More and more assumptions seem to be applied to temporary exhibitions with a total insurance value of £1m or more - in other words those exhibitions that curators would wish to see covered under the Government Indemnity Scheme (GIS).
The 'carrot' offered by the GIS is the savings that are made through not having to insure the exhibits commercially.
But in the headlong rush to circulate collections, it seems to me that alternative, and often cheaper practices, are being overlooked.
Assumption number one: the most pre-eminent artefacts are held in museums as opposed to private collections.
It is worth remembering that most of our great museum collections were founded by private individuals, and a quick glance at the auction catalogues of Sotheby's and Christie's reminds us of the quality of material that is still in private ownership today.
And an awful lot of it can be borrowed without having to wade through the mountains of red tape that accompany most museum loans.
Assumption number two: the private sector is intrinsically corrupt and only interested in enhancing brand and wealth-creation.
This might be true of some of the big corporate collections but many private lenders to internationally important exhibitions prefer to retain their anonymity.
Assumption number three: Government Indemnity is intrinsically a good thing.
This might be true for larger museums that have the staff to fill out reams of paperwork, supply the environmental readings and jump through all the other hoops associated with the 53 conditions of the scheme, while trying to keep tabs on the even wordier guidelines and factsheets.
The latter include such beauties as: "Plants and flowers brought in for special events must be issued with a pass after inspection."
We can joke about all these conditions, but it is vital that curators are aware of the staff-time and financial implications of what they are embarking on.
To put it simply, is the pain worth the gain? Why not get two or three competitive quotes to insure the exhibition commercially, then weigh up the cost of this against the costs of compliance with the GIS - ie no food, drink or cut flowers at receptions (except by special permission), no environmental readings other than the flat-lining variety, no unglazed paintings without barriers, and an attendant dedicated to security in each room.
The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council will maintain that these are good professional standards, but how many of our smaller museums have sufficient staff and financial resources to apply them?
And might there be lessons for the museum profession to learn from the more flexible approach adopted within the art market?
Jon Benington is the manager of the Victoria Art Gallery in Bath
The 'carrot' offered by the GIS is the savings that are made through not having to insure the exhibits commercially.
But in the headlong rush to circulate collections, it seems to me that alternative, and often cheaper practices, are being overlooked.
Assumption number one: the most pre-eminent artefacts are held in museums as opposed to private collections.
It is worth remembering that most of our great museum collections were founded by private individuals, and a quick glance at the auction catalogues of Sotheby's and Christie's reminds us of the quality of material that is still in private ownership today.
And an awful lot of it can be borrowed without having to wade through the mountains of red tape that accompany most museum loans.
Assumption number two: the private sector is intrinsically corrupt and only interested in enhancing brand and wealth-creation.
This might be true of some of the big corporate collections but many private lenders to internationally important exhibitions prefer to retain their anonymity.
Assumption number three: Government Indemnity is intrinsically a good thing.
This might be true for larger museums that have the staff to fill out reams of paperwork, supply the environmental readings and jump through all the other hoops associated with the 53 conditions of the scheme, while trying to keep tabs on the even wordier guidelines and factsheets.
The latter include such beauties as: "Plants and flowers brought in for special events must be issued with a pass after inspection."
We can joke about all these conditions, but it is vital that curators are aware of the staff-time and financial implications of what they are embarking on.
To put it simply, is the pain worth the gain? Why not get two or three competitive quotes to insure the exhibition commercially, then weigh up the cost of this against the costs of compliance with the GIS - ie no food, drink or cut flowers at receptions (except by special permission), no environmental readings other than the flat-lining variety, no unglazed paintings without barriers, and an attendant dedicated to security in each room.
The Museums, Libraries and Archives Council will maintain that these are good professional standards, but how many of our smaller museums have sufficient staff and financial resources to apply them?
And might there be lessons for the museum profession to learn from the more flexible approach adopted within the art market?
Jon Benington is the manager of the Victoria Art Gallery in Bath
