The result of Brian McMaster's review of how public subsidy can best support excellence in the arts was published last month. In summary he argues for a move away from top-down targets towards a new way of evaluating the arts based on self-assessment and peer review (see news p5).
McMaster is keen to stress that the pursuit of excellence should not be at the exclusion of broadening audiences, but does the report signify a shift away from the access and inclusion agenda that has dominated the last ten years?
Those that have put access to the fore will undoubtedly continue to do so - the danger is that those that have toed-the-line begrudgingly will see the review as a green light to put inclusion on the back-burner.
Implicit in the report is the kind of thinking that says: "we've achieved a level of access that is acceptable so we don't have to worry about it anymore". But let's not be complacent.
Last year's Taking Part survey conducted by the department for culture showed that nearly 60 per cent of the population hadn't visited a museum or gallery in the previous 12 months.
The figures for people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and those from lower socio-economic groups were even higher. Visiting museums and galleries is still a minority pastime in the UK.
Much as we might not like them, there have to be some objective measures in order to make informed judgments. Relying solely on self-assessment and peer review could reinforce an establishment, elitist view of what's good and what's not.
Worse it could lead to backslapping complacency and support for the status quo - the very opposite of the innovation and risk-taking that McMaster is so keen on.
According to the review culture should be about excellence of experience. But you have to get people through the door in the first place to have that experience. Otherwise you might end up offering something that you think is great to a very limited audience.
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
McMaster is keen to stress that the pursuit of excellence should not be at the exclusion of broadening audiences, but does the report signify a shift away from the access and inclusion agenda that has dominated the last ten years?
Those that have put access to the fore will undoubtedly continue to do so - the danger is that those that have toed-the-line begrudgingly will see the review as a green light to put inclusion on the back-burner.
Implicit in the report is the kind of thinking that says: "we've achieved a level of access that is acceptable so we don't have to worry about it anymore". But let's not be complacent.
Last year's Taking Part survey conducted by the department for culture showed that nearly 60 per cent of the population hadn't visited a museum or gallery in the previous 12 months.
The figures for people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and those from lower socio-economic groups were even higher. Visiting museums and galleries is still a minority pastime in the UK.
Much as we might not like them, there have to be some objective measures in order to make informed judgments. Relying solely on self-assessment and peer review could reinforce an establishment, elitist view of what's good and what's not.
Worse it could lead to backslapping complacency and support for the status quo - the very opposite of the innovation and risk-taking that McMaster is so keen on.
According to the review culture should be about excellence of experience. But you have to get people through the door in the first place to have that experience. Otherwise you might end up offering something that you think is great to a very limited audience.
Sharon Heal, editor
sharon@museumsassociation.org
