Vanessa Trevelyan head of museums, Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service
"I welcome the emphasis on self-assessment and peer review and the proposed removal of top-down target setting. Museums' creativity is currently being stifled by targets, which often seem to be set just to measure things that can be measured, rather than gauge the effectiveness of a museum.
Your pig doesn't get heavier the more times you weigh it, and there should be more trust that museums of good standing will actually deliver successful outcomes without measuring the outputs to death.
Museums should be encouraged to be creative and innovative. They should also be allowed to sometimes fail if that is as a result of trying something exciting and unproven."
Janet Vitmayer, director, Horniman Museum, London
"Less emphasis on targets is welcome as is the chance to focus more on content and the value of what we do. I see no conflict between high quality work and broadening access, quite the reverse. You can imagine an expensive high-profile exhibition being mediocre and a small community project being excellent.
Although McMaster focuses on visual and performing arts he opens up chances to push forward excellent work being done in museums, such as revisiting collections, contemporary debates, international collaborations etc.
Definitions of excellence will be hotly debated but the rapidly changing MLA has a useful opportunity to involve practitioners more in making such judgements."
Annie Mauger, chief executive, MLA Yorkshire
"We have been driven by what is measurable for a long time but often failed to measure successfully. Targets are only meaningful if they are set within the context of a vision. If excellence is the vision, it's a good start, but excellence means different things to different people. It people's experiences and perceptions of excellence that counts.
How can you judge what is valuable to an individual and why should peers and fellow professionals be making that judgement? If targets are about improving people's perceptions of their experiences of art and culture, they could be good.
But how we judge if this is being achieved and whether it should be peers or users that make that judgement is a question for further debate."
Hilary Gresty, director, Visual Arts and Galleries Association
"We've all derided tick-box assessment and lobbied for the arts to be assessed for what they are and what they do best. Many of the proposals in the McMaster review have been long advocated and practised by organisations and individuals.
But it does beg some big questions around expertise and leadership. The devil as always will be in the detail.
Greater intelligence as to what constitutes excellence in the visual arts, and indeed for whom, needs to be explored and not just elided with a performing arts model - there are still many art-shaped holes around the country and in people's lives. The maelstrom surrounding Arts Council England will hopefully be cathartic."
"I welcome the emphasis on self-assessment and peer review and the proposed removal of top-down target setting. Museums' creativity is currently being stifled by targets, which often seem to be set just to measure things that can be measured, rather than gauge the effectiveness of a museum.
Your pig doesn't get heavier the more times you weigh it, and there should be more trust that museums of good standing will actually deliver successful outcomes without measuring the outputs to death.
Museums should be encouraged to be creative and innovative. They should also be allowed to sometimes fail if that is as a result of trying something exciting and unproven."
Janet Vitmayer, director, Horniman Museum, London
"Less emphasis on targets is welcome as is the chance to focus more on content and the value of what we do. I see no conflict between high quality work and broadening access, quite the reverse. You can imagine an expensive high-profile exhibition being mediocre and a small community project being excellent.
Although McMaster focuses on visual and performing arts he opens up chances to push forward excellent work being done in museums, such as revisiting collections, contemporary debates, international collaborations etc.
Definitions of excellence will be hotly debated but the rapidly changing MLA has a useful opportunity to involve practitioners more in making such judgements."
Annie Mauger, chief executive, MLA Yorkshire
"We have been driven by what is measurable for a long time but often failed to measure successfully. Targets are only meaningful if they are set within the context of a vision. If excellence is the vision, it's a good start, but excellence means different things to different people. It people's experiences and perceptions of excellence that counts.
How can you judge what is valuable to an individual and why should peers and fellow professionals be making that judgement? If targets are about improving people's perceptions of their experiences of art and culture, they could be good.
But how we judge if this is being achieved and whether it should be peers or users that make that judgement is a question for further debate."
Hilary Gresty, director, Visual Arts and Galleries Association
"We've all derided tick-box assessment and lobbied for the arts to be assessed for what they are and what they do best. Many of the proposals in the McMaster review have been long advocated and practised by organisations and individuals.
But it does beg some big questions around expertise and leadership. The devil as always will be in the detail.
Greater intelligence as to what constitutes excellence in the visual arts, and indeed for whom, needs to be explored and not just elided with a performing arts model - there are still many art-shaped holes around the country and in people's lives. The maelstrom surrounding Arts Council England will hopefully be cathartic."
