Local services for local people
I read and largely agreed with July's editorial: Moved by the Wheels of Industry (Museums Journal July 2005, p4).
As someone who was brought up five miles from the Big Pit in Blaenafon, and established a business 17 years ago just down the road from the new Swansea Waterfront Museum, I am not only personally interested in Welsh industrial heritage, but you could argue that, like the ex-miners at the Big Pit who lead the tours, I am part of the community that wants to service it.
But even though we're recognised as one of the leading AV suppliers to museums throughout the UK, less than 5 per cent of our museum revenue is derived in Wales. And we're not an isolated case.
The lack of local companies involved in the supply chain of the £30.8m Swansea project is a subject of local press and Welsh Assembly debate. What's more, the Big Pit was designed in Leicester and our National Woollen Mill in Yorkshire.
I agree with your comments that cultural regeneration could lead to the formation of new businesses which will offer alternative employment to newly qualified or re-skilled people.
Unfortunately, unless local authorities and museums consider the local communities they serve for the services they require, this is not likely to happen.
Local knowledge is a specialist subject which should be higher up the pecking order, particularly in terms of design. If we ignore that, there's a danger of our museums becoming souless and samey - just like the towns you mention.
Jonathan Knight, managing director, Blackbox AV, Port Talbot
Curators, not managers
The June issue contained articles which together cast the mind back over 70 years. At that time, to be a museum curator carried status. He was a respected authority alongside bank managers, surgeons, headmasters, colonels and lawyers.
He was responsible for all the items in his care - the word is derived from cudre, to take care of, seen also in curate, one having care of souls.
How different is the meaning of manager, one who manages. One uses objects for short-term gain, even if it could be to the long-term detriment of the object. The other puts long-term care as the highest priority.
Many years ago, my chairman told me to find a way to sell off items from the collection to raise money for the council, and to change the accessioning system to facilitate future sales, regardless of professional ethics. I used curatorship to enable me to veto the idea. Had I been a manager I could have been dismissed for non-cooperation.
Another old chestnut was the question why we collect. The best answer I ever heard was that we might enable future enquirers to answer questions that have not yet been asked. It was also impressed on us that the curator was responsible for the selection of objects and the compilation of the accessions register.
Why are leisure officers, trained in responsibility for parks and football pitches, allowed to override the duties of trained curators?
Say a good word for the old-fashioned curator who incidentally also had to do his own conservation.
He had to undergo shortages of manpower, space and salary. But he (usually) knew his job, and the modern museums run by directors and managers would not be there without our stubborn devotion.
Lionel Walrond, retired curator, Stroud
Making a connection
I write in support of Collections for the Future, as many of the report's conclusions echo the experiences of the Connected Earth partnership.
Connected Earth is BT's heritage initiative, cited in the report as an example of disposal, but in truth more representative of a successfully dispersed collection.
BT's collection was distributed to a network of museum partners, each telling part of the story of communications and brought together online (www.connected-earth.com).
This online museum allows engagement with the collection in different ways: from 3-D images of artefacts and video tours of museum displays, to interactives which bring the technology alive.
In just 12 months, more people were able to view the collections in the partner mu-seums across the country than had ever visited the BT museum, and the website receives more than 100,000 visitors every month.
As a partnership we are seeing the results of a maturing specialist network, as national institutions work with independent museums to avoid duplication of effort and collecting, while sharing technical and curatorial knowledge.
Current objectives include the development of a mutual collecting policy and a shared catalogue of communications-related objects, not restricted to those distributed under Connected Earth.
The ongoing partnership with BT as well as new links made with other telecommunications companies is vital to the network, ensuring that telecommunications-related artefacts continue to be identified and acquired by museums.
Connected Earth also sets an interesting precedent for museums building links with industry, and has led to BT publishing a heritage policy for the ethical dispersal of its heritage, a lead which could be a useful model for other deregulated industries and the commercial sector.
As museums consider the implications of Collections for the Future we believe that Connected Earth is cause for encouragement and a valuable model for many aspects of the report, beyond the issue of disposal.
Alison Taubman, principal curator (communications), National Museums of Scotland
Supporting the right to buy
Jane Morris's article Strapped for Cash made some very telling points about the inadequate nature of many, if not most, of today's acquisition budgets (Museums Journal June 2005, p28).
She might have gained a fuller picture of the situation if she had lifted her sights beyond the usual suspects of the nationals and the hub museums. I am not suggesting that things are a great deal rosier in the medium-sized and small museum sector, but an enlarged perspective would at least have brought to light one or two success stories.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council, for example, fully backs the ambition of its medium-sized museum service to build a wide-ranging collection of museum objects in order to provide evidence for, illustrate, and instill pride in the history of the area, and to be a resource for the learning community.
To this end, we are pleased not only to back a £6m 'one-stop heritage shop', known as the treasure house, which will offer state-of-the-art repositories for the collections of museums, archives and local studies; fund a £115,000 collections digitisation programme and the post of a registrar; but also fund an acquisition budget of £25,000 a year - proof of our belief in the relevance of a comprehensive and growing collection to the furthering of the council's objectives.
Jane Evison, portfolio holder for cultural services, East Riding of Yorkshire Council
The human costs of lottery bids
The lottery has now provided funding for many museum and gallery projects which would never have otherwise got off the ground. That is the credit side.
There is a darker side, though: the growing list of projects which have caused many tears, frustrations and absences from work through stress-related illnesses, some of which have resulted in long periods of absence from work and even losses to the profession.
There are many reasons why problems develop. The main one is the sheer amount of extra work required, not just to apply for the grant but also the constant meetings with contractors, architects and other interested parties during the period of the project.
Often, no extra staff are provided and already overworked senior staff have to carry out their day jobs, as well as going to site meetings, discussing late design changes, and trying to stand up to building contractors who want to make changes that may incidentally increase their profit. (That's not the way it's put to you though; watch out for expressions such as: 'We have had to make necessary structural alterations.')
The administrators of the lottery must also bear a share of the responsibility. Most inspectors are excellent and put themselves out to be helpful, but museum staff are generally inexperienced in lottery bids and need to have constant feedback as well as frequent guidance and advice.
Museum staff should expect advice and information, for instance, on the spiralling costs in the building industry which have recently caused serious problems, and recommendations for long-term budgeting for anticipated additional costs.
Slow responses to queries and delays in giving approval during the building programme result in increased final costs, which can become a constant worry to staff. We are often talking big, big money and the stress factor, sometimes over several years, must be tremendous.
We should not lose sight of the benefits lottery money has brought to
museums and galleries, but curators still need support and guidance after lottery approval.
Tony Baker, AJB Designs, Harrogate
I read and largely agreed with July's editorial: Moved by the Wheels of Industry (Museums Journal July 2005, p4).
As someone who was brought up five miles from the Big Pit in Blaenafon, and established a business 17 years ago just down the road from the new Swansea Waterfront Museum, I am not only personally interested in Welsh industrial heritage, but you could argue that, like the ex-miners at the Big Pit who lead the tours, I am part of the community that wants to service it.
But even though we're recognised as one of the leading AV suppliers to museums throughout the UK, less than 5 per cent of our museum revenue is derived in Wales. And we're not an isolated case.
The lack of local companies involved in the supply chain of the £30.8m Swansea project is a subject of local press and Welsh Assembly debate. What's more, the Big Pit was designed in Leicester and our National Woollen Mill in Yorkshire.
I agree with your comments that cultural regeneration could lead to the formation of new businesses which will offer alternative employment to newly qualified or re-skilled people.
Unfortunately, unless local authorities and museums consider the local communities they serve for the services they require, this is not likely to happen.
Local knowledge is a specialist subject which should be higher up the pecking order, particularly in terms of design. If we ignore that, there's a danger of our museums becoming souless and samey - just like the towns you mention.
Jonathan Knight, managing director, Blackbox AV, Port Talbot
Curators, not managers
The June issue contained articles which together cast the mind back over 70 years. At that time, to be a museum curator carried status. He was a respected authority alongside bank managers, surgeons, headmasters, colonels and lawyers.
He was responsible for all the items in his care - the word is derived from cudre, to take care of, seen also in curate, one having care of souls.
How different is the meaning of manager, one who manages. One uses objects for short-term gain, even if it could be to the long-term detriment of the object. The other puts long-term care as the highest priority.
Many years ago, my chairman told me to find a way to sell off items from the collection to raise money for the council, and to change the accessioning system to facilitate future sales, regardless of professional ethics. I used curatorship to enable me to veto the idea. Had I been a manager I could have been dismissed for non-cooperation.
Another old chestnut was the question why we collect. The best answer I ever heard was that we might enable future enquirers to answer questions that have not yet been asked. It was also impressed on us that the curator was responsible for the selection of objects and the compilation of the accessions register.
Why are leisure officers, trained in responsibility for parks and football pitches, allowed to override the duties of trained curators?
Say a good word for the old-fashioned curator who incidentally also had to do his own conservation.
He had to undergo shortages of manpower, space and salary. But he (usually) knew his job, and the modern museums run by directors and managers would not be there without our stubborn devotion.
Lionel Walrond, retired curator, Stroud
Making a connection
I write in support of Collections for the Future, as many of the report's conclusions echo the experiences of the Connected Earth partnership.
Connected Earth is BT's heritage initiative, cited in the report as an example of disposal, but in truth more representative of a successfully dispersed collection.
BT's collection was distributed to a network of museum partners, each telling part of the story of communications and brought together online (www.connected-earth.com).
This online museum allows engagement with the collection in different ways: from 3-D images of artefacts and video tours of museum displays, to interactives which bring the technology alive.
In just 12 months, more people were able to view the collections in the partner mu-seums across the country than had ever visited the BT museum, and the website receives more than 100,000 visitors every month.
As a partnership we are seeing the results of a maturing specialist network, as national institutions work with independent museums to avoid duplication of effort and collecting, while sharing technical and curatorial knowledge.
Current objectives include the development of a mutual collecting policy and a shared catalogue of communications-related objects, not restricted to those distributed under Connected Earth.
The ongoing partnership with BT as well as new links made with other telecommunications companies is vital to the network, ensuring that telecommunications-related artefacts continue to be identified and acquired by museums.
Connected Earth also sets an interesting precedent for museums building links with industry, and has led to BT publishing a heritage policy for the ethical dispersal of its heritage, a lead which could be a useful model for other deregulated industries and the commercial sector.
As museums consider the implications of Collections for the Future we believe that Connected Earth is cause for encouragement and a valuable model for many aspects of the report, beyond the issue of disposal.
Alison Taubman, principal curator (communications), National Museums of Scotland
Supporting the right to buy
Jane Morris's article Strapped for Cash made some very telling points about the inadequate nature of many, if not most, of today's acquisition budgets (Museums Journal June 2005, p28).
She might have gained a fuller picture of the situation if she had lifted her sights beyond the usual suspects of the nationals and the hub museums. I am not suggesting that things are a great deal rosier in the medium-sized and small museum sector, but an enlarged perspective would at least have brought to light one or two success stories.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council, for example, fully backs the ambition of its medium-sized museum service to build a wide-ranging collection of museum objects in order to provide evidence for, illustrate, and instill pride in the history of the area, and to be a resource for the learning community.
To this end, we are pleased not only to back a £6m 'one-stop heritage shop', known as the treasure house, which will offer state-of-the-art repositories for the collections of museums, archives and local studies; fund a £115,000 collections digitisation programme and the post of a registrar; but also fund an acquisition budget of £25,000 a year - proof of our belief in the relevance of a comprehensive and growing collection to the furthering of the council's objectives.
Jane Evison, portfolio holder for cultural services, East Riding of Yorkshire Council
The human costs of lottery bids
The lottery has now provided funding for many museum and gallery projects which would never have otherwise got off the ground. That is the credit side.
There is a darker side, though: the growing list of projects which have caused many tears, frustrations and absences from work through stress-related illnesses, some of which have resulted in long periods of absence from work and even losses to the profession.
There are many reasons why problems develop. The main one is the sheer amount of extra work required, not just to apply for the grant but also the constant meetings with contractors, architects and other interested parties during the period of the project.
Often, no extra staff are provided and already overworked senior staff have to carry out their day jobs, as well as going to site meetings, discussing late design changes, and trying to stand up to building contractors who want to make changes that may incidentally increase their profit. (That's not the way it's put to you though; watch out for expressions such as: 'We have had to make necessary structural alterations.')
The administrators of the lottery must also bear a share of the responsibility. Most inspectors are excellent and put themselves out to be helpful, but museum staff are generally inexperienced in lottery bids and need to have constant feedback as well as frequent guidance and advice.
Museum staff should expect advice and information, for instance, on the spiralling costs in the building industry which have recently caused serious problems, and recommendations for long-term budgeting for anticipated additional costs.
Slow responses to queries and delays in giving approval during the building programme result in increased final costs, which can become a constant worry to staff. We are often talking big, big money and the stress factor, sometimes over several years, must be tremendous.
We should not lose sight of the benefits lottery money has brought to
museums and galleries, but curators still need support and guidance after lottery approval.
Tony Baker, AJB Designs, Harrogate
