Shortchanged by the blockbusters
On a recent visit to Tate Modern I was delighted to see that visitors could look at a fair number of Gilbert and George paintings without having to pay to enter the exhibition. This is a policy that should be repeated at more of our major galleries - it provides a proper balance between the commitment to free museum visits and the commercial need to create income.
It is a balance that has been in some danger of going wrong in recent times. Blockbuster shows have the effect of removing from free view major paintings and forcing the visitor to pay to see them. My most recent visit to the National Gallery, at the time of last year's Constable exhibition, revealed a room denuded of many of its great paintings.
At the same time half the Marriage à la Mode series was also missing, which destroyed the visitors enjoyment of the narrative of Hogarth's great sequence. This year the Holbein and the Hogarth exhibitions have removed great paintings from free view, often to show them at a large price - just down the road, or round the corner in another public museum.
I understand the necessity of generating income and the occasional need for retrospectives bringing together a large body of art to be seen together and compared. However, the number of big comprehensive blockbuster exhibitions travelling the world creates holes in much-loved collections and in effect forces people to pay for something they normally get for free.
It is not just exhibits that can be affected by touring exhibitions. The British Museum has removed free access to the British Library Reading Room for two years while it houses exhibitions such as the Chinese terracotta army. Welcome as it is to be able to see the figures in the UK, the loss of access to the Reading Room is not justified.
Public access to the library was part of the scheme that the public financed through the Heritage Lottery Fund. It not only provided access to a glorious space but it also gave access to the Paul Hamlyn Library. The later has now been moved to inadequate space in Room 2.
Directors need to weigh up more carefully their commercial decisions - they are public service organisations funded by the public. I would suggest that one way they can balance income with access is to place an appropriate proportion of the exhibition on view free to the public. Also, directors should think hard about how to ensure their own displays are not weakened during the period of loan and that the demands of blockbuster exhibitions do not in effect cheat the public from enjoying free access to their heritage.
Kevin Flude, director, Old Operating Theatre Museum and lecturer, Central Saint Martins, London
Serving Middlesbrough (or not)
I read with interest Caroline Worthington's review of the new Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art (MIMA) (Museums Journal March 2007, p40), and noted the rejoinder from its director, Godfrey Worsdale, ((Museums Journal April 2007, p13) before making my own visit recently. If Worthington can be accused of anything, it is probably for pulling her punches.
On construction cost, Middlesbrough Council's own newspaper quotes £19m. Her review did not, as I understand it, question whether Middlesbrough deserves a modern art centre, but it did question why its existing creditable art and contemporary craft collections are not currently visible at MIMA.
While Worsdale is understandably keen to defend the exhibition, marketing and outreach activities, and to justify the case for a new gallery for Middlesbrough, he might explain why the predecessor gallery and craft centre were closed some two years before the new gallery opened - didn't the people of Middlesbrough deserve any gallery facilities at all over that period?
Blaise Vyner, Stokesley
Constructive criticism, not griping, please
I was disappointed to read that Rebecca Watkin had misunderstood comments about the Museum Association's Diversify scheme, particularly my own (Museums Journal April 2007, p12).
The debate about Diversify (how best to create a level playing field for entering the profession) and that of the elusive, decently-paid first job are two separate issues. Everyone knows that the museum profession is a difficult one to succeed in, no matter what your background. No one was using Diversify as a scapegoat and it was wrong to portray the criticisms in this manner.
However, the comment that dedication, hard work, voluntary and otherwise (that many of us have undertaken) is one I whole-heartedly agree with. And indeed it will be these people who have struggled and succeeded that are most likely to continue to fight for collections, for museums to receive a more statutory standing (re the excellent letter by Stephen Lowy, Museums Journal April 2007, p13) and for the profession to be recognised as one of the most highly skilled and respected in the country.
Tehmina Goskar, Centre for Antiquity and the Middle Ages, University of Southampton
Science centre funding is on the agenda
I am writing to alert Museums Journal readers to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the funding of science centres. It follows a period of lobbying from Ecsite-uk and its membership.
The inquiry will 'examine the role of science centres in public engagement and attracting young people to science subjects and scientific careers; the funding available to such centres from central government; alternative sources of funding; and ways of supporting the long-term future of science and discovery centres'.
Science and discovery centres across the UK play an increasingly important role developing scientific curiosity in young people. They enable them to discover how advances in science and technology can and do affect their lives, through extensive schools programmes, dialogue and discussion events and outreach activities.
The committee has invited Ecsite-uk, along with other interested organisations and individuals, to submit written evidence addressing these points by 11 June 2007. For anyone wanting to give evidence, they should submit it in a Word document format and send it by email to scitechcom@parliament.uk
Linda Conlon, chairwoman, Ecsite-uk and chief executive, Centre for Life, Newcastle
We're not trying to be difficult, but...
As someone who has been on the volunteers' team at a National Trust house for ten years, I was dismayed, and, I admit, somewhat baffled, by Rebecca Mileham's comments on her visit to Chastleton House (Museums Journal March 2007, p44).
I was particularly surprised, given she works in the museum sector, that she says that the function and treatment of home furnishings has changed so much - and is then amazed that the team has to explain why they should not be touched, simply because they are so old. I do not think interpretation is meant to hammer home this point and I am really surpirsed that she hadn't thought of it for herself. In the house where I work, we do have a 'no photography' sign in the hall.
We have very little trouble over the year and, in any case, most people do not want to try. We encourage them into our award-winning garden to take all the pictures they like. I am surprised, again, given Mileham's background, and that presumably no-one else was taking photographs, that she didn't
think to ask.
It sounds as if the stewards may have been heavy-handed, but unfortun-ately, an important part of our role is to take care of the content of our houses. We have to ask people not to touch or take photographs.
I am sorry that she didn't care for the system of having stewards to help and a guidebook to read at the time or take away to read later.
I am glad her little boy enjoyed himself and it is notable how rarely children do try to touch; in all my years at the National Trust I think I've only had to ask a child not to touch an instrument once - they look and admire.
It is hard to imagine any house would appear so unfriendly, but a bit of sensible goodwill on the visitors' part works wonders. And it makes our job much easier.
Suzanne Pinkerton, National Trust volunteer, London
Correction from a gunpowder rammer
In your article about Jamestown (Museums Journal May 2007, p38), there is a photograph captioned 'a cannon found on site at the Historic Jamestowne location'. Whilst it is certainly true that the photographer found it there, when visiting recently I am fairly sure that it is one of a number of reproduction early 17th-century Saker guns cast by Irons Brothers of Cornwall under the supervision of Colin Carpenter in the 1980s and 1990s.
Another has been used by the Royal Armouries under the name of Raven and another belongs to me and lives at Fort Paull near Hull. That gun's name is Pax Vobiscum.
Obviously the size of the photograph is not huge and the angle not the best for identification, but I know that Jamestown has at least one of these and, after ramming gunpowder in large quantities down the twin of that muzzle for over a decade, I would know it anywhere.
Erik Blakeley, curator, Staffordshire Regiment Museum
On a recent visit to Tate Modern I was delighted to see that visitors could look at a fair number of Gilbert and George paintings without having to pay to enter the exhibition. This is a policy that should be repeated at more of our major galleries - it provides a proper balance between the commitment to free museum visits and the commercial need to create income.
It is a balance that has been in some danger of going wrong in recent times. Blockbuster shows have the effect of removing from free view major paintings and forcing the visitor to pay to see them. My most recent visit to the National Gallery, at the time of last year's Constable exhibition, revealed a room denuded of many of its great paintings.
At the same time half the Marriage à la Mode series was also missing, which destroyed the visitors enjoyment of the narrative of Hogarth's great sequence. This year the Holbein and the Hogarth exhibitions have removed great paintings from free view, often to show them at a large price - just down the road, or round the corner in another public museum.
I understand the necessity of generating income and the occasional need for retrospectives bringing together a large body of art to be seen together and compared. However, the number of big comprehensive blockbuster exhibitions travelling the world creates holes in much-loved collections and in effect forces people to pay for something they normally get for free.
It is not just exhibits that can be affected by touring exhibitions. The British Museum has removed free access to the British Library Reading Room for two years while it houses exhibitions such as the Chinese terracotta army. Welcome as it is to be able to see the figures in the UK, the loss of access to the Reading Room is not justified.
Public access to the library was part of the scheme that the public financed through the Heritage Lottery Fund. It not only provided access to a glorious space but it also gave access to the Paul Hamlyn Library. The later has now been moved to inadequate space in Room 2.
Directors need to weigh up more carefully their commercial decisions - they are public service organisations funded by the public. I would suggest that one way they can balance income with access is to place an appropriate proportion of the exhibition on view free to the public. Also, directors should think hard about how to ensure their own displays are not weakened during the period of loan and that the demands of blockbuster exhibitions do not in effect cheat the public from enjoying free access to their heritage.
Kevin Flude, director, Old Operating Theatre Museum and lecturer, Central Saint Martins, London
Serving Middlesbrough (or not)
I read with interest Caroline Worthington's review of the new Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art (MIMA) (Museums Journal March 2007, p40), and noted the rejoinder from its director, Godfrey Worsdale, ((Museums Journal April 2007, p13) before making my own visit recently. If Worthington can be accused of anything, it is probably for pulling her punches.
On construction cost, Middlesbrough Council's own newspaper quotes £19m. Her review did not, as I understand it, question whether Middlesbrough deserves a modern art centre, but it did question why its existing creditable art and contemporary craft collections are not currently visible at MIMA.
While Worsdale is understandably keen to defend the exhibition, marketing and outreach activities, and to justify the case for a new gallery for Middlesbrough, he might explain why the predecessor gallery and craft centre were closed some two years before the new gallery opened - didn't the people of Middlesbrough deserve any gallery facilities at all over that period?
Blaise Vyner, Stokesley
Constructive criticism, not griping, please
I was disappointed to read that Rebecca Watkin had misunderstood comments about the Museum Association's Diversify scheme, particularly my own (Museums Journal April 2007, p12).
The debate about Diversify (how best to create a level playing field for entering the profession) and that of the elusive, decently-paid first job are two separate issues. Everyone knows that the museum profession is a difficult one to succeed in, no matter what your background. No one was using Diversify as a scapegoat and it was wrong to portray the criticisms in this manner.
However, the comment that dedication, hard work, voluntary and otherwise (that many of us have undertaken) is one I whole-heartedly agree with. And indeed it will be these people who have struggled and succeeded that are most likely to continue to fight for collections, for museums to receive a more statutory standing (re the excellent letter by Stephen Lowy, Museums Journal April 2007, p13) and for the profession to be recognised as one of the most highly skilled and respected in the country.
Tehmina Goskar, Centre for Antiquity and the Middle Ages, University of Southampton
Science centre funding is on the agenda
I am writing to alert Museums Journal readers to a House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the funding of science centres. It follows a period of lobbying from Ecsite-uk and its membership.
The inquiry will 'examine the role of science centres in public engagement and attracting young people to science subjects and scientific careers; the funding available to such centres from central government; alternative sources of funding; and ways of supporting the long-term future of science and discovery centres'.
Science and discovery centres across the UK play an increasingly important role developing scientific curiosity in young people. They enable them to discover how advances in science and technology can and do affect their lives, through extensive schools programmes, dialogue and discussion events and outreach activities.
The committee has invited Ecsite-uk, along with other interested organisations and individuals, to submit written evidence addressing these points by 11 June 2007. For anyone wanting to give evidence, they should submit it in a Word document format and send it by email to scitechcom@parliament.uk
Linda Conlon, chairwoman, Ecsite-uk and chief executive, Centre for Life, Newcastle
We're not trying to be difficult, but...
As someone who has been on the volunteers' team at a National Trust house for ten years, I was dismayed, and, I admit, somewhat baffled, by Rebecca Mileham's comments on her visit to Chastleton House (Museums Journal March 2007, p44).
I was particularly surprised, given she works in the museum sector, that she says that the function and treatment of home furnishings has changed so much - and is then amazed that the team has to explain why they should not be touched, simply because they are so old. I do not think interpretation is meant to hammer home this point and I am really surpirsed that she hadn't thought of it for herself. In the house where I work, we do have a 'no photography' sign in the hall.
We have very little trouble over the year and, in any case, most people do not want to try. We encourage them into our award-winning garden to take all the pictures they like. I am surprised, again, given Mileham's background, and that presumably no-one else was taking photographs, that she didn't
think to ask.
It sounds as if the stewards may have been heavy-handed, but unfortun-ately, an important part of our role is to take care of the content of our houses. We have to ask people not to touch or take photographs.
I am sorry that she didn't care for the system of having stewards to help and a guidebook to read at the time or take away to read later.
I am glad her little boy enjoyed himself and it is notable how rarely children do try to touch; in all my years at the National Trust I think I've only had to ask a child not to touch an instrument once - they look and admire.
It is hard to imagine any house would appear so unfriendly, but a bit of sensible goodwill on the visitors' part works wonders. And it makes our job much easier.
Suzanne Pinkerton, National Trust volunteer, London
Correction from a gunpowder rammer
In your article about Jamestown (Museums Journal May 2007, p38), there is a photograph captioned 'a cannon found on site at the Historic Jamestowne location'. Whilst it is certainly true that the photographer found it there, when visiting recently I am fairly sure that it is one of a number of reproduction early 17th-century Saker guns cast by Irons Brothers of Cornwall under the supervision of Colin Carpenter in the 1980s and 1990s.
Another has been used by the Royal Armouries under the name of Raven and another belongs to me and lives at Fort Paull near Hull. That gun's name is Pax Vobiscum.
Obviously the size of the photograph is not huge and the angle not the best for identification, but I know that Jamestown has at least one of these and, after ramming gunpowder in large quantities down the twin of that muzzle for over a decade, I would know it anywhere.
Erik Blakeley, curator, Staffordshire Regiment Museum
