The Victorian writer and artist John Ruskin wrote that 'the greatest thing a human soul ever does is to see something... to see clearly is poetry, prophecy and religion - all in one'.
But the Museums Association's (MA) Collections for the Future report states that the public are not seeing enough of the potentially inspiring stuff in museums. As does the government's consultation paper Understanding the Future.
If our collections are one of the key reasons for our existence, we need to make the most of them. The MA report begins by saying that collections can transform and inspire people, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report states that 'collections are at the heart of all that museums do, but they need to remain dynamic resources'.
Museum collections show fabulous diversity. The result of scholarship, snobbery, imperialism, research, dedication, accidents, mistakes, robbery, eccentricity, fashion and probably a little lunacy, they have been under considerable scrutiny over the past 30 years.
But what is their value to society? Are they true primary sources? Are they obsolete in the face of other records and media? Are they representative? How much do they cost to keep?
This debate has led to useful change in how museums construct meaning from collections and what stories they tell - a trend accompanied by a long overdue focus on the needs of visitors.
Then there is the cost of collecting. Surely no self-respecting business would under-use its assets this way or hang on to useless stock? It is debatable whether museums are businesses, but we do have to be businesslike. It is often said that collections are our greatest asset.
But increasingly the greatest asset in business resides in the brains of its workforce. This is also true of museums and the report is right to recommend ways to develop the workforce. The possession of a fabulous collection does not automatically result in a successful museum.
Museums fear 'making mistakes' through disposal; once it's gone, it's gone. We have probably made more mistakes in collecting but they have been easier to live with. All museums have to come to terms with the legacy of past collecting. We have been uneasy about it, but we cautiously defend ourselves.
'Museums are like icebergs,' we say. 'There is a lot below the waterline, but it gets moved around.'
There is some truth in this, but the MA report calls for more dynamic collections: we should be acquiring again, while disposing more actively; we should collaborate and loan more, both locally and internationally; and we should engage with other sectors to encourage research.
We should consider transferring collections to more suitable institutions. But we need to remind ourselves of the real differences that exist in subject areas.
In archaeology, social and technological history, the problem is not a lack of money to buy important objects, but that there is so much to collect. Archaeological excavations have produced warehouses of material that could go into museums.
The products of the modern world are all too easy for the social historian to collect. The lack of any real collecting discipline has left a legacy of duplication. Archaeologists and historians have to be far more selective in what they collect and in what they need to dispose of.
By contrast, collecting art usually requires spending serious money; for most museums their purchase funds border on the pathetic and they have to prioritise their slender budgets.
Arguing for a realistic purchase fund is hard when you have infrastructure backlogs calculated in the millions and those lucky objects that are on display sit in tired galleries awaiting revisioning and refitting. In these circumstances, joint purchases can be practical and can benefit wider audiences.
The report has rightly rejected the idea of a giant bureaucracy controlling collecting, but the concept of more open and joined-up ways of sharing collections has to be developed further.
Bradford Museums Service has really benefited from the Strategic Commissioning partnerships and the loan of the Radiant Buddha, itself a joint purchase, from the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A).
We developed a range of activities around the exhibition and also commissioned a response to the piece by the artist Salima Hashmi, which will tour with the Buddha and then enter Bradford's collections. Bradford is also taking the V&A's Black British Style show later in the year.
Regional museums want to make the most of these opportunities but in many cases the main barrier is limited resources: Black British Style is only able to tour thanks to a grant from the arts council. The fact is that good touring exhibitions are expensive. There are some major regional capitals whose art galleries have exhibition budgets of less than £20,000 a year.
Transferring collections can work. One of the earliest and most successful was that between the Salford Museum and the Manchester Museum in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Manchester took Salford's ethnographic material and Salford took Manchester's folk life collections.
The collections have been much used by both services. The key driver is mutual benefit, which can be also be achieved through long-term loans.
With disposal, the real problem arrives when you have gone down the ethical route and still no one wants the stuff. Take a look at your collections and ask yourself whether much of it would stand a chance on eBay? We will need greater legal guidance on how to dispose of material, even if it is accessioned, and has some provenance.
Collections for the Future and Understanding the Future are making us review the role of collections and the value of museums. What is encouraging is that both documents acknowledge that museums have real value to society as part of the revitalised concept of the public realm, where people have an entitlement to culture.
This brings us back to Ruskin, who also had a few words to say about the quality of public space as a measure of civilisation.
Mark Suggitt is the head of Bradford Museums, Galleries and Heritage
Pass Notes: Collections for the Future (aka too much stuff in museums)
- So it's not Understanding the Future?
- No, that's by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. This is from the Museums Association, although the reports are a bit similar. You could swap a few pages from both of them and no one would notice.
- Another call for museums to get rid of stuff they don't use?
-Sort of, but also to try a bit harder to use what they've got.
- Like, how?
- Be more dynamic, do lateral thinking, loan and transfer collections to other places and train the staff, What kind of business doesn't use 80 per cent of its assets?
- So museums are businesses now?
- Er, not really, no more than libraries and archives.
- But they still need to get rid of stuff?
- Yes.
- Does the report say how to do this?
- Yes and no. It doesn't name collections or museums, nor does it deal with some of the knotty legal issues.
- You mean the rights of donors?
- Yes. Shame about them. This is where it gets complicated. They thought that museums wanted all their useless old tat.
- So if we can find them and they don't mind, museums can get rid
of the things they no longer need?
- Yes. They could also transfer to other museums and organisations, or even sell them off.
- Could be dodgy. Would anyone want this stuff?
- Good point! There's always eBay.
- And after that?
- A car boot sale?
- So will museums take any notice of the report?
- There are a lot who won't like it. They're not called 'keepers' for nothing, you know. But they will have to do something before something gets done to them. It will be a slow process and they will need incentives like money. Most of them are busy just trying to stay open.
- So it's back to changing mindsets and money, then?
- Silly! It always is!
(With apologies to the Guardian.)
But the Museums Association's (MA) Collections for the Future report states that the public are not seeing enough of the potentially inspiring stuff in museums. As does the government's consultation paper Understanding the Future.
If our collections are one of the key reasons for our existence, we need to make the most of them. The MA report begins by saying that collections can transform and inspire people, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport report states that 'collections are at the heart of all that museums do, but they need to remain dynamic resources'.
Museum collections show fabulous diversity. The result of scholarship, snobbery, imperialism, research, dedication, accidents, mistakes, robbery, eccentricity, fashion and probably a little lunacy, they have been under considerable scrutiny over the past 30 years.
But what is their value to society? Are they true primary sources? Are they obsolete in the face of other records and media? Are they representative? How much do they cost to keep?
This debate has led to useful change in how museums construct meaning from collections and what stories they tell - a trend accompanied by a long overdue focus on the needs of visitors.
Then there is the cost of collecting. Surely no self-respecting business would under-use its assets this way or hang on to useless stock? It is debatable whether museums are businesses, but we do have to be businesslike. It is often said that collections are our greatest asset.
But increasingly the greatest asset in business resides in the brains of its workforce. This is also true of museums and the report is right to recommend ways to develop the workforce. The possession of a fabulous collection does not automatically result in a successful museum.
Museums fear 'making mistakes' through disposal; once it's gone, it's gone. We have probably made more mistakes in collecting but they have been easier to live with. All museums have to come to terms with the legacy of past collecting. We have been uneasy about it, but we cautiously defend ourselves.
'Museums are like icebergs,' we say. 'There is a lot below the waterline, but it gets moved around.'
There is some truth in this, but the MA report calls for more dynamic collections: we should be acquiring again, while disposing more actively; we should collaborate and loan more, both locally and internationally; and we should engage with other sectors to encourage research.
We should consider transferring collections to more suitable institutions. But we need to remind ourselves of the real differences that exist in subject areas.
In archaeology, social and technological history, the problem is not a lack of money to buy important objects, but that there is so much to collect. Archaeological excavations have produced warehouses of material that could go into museums.
The products of the modern world are all too easy for the social historian to collect. The lack of any real collecting discipline has left a legacy of duplication. Archaeologists and historians have to be far more selective in what they collect and in what they need to dispose of.
By contrast, collecting art usually requires spending serious money; for most museums their purchase funds border on the pathetic and they have to prioritise their slender budgets.
Arguing for a realistic purchase fund is hard when you have infrastructure backlogs calculated in the millions and those lucky objects that are on display sit in tired galleries awaiting revisioning and refitting. In these circumstances, joint purchases can be practical and can benefit wider audiences.
The report has rightly rejected the idea of a giant bureaucracy controlling collecting, but the concept of more open and joined-up ways of sharing collections has to be developed further.
Bradford Museums Service has really benefited from the Strategic Commissioning partnerships and the loan of the Radiant Buddha, itself a joint purchase, from the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A).
We developed a range of activities around the exhibition and also commissioned a response to the piece by the artist Salima Hashmi, which will tour with the Buddha and then enter Bradford's collections. Bradford is also taking the V&A's Black British Style show later in the year.
Regional museums want to make the most of these opportunities but in many cases the main barrier is limited resources: Black British Style is only able to tour thanks to a grant from the arts council. The fact is that good touring exhibitions are expensive. There are some major regional capitals whose art galleries have exhibition budgets of less than £20,000 a year.
Transferring collections can work. One of the earliest and most successful was that between the Salford Museum and the Manchester Museum in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Manchester took Salford's ethnographic material and Salford took Manchester's folk life collections.
The collections have been much used by both services. The key driver is mutual benefit, which can be also be achieved through long-term loans.
With disposal, the real problem arrives when you have gone down the ethical route and still no one wants the stuff. Take a look at your collections and ask yourself whether much of it would stand a chance on eBay? We will need greater legal guidance on how to dispose of material, even if it is accessioned, and has some provenance.
Collections for the Future and Understanding the Future are making us review the role of collections and the value of museums. What is encouraging is that both documents acknowledge that museums have real value to society as part of the revitalised concept of the public realm, where people have an entitlement to culture.
This brings us back to Ruskin, who also had a few words to say about the quality of public space as a measure of civilisation.
Mark Suggitt is the head of Bradford Museums, Galleries and Heritage
Pass Notes: Collections for the Future (aka too much stuff in museums)
- So it's not Understanding the Future?
- No, that's by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. This is from the Museums Association, although the reports are a bit similar. You could swap a few pages from both of them and no one would notice.
- Another call for museums to get rid of stuff they don't use?
-Sort of, but also to try a bit harder to use what they've got.
- Like, how?
- Be more dynamic, do lateral thinking, loan and transfer collections to other places and train the staff, What kind of business doesn't use 80 per cent of its assets?
- So museums are businesses now?
- Er, not really, no more than libraries and archives.
- But they still need to get rid of stuff?
- Yes.
- Does the report say how to do this?
- Yes and no. It doesn't name collections or museums, nor does it deal with some of the knotty legal issues.
- You mean the rights of donors?
- Yes. Shame about them. This is where it gets complicated. They thought that museums wanted all their useless old tat.
- So if we can find them and they don't mind, museums can get rid
of the things they no longer need?
- Yes. They could also transfer to other museums and organisations, or even sell them off.
- Could be dodgy. Would anyone want this stuff?
- Good point! There's always eBay.
- And after that?
- A car boot sale?
- So will museums take any notice of the report?
- There are a lot who won't like it. They're not called 'keepers' for nothing, you know. But they will have to do something before something gets done to them. It will be a slow process and they will need incentives like money. Most of them are busy just trying to stay open.
- So it's back to changing mindsets and money, then?
- Silly! It always is!
(With apologies to the Guardian.)
