Are hubs over-funded?
I was startled to hear, at the recent London Museum Group meeting, that Archives, Libraries and Museums London (ALM) had a mere £155,000 to implement its proposed museum development programme over the years 2006/07, while the London Museums Hub had a budget of £5.8m.
Of course these figures do not tell the entire story, as the hub is paying for the new museum development officer network out of its £5.8m and the projects they support involve other museums.
As a member of the former hub advisory group I can vouch for the fact that the hub has tried hard to make a reality of the 'trickle-down' effect to spread the benefit of hub money. Also ALM has another £60,000 saved up to add to its total.
However, despite the best intentions of the hub, the comparative figures do tell their own tale about the flawed logic of the whole Renaissance in the Regions project. Here we have an excellent museum development strategy put together by Ben Travers and ALM, with clear objectives and a relatively simple strategy, funded with peanuts.
For example, it can spare only £45,000 towards a collections care programme, and £24,000 for audience monitoring. These sums do not go very far with a museum sector of some 200 museums.
The process also seems less than effective. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council seems to have imposed a hopelessly bureaucratic system on the hub, while the ALM strategy seems to have been far less painful to arrive at - and hence seems to me to be clearer and more strategic.
Just think what £5.8m given to implement the ALM strategy would have been able to achieve. At some point, the penny will drop that the whole idea of hubs (particularly as implemented) is a complete nonsense - the idea should have been implemented via the regional agencies.
Kevin Flude, director, The Old Operating Theatre, Museum and Herb Garret, London
Issues around abolition
Regarding the article on the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery (Museums Journal March 2006, p22), I feel let down by the fact that it was such a one-sided view of the matter. Nor does it seem particularly supportive of the hard work and commitment of the museums that are marking the abolition bicentenary.
I surely cannot be alone in thinking that 'formal acknowledgement of the UK's role in the slave trade' would simply be wrong. At the very least it is not a cut-and-dried issue: if shame were to be felt then pride too would be legitimate - pride, at least, that abolition was initiated in this country.
Why, in 2007, can't we in effect mark the religious-radical and humanitarian tradition that was the heart and soul of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade? To avoid it because of imputations of guilt would be awful. And this, of course, is not to downplay Britain's role in the slave trade as abolition can only be predicated on that.
Moreover, there are more bicentenary projects planned than were mentioned. In Manchester, the five museums and galleries consortium is jointly involved in the Revealing Histories project. This will put their respective slavery and empire objects online, with narratives and other content, by the further development of the Manchester Museums Unwrapped web portal.
In those UK museums that might hold slavery handcuffs, shackles, thumbscrews and branding irons, this equipment could also be used to interpret the campaigningwork of the British abolitionists.
Thomas Clarkson's immense endeavours included not only interviewing 20,000 sailors but collecting that barbarous equipment, with which he shocked Britain's citizens and members of parliament into action. This possible dual role would hold even more educational value, and it would also be fairer and more accurate all round.
P Dunn, Manchester
Like almost all of the commemorations for the 1807 abolition of the slave trade, your article ignores the fact that this was not the end of slavery in the British Caribbean, where British people still bought, owned and sold slaves quite legally.
Slavery there was not abolished until 1834, when the 700,000 slaves were liberated, most of them forced to take up 'apprenticeships' with their former owners. Britain certainly led the way on the control of slave ships leaving West Africa; however, it was a generation later that the owning of other humans was made illegal in British legislation.
Fiona Handley, University of Southampton, Winchester School of Art
You may be interested to know that the portrait on your March cover, and the one proposed for a forthcoming exhibition, is not of Olaudah Equiano, although it is often captioned as such. Recent scholarship suggests that Equiano was born in South Carolina, not in Africa, as he claims in his autobiography.
Neither of these facts detract from the literary and historic importance of Equiano in the history of the abolition movement. They do, however, serve as gentle reminders of our responsibility to the public and to history for providing accuracy and context. (On the Equiano portraits see: Vincent Carretta, Equiano, the African: Biography of a Self Made Man, University of Georgia Press, 2005, and
http://www.brycchancarey.com/equiano/portrait.htm)
Daniel Albert, curator of transport, Science Museum, London
The status of local archive services
The Talkback section in March discussed whether becoming a statutory body would help solve museums' financial problems and is an issue that was discussed at the highest levels in the archive domain in recent years (Museums Journal March 2006, p15).
Local archive services are not statutory bodies, as incorrectly stated in this article, but authorities are required to make arrangements for their archives and are enabled to collect archives from other organisations.
The legislative position for archives is essentially weak and permissive, and this situation has placed archives in a similar position to museums, relying upon CPA assessments, alongside National Archive Inspections, to ensure standards.
The main issue for archive services in this whole discussion was not mentioned in this article, namely that becoming statutory would affect eligibility for money from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Local library services, as sole applicants, are not eligible for HLF funding for just this reason. This point alone may help to clarify the discussion in the museum sector.
Janice Tullock, archives fellow on the Clore Leadership Programme 2005/06
When pictures become a puzzle
I enjoy trying to solve your quiz picture each month and finding if I am right the next month. However, the illustrations to many of your articles recently have become more of a puzzle; and there is nowhere to find the answer the following month.
Is this a subtle way to increase visitor numbers? Are galleries filled with crowds of confused curators clutching their journals to try to match picture and object?
It was really unforgivable to head the article about Islamic art with the quote that 'it might be hard work for visitors with little or no knowledge of the subject', then not to give any information with the illustrations (Museums Journal March 2006, p44).
One wonders why the Islamic art is separated from the Christian and Jewish art in the previous article? Is there a hidden political message perhaps? But then which of the objects illustrated belongs to what religion? Even if I was able to identify 'the what' there is nothing to explain anything of what they are made of, where or when.
Surely in a journal representing a profession whose reason for existing is to care for and interpret objects, one can expect interpretation of its illustrations. People who work in museums do so out of an interest in objects and a desire to know about them.
I know that this is an age where pictures of museum objects are used as decoration on anything from wrapping paper to umbrellas, but at least give a grumpy ex-curator the satisfaction of telling him what he is looking at each month.
J Brian Curzon, Cheshire
Public participation in cultural issues
May I, as the author of Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy, offer a comment on your editorial (Museums Journal April 2006, p4). You say that 'Fundamentally, it all comes down to the same thing - proving your worth to funders and politicians.'
In fact, the pamphlet argues that 'advocacy' of that sort has done culture a disservice, because it has created an introverted conversation among cultural professionals and funders that excludes the public.
If culture is to generate the same type of deep political support that education and health enjoy, cultural professionals must find new ways of building a mandate directly with citizens. Politicians and funders are more likely to listen to the public will than to special pleading.
Professionals can help achieve that by making the public voice heard, but that will not come about through tick boxes. It will happen when organisations are more open to public engagement, more reflexive, more willing and able to learn and to change.
The pamphlet suggests that the sort of change I advocate will only come about through a reinvigorated and confident professionalism, not from top-down direction by funders, nor from the exhortations of people like me.
John Holden, head of culture, Demos
I was startled to hear, at the recent London Museum Group meeting, that Archives, Libraries and Museums London (ALM) had a mere £155,000 to implement its proposed museum development programme over the years 2006/07, while the London Museums Hub had a budget of £5.8m.
Of course these figures do not tell the entire story, as the hub is paying for the new museum development officer network out of its £5.8m and the projects they support involve other museums.
As a member of the former hub advisory group I can vouch for the fact that the hub has tried hard to make a reality of the 'trickle-down' effect to spread the benefit of hub money. Also ALM has another £60,000 saved up to add to its total.
However, despite the best intentions of the hub, the comparative figures do tell their own tale about the flawed logic of the whole Renaissance in the Regions project. Here we have an excellent museum development strategy put together by Ben Travers and ALM, with clear objectives and a relatively simple strategy, funded with peanuts.
For example, it can spare only £45,000 towards a collections care programme, and £24,000 for audience monitoring. These sums do not go very far with a museum sector of some 200 museums.
The process also seems less than effective. The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council seems to have imposed a hopelessly bureaucratic system on the hub, while the ALM strategy seems to have been far less painful to arrive at - and hence seems to me to be clearer and more strategic.
Just think what £5.8m given to implement the ALM strategy would have been able to achieve. At some point, the penny will drop that the whole idea of hubs (particularly as implemented) is a complete nonsense - the idea should have been implemented via the regional agencies.
Kevin Flude, director, The Old Operating Theatre, Museum and Herb Garret, London
Issues around abolition
Regarding the article on the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery (Museums Journal March 2006, p22), I feel let down by the fact that it was such a one-sided view of the matter. Nor does it seem particularly supportive of the hard work and commitment of the museums that are marking the abolition bicentenary.
I surely cannot be alone in thinking that 'formal acknowledgement of the UK's role in the slave trade' would simply be wrong. At the very least it is not a cut-and-dried issue: if shame were to be felt then pride too would be legitimate - pride, at least, that abolition was initiated in this country.
Why, in 2007, can't we in effect mark the religious-radical and humanitarian tradition that was the heart and soul of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade? To avoid it because of imputations of guilt would be awful. And this, of course, is not to downplay Britain's role in the slave trade as abolition can only be predicated on that.
Moreover, there are more bicentenary projects planned than were mentioned. In Manchester, the five museums and galleries consortium is jointly involved in the Revealing Histories project. This will put their respective slavery and empire objects online, with narratives and other content, by the further development of the Manchester Museums Unwrapped web portal.
In those UK museums that might hold slavery handcuffs, shackles, thumbscrews and branding irons, this equipment could also be used to interpret the campaigningwork of the British abolitionists.
Thomas Clarkson's immense endeavours included not only interviewing 20,000 sailors but collecting that barbarous equipment, with which he shocked Britain's citizens and members of parliament into action. This possible dual role would hold even more educational value, and it would also be fairer and more accurate all round.
P Dunn, Manchester
Like almost all of the commemorations for the 1807 abolition of the slave trade, your article ignores the fact that this was not the end of slavery in the British Caribbean, where British people still bought, owned and sold slaves quite legally.
Slavery there was not abolished until 1834, when the 700,000 slaves were liberated, most of them forced to take up 'apprenticeships' with their former owners. Britain certainly led the way on the control of slave ships leaving West Africa; however, it was a generation later that the owning of other humans was made illegal in British legislation.
Fiona Handley, University of Southampton, Winchester School of Art
You may be interested to know that the portrait on your March cover, and the one proposed for a forthcoming exhibition, is not of Olaudah Equiano, although it is often captioned as such. Recent scholarship suggests that Equiano was born in South Carolina, not in Africa, as he claims in his autobiography.
Neither of these facts detract from the literary and historic importance of Equiano in the history of the abolition movement. They do, however, serve as gentle reminders of our responsibility to the public and to history for providing accuracy and context. (On the Equiano portraits see: Vincent Carretta, Equiano, the African: Biography of a Self Made Man, University of Georgia Press, 2005, and
http://www.brycchancarey.com/equiano/portrait.htm)
Daniel Albert, curator of transport, Science Museum, London
The status of local archive services
The Talkback section in March discussed whether becoming a statutory body would help solve museums' financial problems and is an issue that was discussed at the highest levels in the archive domain in recent years (Museums Journal March 2006, p15).
Local archive services are not statutory bodies, as incorrectly stated in this article, but authorities are required to make arrangements for their archives and are enabled to collect archives from other organisations.
The legislative position for archives is essentially weak and permissive, and this situation has placed archives in a similar position to museums, relying upon CPA assessments, alongside National Archive Inspections, to ensure standards.
The main issue for archive services in this whole discussion was not mentioned in this article, namely that becoming statutory would affect eligibility for money from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Local library services, as sole applicants, are not eligible for HLF funding for just this reason. This point alone may help to clarify the discussion in the museum sector.
Janice Tullock, archives fellow on the Clore Leadership Programme 2005/06
When pictures become a puzzle
I enjoy trying to solve your quiz picture each month and finding if I am right the next month. However, the illustrations to many of your articles recently have become more of a puzzle; and there is nowhere to find the answer the following month.
Is this a subtle way to increase visitor numbers? Are galleries filled with crowds of confused curators clutching their journals to try to match picture and object?
It was really unforgivable to head the article about Islamic art with the quote that 'it might be hard work for visitors with little or no knowledge of the subject', then not to give any information with the illustrations (Museums Journal March 2006, p44).
One wonders why the Islamic art is separated from the Christian and Jewish art in the previous article? Is there a hidden political message perhaps? But then which of the objects illustrated belongs to what religion? Even if I was able to identify 'the what' there is nothing to explain anything of what they are made of, where or when.
Surely in a journal representing a profession whose reason for existing is to care for and interpret objects, one can expect interpretation of its illustrations. People who work in museums do so out of an interest in objects and a desire to know about them.
I know that this is an age where pictures of museum objects are used as decoration on anything from wrapping paper to umbrellas, but at least give a grumpy ex-curator the satisfaction of telling him what he is looking at each month.
J Brian Curzon, Cheshire
Public participation in cultural issues
May I, as the author of Cultural Value and the Crisis of Legitimacy, offer a comment on your editorial (Museums Journal April 2006, p4). You say that 'Fundamentally, it all comes down to the same thing - proving your worth to funders and politicians.'
In fact, the pamphlet argues that 'advocacy' of that sort has done culture a disservice, because it has created an introverted conversation among cultural professionals and funders that excludes the public.
If culture is to generate the same type of deep political support that education and health enjoy, cultural professionals must find new ways of building a mandate directly with citizens. Politicians and funders are more likely to listen to the public will than to special pleading.
Professionals can help achieve that by making the public voice heard, but that will not come about through tick boxes. It will happen when organisations are more open to public engagement, more reflexive, more willing and able to learn and to change.
The pamphlet suggests that the sort of change I advocate will only come about through a reinvigorated and confident professionalism, not from top-down direction by funders, nor from the exhortations of people like me.
John Holden, head of culture, Demos
