Maurice Davies is the deputy director of the Museums Association
YES: The UK's museums and galleries have been transformed over the past decade. Just think what it was like in the mid 1990s. Many museums were riven by false divisions between audiences and collections, between access and preservation.
Now, UK museums have a clear sense of purpose - to communicate collections to people for learning, inspiration and enjoyment. All museums now take their audiences far more seriously.
The sector is becoming better at disposal and is beginning to get ambitious about collecting. The extensive response to the anniversary of the parliamentary abolition of the slave trade shows that museums are becoming more comfortable in responding to the UK's diversity.
These changes have been supported by extra funding (which, tragically, is now under threat).
The Tories introduced the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Its early insistence on high standards, soon followed (under Labour) by its focus on audiences and education, probably did more than anything else to improve museums.
Increased central government support has played a crucial part, too. As well as Renaissance and free admission for national mu-seums, central government has been generally positive about museums.
This has increased confidence and raised aspirations. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has many faults - but it is far, far more ambitious than the Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC) ever was. I'll be talking more about this at the Museums Association annual
conference in October.
Val Bott is a museum consultant
NO: Despite the apparent opportunities of the HLF, Renaissance in the Regions and the MLA network, the response must be no.
As small components of larger bodies, many museums have found it difficult to obtain political backing. Cabinet-style local government has handed decision-making to individuals and removed the committees through which curators used to engage councillors in their work.
With so much public funding allocated to statutory services, even popular museums have faced cuts and closure. Independent museums have faced risks ranging from the reinstatement of free admission at national museums to the loss of grants from public sources.
The abolition of the MGC reduced the specialist and independent voice that advised both government and the sector. The nurturing approach of the Area Museum Services has gone, without being replaced through the new hubs. Indeed, many have been disappointed to find how long it takes for excellence to trickle down from those who have to those who have not.
Museums depend hugely upon the quality, enthusiasm and commitment of their workers, who work longer and harder to keep things going when funds are short, and struggle to fulfil an increasing number of targets.
The obsession with access has distorted the importance of behind-the-scenes work, and investment in collections care and documentation is still desperately needed.
After years of cuts, many museums now lack the expertise, confidence and time needed to prepare effective funding bids.
YES: The UK's museums and galleries have been transformed over the past decade. Just think what it was like in the mid 1990s. Many museums were riven by false divisions between audiences and collections, between access and preservation.
Now, UK museums have a clear sense of purpose - to communicate collections to people for learning, inspiration and enjoyment. All museums now take their audiences far more seriously.
The sector is becoming better at disposal and is beginning to get ambitious about collecting. The extensive response to the anniversary of the parliamentary abolition of the slave trade shows that museums are becoming more comfortable in responding to the UK's diversity.
These changes have been supported by extra funding (which, tragically, is now under threat).
The Tories introduced the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Its early insistence on high standards, soon followed (under Labour) by its focus on audiences and education, probably did more than anything else to improve museums.
Increased central government support has played a crucial part, too. As well as Renaissance and free admission for national mu-seums, central government has been generally positive about museums.
This has increased confidence and raised aspirations. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has many faults - but it is far, far more ambitious than the Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC) ever was. I'll be talking more about this at the Museums Association annual
conference in October.
Val Bott is a museum consultant
NO: Despite the apparent opportunities of the HLF, Renaissance in the Regions and the MLA network, the response must be no.
As small components of larger bodies, many museums have found it difficult to obtain political backing. Cabinet-style local government has handed decision-making to individuals and removed the committees through which curators used to engage councillors in their work.
With so much public funding allocated to statutory services, even popular museums have faced cuts and closure. Independent museums have faced risks ranging from the reinstatement of free admission at national museums to the loss of grants from public sources.
The abolition of the MGC reduced the specialist and independent voice that advised both government and the sector. The nurturing approach of the Area Museum Services has gone, without being replaced through the new hubs. Indeed, many have been disappointed to find how long it takes for excellence to trickle down from those who have to those who have not.
Museums depend hugely upon the quality, enthusiasm and commitment of their workers, who work longer and harder to keep things going when funds are short, and struggle to fulfil an increasing number of targets.
The obsession with access has distorted the importance of behind-the-scenes work, and investment in collections care and documentation is still desperately needed.
After years of cuts, many museums now lack the expertise, confidence and time needed to prepare effective funding bids.
