Did the Gulbenkian miss the real winner?
As glittering awards go it doesn't get much shinier than the Gulbenkian Prize for museums. The annual £100,000 competition goes to the best museum project in the previous 12 months and the prize has been running for five years.
When it was first established it promised to raise the profile of the sector and inject a bit of much-needed glamour into our lives (as well as rewarding the hard work and creativity of the people who work in museums).
On the whole it has succeeded. It has engendered good publicity for the longlisted and shortlisted museums, and the well-managed marketing campaign has ensured national media coverage for what is not always seen as the most sexy or newsworthy topic.
And it's not just the much-needed cash prize that's up for grabs - previous winners have reported significant increases in visitor numbers after their success.
But this year's winner, Pallant House in Chichester, came as a bit of a surprise to some - there was more than one jaw on the floor when the announcement was made in London last month.
Not that Pallant House is undeserving. In fact it has it all: wonderful architecture that seamlessly marries old with new, a great collection, and an exciting exhibition programme. Visitor figures have been beyond expectations and its outreach and community programme ticks every box; from working with looked-after children and asylum seekers to activities with prisoners and pensioners.
It clearly has a loyal bunch of supporters too and in the run up to the prize got its visitors to cover a whole wall with heart-shaped Post-it notes saying why the gallery should win. The comments on this rather lovely public display of affection ranged from 'You made me proud to come from Chichester' to 'This place rocks'.
And yet I couldn't help feeling a bit disappointed when the winner was announced - I'd had my fingers crossed for Kelvingrove in Glasgow.
It must have been difficult for the judges to make their decision - all the shortlisted candidates were very different in scope, aim and scale. But at Kelvingrove they have tried, and in my opinion succeeded, in doing something very different.
Their radical approach, focusing on access and discarding traditional categories in favour of a story-telling approach, has made a popular museum even more of a favourite. (It seems that visitors agree - in the public vote on the 24-Hour Museum website, the Glasgow museum won twice as many votes as any of the others on the shortlist.)
I hope that Glasgow wasn't penalised for daring to be different - it's rare these days that projects break from the established orthodoxies - when they do they should be rewarded.
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
On the whole it has succeeded. It has engendered good publicity for the longlisted and shortlisted museums, and the well-managed marketing campaign has ensured national media coverage for what is not always seen as the most sexy or newsworthy topic.
And it's not just the much-needed cash prize that's up for grabs - previous winners have reported significant increases in visitor numbers after their success.
But this year's winner, Pallant House in Chichester, came as a bit of a surprise to some - there was more than one jaw on the floor when the announcement was made in London last month.
Not that Pallant House is undeserving. In fact it has it all: wonderful architecture that seamlessly marries old with new, a great collection, and an exciting exhibition programme. Visitor figures have been beyond expectations and its outreach and community programme ticks every box; from working with looked-after children and asylum seekers to activities with prisoners and pensioners.
It clearly has a loyal bunch of supporters too and in the run up to the prize got its visitors to cover a whole wall with heart-shaped Post-it notes saying why the gallery should win. The comments on this rather lovely public display of affection ranged from 'You made me proud to come from Chichester' to 'This place rocks'.
And yet I couldn't help feeling a bit disappointed when the winner was announced - I'd had my fingers crossed for Kelvingrove in Glasgow.
It must have been difficult for the judges to make their decision - all the shortlisted candidates were very different in scope, aim and scale. But at Kelvingrove they have tried, and in my opinion succeeded, in doing something very different.
Their radical approach, focusing on access and discarding traditional categories in favour of a story-telling approach, has made a popular museum even more of a favourite. (It seems that visitors agree - in the public vote on the 24-Hour Museum website, the Glasgow museum won twice as many votes as any of the others on the shortlist.)
I hope that Glasgow wasn't penalised for daring to be different - it's rare these days that projects break from the established orthodoxies - when they do they should be rewarded.
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org