Christine Johnson is the senior keeper and keeper of social history at Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Cultural Services
No: Twenty-five years in museums has taught me that museums cannot stand alone. I have spent years building long-term partnerships to increase access to collections.
So, is Renaissance the answer to a curator's prayers? Sadly, Renaissance has always been flawed. It unfairly assumed that big equals best, that all regions are alike, and that one size fits all. It cannot easily cope with regions that have several conurbations, each with several services.
My region has ten sites, with multi-specialism services excluded from the hub, and also one city service and one museum with designated collections. The intolerance of criticism, however constructive, and the mocking of concerns, however thoughtful, exacerbated these flaws.
Compare this with the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), which has given £700m to non-national museums between 1994 and 2004. The HLF rapidly developed a clear understanding of regional diversity and welcomes feedback and constructive criticism.
The government promises £137m for Renaissance over five years. The three phase one regions received £30m during 2003-5. In 2006-8, all nine regions will receive a share of £77m. Clearly, not all can be funded at the phase one level.
Renaissance continues to pit region against region, as well as hub museums against non-hub museums. Renaissance will succeed when it convinces the government that all museums need more central funding. This doesn't mean that in 2005 it is working fairly for all.
Alec Coles is the director of Tyne and Wear Museums
Yes: Renaissance seeks to realise the potential of Britain's regional museums but above all must maximise opportunities for actual users. It was never the government's intention to provide support for every museum in the country, rather to make sure that the greatest number of diverse visitors accrue maximum benefit from the programme.
This means investing in those services best placed to deliver this benefit. There is an almost wilful misunderstanding (by a vociferous minority) of the nature of Renaissance, which is a strategic programme for delivery, not a welfare scheme for museums: I would hate Renaissance to become a scapegoat for the unsustainable.
Renaissance funding of £4m each year supports the work of regional Mlacs. The Museum Development Fund exists specifically for non-hub museums, so talk of 'the hubs and the hub-nots' is inaccurate and irrelevant. Claims of displacement and unfair competition are speculative, unproven and ill-informed.
The North East hub has worked with more than half the registered museums in its region.In their first year, phase one hubs will engage some 6 million visitors, on-site learners and outreach participants.
We should acknowledge that different museums have different functions, but we should remember that the objectives of Renaissance centre on cultural entitlement. In an imperfect world, investing limited funding to achieve maximum benefit for as many people as possible is as fair as it gets.
No: Twenty-five years in museums has taught me that museums cannot stand alone. I have spent years building long-term partnerships to increase access to collections.
So, is Renaissance the answer to a curator's prayers? Sadly, Renaissance has always been flawed. It unfairly assumed that big equals best, that all regions are alike, and that one size fits all. It cannot easily cope with regions that have several conurbations, each with several services.
My region has ten sites, with multi-specialism services excluded from the hub, and also one city service and one museum with designated collections. The intolerance of criticism, however constructive, and the mocking of concerns, however thoughtful, exacerbated these flaws.
Compare this with the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), which has given £700m to non-national museums between 1994 and 2004. The HLF rapidly developed a clear understanding of regional diversity and welcomes feedback and constructive criticism.
The government promises £137m for Renaissance over five years. The three phase one regions received £30m during 2003-5. In 2006-8, all nine regions will receive a share of £77m. Clearly, not all can be funded at the phase one level.
Renaissance continues to pit region against region, as well as hub museums against non-hub museums. Renaissance will succeed when it convinces the government that all museums need more central funding. This doesn't mean that in 2005 it is working fairly for all.
Alec Coles is the director of Tyne and Wear Museums
Yes: Renaissance seeks to realise the potential of Britain's regional museums but above all must maximise opportunities for actual users. It was never the government's intention to provide support for every museum in the country, rather to make sure that the greatest number of diverse visitors accrue maximum benefit from the programme.
This means investing in those services best placed to deliver this benefit. There is an almost wilful misunderstanding (by a vociferous minority) of the nature of Renaissance, which is a strategic programme for delivery, not a welfare scheme for museums: I would hate Renaissance to become a scapegoat for the unsustainable.
Renaissance funding of £4m each year supports the work of regional Mlacs. The Museum Development Fund exists specifically for non-hub museums, so talk of 'the hubs and the hub-nots' is inaccurate and irrelevant. Claims of displacement and unfair competition are speculative, unproven and ill-informed.
The North East hub has worked with more than half the registered museums in its region.In their first year, phase one hubs will engage some 6 million visitors, on-site learners and outreach participants.
We should acknowledge that different museums have different functions, but we should remember that the objectives of Renaissance centre on cultural entitlement. In an imperfect world, investing limited funding to achieve maximum benefit for as many people as possible is as fair as it gets.
