternate weeks to educational films.
Museums expanded their role in education during the war, initially to meet the needs of evacuees but later through specific classes to cater for the demand for knowledge about music, art and literature that had been fuelled by the wartime cultural climate.
The Geffrye Museum, the Glasgow Museum and Art Gallery and Derbyshire Museums Service all developed extensive education programmes and appointed their first education officers in this period.
Other museums collaborated with the armed forces' education divisions to offer art appreciation courses with the aim of fostering unit activities but also in anticipation of the vocational and leisure needs of service personnel following demobilisation.
In all of these activities, Museums Journal played a key role in sharing information about these initiatives and encouraging alliances and cooperation between museums.
Wartime curators believed their work during these years had made direct contact with their audiences and had a much broader appeal to new visitors by connecting with the reality of daily life and relating collections to visitors' demands.
This work was cut short with the withdrawal of central funding for temporary exhibitions and the shift towards the re-establishment of the national museums in the harsh postwar economic climate.
During the second world war, regional museums were able to successfully adapt in order to become a central part of their communities.
But the lessons of the past also carry a warning. Markham would be horrified to find that so much of his vision for museums in 1938 remains a part of museum debate more than 60 years later.
If museums gain a greater understanding of the legacy of the past, perhaps they can make sure that history's judgement on their work is not one of a missed opportunity.
Catherine Pearson is a research student at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, investigating the history of the UK's museums during the second world war. Her research is supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Board.
Sixty years ago, towards the close of the second world war, this editorial in Museums Journal reflected on the effects of the conflict (Museums Journal April 1945, p1).
By contrast, the general conception of the wartime museum is now one of decline - the result of the enforced closure of museums, the underground storage of precious objects and the depletion of curatorial staff.
So why did contemporaries present such an alternative view and can knowledge of this period be of any relevance to museum policy today? The outbreak of war coincided with the debates arising from the publication of Frank Markham's Report on the Museums and Art Galleries of the British Isles (1938).
Many of the issues Markham identified, such as inadequate finance for regional museums, the lack of government recognition of the role of museums in education and the need for appropriate salary scales for staff, remain familiar concerns today.
The intervention of the war shelved the government's consideration of Markham's reforms and prevented them from being put into effect. But the report still had a considerable influence on museum staff, who responded to Markham's vision of closer cooperation between museums and the increased use of 'visual education' through the means of temporary travelling exhibitions.
He called for collections to be linked to current issues in order to 'make it obvious to the man in the street that he is part of history'. On the eve of a war that would encompass the entire population, curators recognised the opportunity to fulfil this responsibility.
They embarked on a period of experimentation in display and exhibitions that attracted large audiences and, above all, new visitors. Early fears that museums would be closed during the conflict were quickly dismissed by a Museums Association (MA) campaign to gain government approval for the service to continue.
This was granted in January 1940 and it is estimated that between 1938 and 1948, 640 out of a total of 800 museums remained open. Those most affected by closure were the London-based national museums (with the notable exception of the National Gallery).
This had the result of shifting attention and resources to the regional museums and enabled a renaissance that anticipated the recommendations of the Regional Task Force by some 60 years.
Since their most highly prized exhibits were now in storage for reasons of safety, regional museums found themselves having to re evaluate their reserve collections or look at new ideas and concepts to create the themes for display.
The use of temporary exhibitions became the cornerstone of wartime museum activity and the pooling of knowledge and resources between museums created a network for the circulation of shared exhibits.
The introduction of modern art and design to new audiences was a major development of the period. It was most clearly seen in the travelling exhibitions featuring the work of the Official War Artists or the Design and Industries Association, which were shown at the National Gallery before embarking on tours around the regions.
Regional museums also created their own exhibitions, such as Moore Piper-Sutherland, which was devised by Philip Hendy, the then curator of art at the Leeds City Art Gallery. This exhibition toured the Midlands and the north of England during 1941 and 1942 to popular acclaim, attracting an audience of 52,000 in Leeds, while being voted the best exhibition in 12 months at the Leicester Museum and Art Gallery.
Exhibitions such as Ballet Décor and Design (1943) were shown in conjunction with visits to towns by touring ballet companies and following the lead of the National Gallery, regional museums were quick to broaden their appeal by offering concerts in their galleries.
Such events showed the curiosity for new experiences that existed among museum visitors and confirmed that museums had adapted to recognise visitors' wartime needs. Curators also began to listen to the views of their audiences to a greater degree than before.
A survey undertaken at the Leicester Museum in 1942 on the subject of temporary exhibitions captured visitors' impressions of the changing museum climate and analysed their reasons for visiting.
It elicited responses such as: 'I come whenever there is a special exhibition, as I find the permanent collection on the whole uninspiring,' and: 'No [I am not a regular visitor], but I have been to this exhibition three times with progressive appreciation.'
This greater empathy with audiences led to the democratisation of the museum space as local communities were encouraged to make their own contributions to displays.
Pictures from Halifax Homes, an exhibition from 1942, show paintings and drawings owned by the town's citizens and can be seen as an early forerunner of the People's Shows devised by the Walsall Museum in the 1990s.
The Social History of British Life exhibition, created by students of the Sheffield College of Arts and Crafts, was shown at the Geffrye Museum and allowed children to directly engage with the display - a new concept in an era dominated by the glass case.
In line with Markham's plea for museums to reflect current issues, objects gained further meaning as tools to demonstrate scientific and geological concerns, to highlight agricultural issues associated with increasing food production, and to draw attention to public health.
Museum exhibition skills were in demand in order to transmit the messages of national publicity campaigns.
But government support came at a price - while the increase in temporary exhibitions was centrally funded for the first time through organisations such as the Council for the Encouragement of Music and the Arts, museums were also obliged to show exhibitions devised by the Ministry of Information (MoI) that were more blatant in their propaganda.
The MA distributed these exhibitions but they were met with distrust by many curators who often tried to tone down the theme of the displays or refused to cooperate at all.
But the MoI's resources did help modernise display techniques and introduced the use of film projectors in museums - on the understanding that MoI films were shown on alternate weeks to educational films.
Museums expanded their role in education during the war, initially to meet the needs of evacuees but later through specific classes to cater for the demand for knowledge about music, art and literature that had been fuelled by the wartime cultural climate.
The Geffrye Museum, the Glasgow Museum and Art Gallery and Derbyshire Museums Service all developed extensive education programmes and appointed their first education officers in this period.
Other museums collaborated with the armed forces' education divisions to offer art appreciation courses with the aim of fostering unit activities but also in anticipation of the vocational and leisure needs of service personnel following demobilisation.
In all of these activities, Museums Journal played a key role in sharing information about these initiatives and encouraging alliances and cooperation between museums.
Wartime curators believed their work during these years had made direct contact with their audiences and had a much broader appeal to new visitors by connecting with the reality of daily life and relating collections to visitors' demands.
This work was cut short with the withdrawal of central funding for temporary exhibitions and the shift towards the re-establishment of the national museums in the harsh postwar economic climate.
During the second world war, regional museums were able to successfully adapt in order to become a central part of their communities.
But the lessons of the past also carry a warning. Markham would be horrified to find that so much of his vision for museums in 1938 remains a part of museum debate more than 60 years later.
If museums gain a greater understanding of the legacy of the past, perhaps they can make sure that history's judgement on their work is not one of a missed opportunity.
Catherine Pearson is a research student at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, investigating the history of the UK's museums during the second world war. Her research is supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Board.
