How to improve museum design
In response to Maurice Davies' article, 'Time to get professional' (Museums Journal February 2005, p22), both guidelines and personnel to lead the planning and design process are widely available to museum managers. Equally, there are many museum-design professionals with the experience and capacity to lead the exhibition and display process.
The problem is not the lack of training, but the lack of authority accorded to the museum-design profession. In my experience most projects continue to be curator or architect-led and, as long as this continues to be the case, the same mistakes will be made over and over again.
Zoe Hall, Atelier Z
Communication is a specialist subject
Reading Maurice Davies' comments about the need for a museum editor/exhibition producer was like inhaling a breath of fresh air. We at Tempus have fulfilled exactly that role for more than 30 years.
When we began our business in the 1960s, museum curators were just that: individuals who looked after objects and were not trained to communicate with the public. I realised that there was a vital need to communicate specialist subjects in a clear way.
Today, museum professionals are expected to be able to satisfy that need within the myriad demands of a complex job.
However, no one can be expected to be an expert in the specific needs and the academic intricacies of their collection, in the ways in which to convey the fascination of that collection to their audience, to be able to write in a concise yet stimulating way to appeal to every ability and interest and work with designers to smooth the way efficiently to the creation of a successful and exciting display.
Nor should they be expected to. Acting as an interface between the museum specialist and the design team, the editor is, we believe, a vital part of the museum or exhibition team.
Patricia Connor
Narrative and context are the keys
If Maurice Davies aimed to be provocative he has succeeded (Museums Journal, March 2005, p20). He rightly identifies some weaknesses in museums' approaches (intellectualisation, pedantic text panels, superficial 'box ticking') to meet targets such as diversity.
But he concludes bizarrely: 'If museums had spent more of their lottery money on high-quality showcases and less on graphic panels that weave overambitious narratives', they would find it easier to meet audiences' changing demands.
The public do not go to museums to enjoy flexible showcases. They carve some way of relating to and becoming involved in the exhibitions. Too often when a new gallery opens, the architect grabs the lion's share of the budget, then fittings and fixtures nab the rest.
What is left over for storytelling is so pathetic that the public is robbed of any chance to engage with the collection. Compelling stories flow from an understanding of social context, plus enough resources (including the use of writers and artists) to present those stories vividly through the most appropriate media.
Judy Roland, arts marketing and project management
Science in museums
Jane Morris (Museums Journal March 2005, p4) is right to draw attention to problems of sustained funding for science centres and museums. However, the cultural deficit in the sciences is one that affects many other UK museums.
Relevant science in collections of art and history is seldom explained because most of their curators have little scientific training or knowledge. As a result, many of our history and art museum displays reinforce the idea that science has played little part in our culture.
How can this be changed?
Firstly, by looking for opportunities. Surely the display of stone, bronze and iron artefacts merits an explanation of lithology and metallurgy? Can the achievements of painters be understood without knowing about pigmentation and adhesion?
These and other examples are paths to make the intangible heritage of science tangible and understandable. Secondly, we need a better balance of arts and science graduates in museums. That means recruiting people with scarce, economically valuable skills to devote to public enjoyment of science. This should be integral to the way museums and galleries think about themselves.
The search for knowledge of the natural world and the spread and use of that knowledge formed and sustains our culture today. It is an amazing story of creative ideas and achievements that changed the lives of all humanity. Opportunities to express this in museums have been missed since the 1970s.
Then, museums were encouraged to think of themselves as collections of objects, rather than exponents of the knowledge that makes collections meaningful.
This mindset meant that the growth of science centres during the 1980s and 1990s was generally separate from museums, rather than integrated with the heritage that museums present. This has been a loss to museums, to science centres and to the public they should serve.
Patrick Sudbury FMA
Clarifications: P7: We reported (Museums Journal April 2005),that the Scottish Conservation Studio is a limited company; in fact it is a limited liability partnership. The hourly rate that the SMC charges has risen by £2 per hour, and not 2p as stated.
In response to Maurice Davies' article, 'Time to get professional' (Museums Journal February 2005, p22), both guidelines and personnel to lead the planning and design process are widely available to museum managers. Equally, there are many museum-design professionals with the experience and capacity to lead the exhibition and display process.
The problem is not the lack of training, but the lack of authority accorded to the museum-design profession. In my experience most projects continue to be curator or architect-led and, as long as this continues to be the case, the same mistakes will be made over and over again.
Zoe Hall, Atelier Z
Communication is a specialist subject
Reading Maurice Davies' comments about the need for a museum editor/exhibition producer was like inhaling a breath of fresh air. We at Tempus have fulfilled exactly that role for more than 30 years.
When we began our business in the 1960s, museum curators were just that: individuals who looked after objects and were not trained to communicate with the public. I realised that there was a vital need to communicate specialist subjects in a clear way.
Today, museum professionals are expected to be able to satisfy that need within the myriad demands of a complex job.
However, no one can be expected to be an expert in the specific needs and the academic intricacies of their collection, in the ways in which to convey the fascination of that collection to their audience, to be able to write in a concise yet stimulating way to appeal to every ability and interest and work with designers to smooth the way efficiently to the creation of a successful and exciting display.
Nor should they be expected to. Acting as an interface between the museum specialist and the design team, the editor is, we believe, a vital part of the museum or exhibition team.
Patricia Connor
Narrative and context are the keys
If Maurice Davies aimed to be provocative he has succeeded (Museums Journal, March 2005, p20). He rightly identifies some weaknesses in museums' approaches (intellectualisation, pedantic text panels, superficial 'box ticking') to meet targets such as diversity.
But he concludes bizarrely: 'If museums had spent more of their lottery money on high-quality showcases and less on graphic panels that weave overambitious narratives', they would find it easier to meet audiences' changing demands.
The public do not go to museums to enjoy flexible showcases. They carve some way of relating to and becoming involved in the exhibitions. Too often when a new gallery opens, the architect grabs the lion's share of the budget, then fittings and fixtures nab the rest.
What is left over for storytelling is so pathetic that the public is robbed of any chance to engage with the collection. Compelling stories flow from an understanding of social context, plus enough resources (including the use of writers and artists) to present those stories vividly through the most appropriate media.
Judy Roland, arts marketing and project management
Science in museums
Jane Morris (Museums Journal March 2005, p4) is right to draw attention to problems of sustained funding for science centres and museums. However, the cultural deficit in the sciences is one that affects many other UK museums.
Relevant science in collections of art and history is seldom explained because most of their curators have little scientific training or knowledge. As a result, many of our history and art museum displays reinforce the idea that science has played little part in our culture.
How can this be changed?
Firstly, by looking for opportunities. Surely the display of stone, bronze and iron artefacts merits an explanation of lithology and metallurgy? Can the achievements of painters be understood without knowing about pigmentation and adhesion?
These and other examples are paths to make the intangible heritage of science tangible and understandable. Secondly, we need a better balance of arts and science graduates in museums. That means recruiting people with scarce, economically valuable skills to devote to public enjoyment of science. This should be integral to the way museums and galleries think about themselves.
The search for knowledge of the natural world and the spread and use of that knowledge formed and sustains our culture today. It is an amazing story of creative ideas and achievements that changed the lives of all humanity. Opportunities to express this in museums have been missed since the 1970s.
Then, museums were encouraged to think of themselves as collections of objects, rather than exponents of the knowledge that makes collections meaningful.
This mindset meant that the growth of science centres during the 1980s and 1990s was generally separate from museums, rather than integrated with the heritage that museums present. This has been a loss to museums, to science centres and to the public they should serve.
Patrick Sudbury FMA
Clarifications: P7: We reported (Museums Journal April 2005),that the Scottish Conservation Studio is a limited company; in fact it is a limited liability partnership. The hourly rate that the SMC charges has risen by £2 per hour, and not 2p as stated.
