Giles Waterfield is the director of the Attingham Trust
Yes: Exhibitions have a stranglehold on museums. Since Tutankhamun, the blockbuster art and dinosaur displays have become a staple activity and financial necessity for museums. Without these profits, many museums, national or otherwise, would be even closer to financial failure.
An exhibition programme demands a department, and a department demands a programme. The process becomes inexorable, with the public expecting a regular diet of temporary events. While some are valuable, too many current exhibitions add little to anyone's understanding of an artist or period.
The first victims are the curators, forced to concentrate on blockbusters at the expense of their permanent collections, closely followed by the poor old works of art. It's the 20 or so really big-name artists that are constantly recycled, whether that is in increasingly obscure examinations of a particular aspect of their work (what aspect of Monet will be explored next?), or through inventive juxtaposition, such as the forthcoming Rembrandt/Caravaggio display in Amsterdam.
It's unlikely anyone will learn much from this but the Dutch public will see works by an artist they can seldom enjoy, in a display that brings together two mega names.
These pictures were not designed to be constantly moved around, but some people think they should work for their living, even if in the end they wear out. It's ironic that institutions set up to save works of art eventually exploit, and even damage, the objects they were founded to preserve.
Virginia Tandy, director of Manchester City Galleries
No: Major works in any collection are one of an organisation's greatest assets. They are part of its identity, the things that specialist and regular visitors associate with the institution and make a specific journey to see.
They are also often the basis for approaches from other art institutions offering national and international collaborations on major exhibitions. Partnerships of this kind help secure the loan of major works to tour and, in return, bring important works from other collections to the lending institution.
We must manage these precious assets wisely, particularly where the resulting exhibition is not offered to the lending gallery, or the exhibition proposal does not appear to add to existing knowledge of the subject.
While their long-term preservation is paramount, releasing works to be presented in a new context to new audiences is an important part of the museum or gallery's role and contributes to the ongoing development of understanding various specialist subjects. This is surely one of our sector's key responsibilities.
In Manchester, we know from experience that there is a huge appetite for access to important works of art beyond those in our own Designated collections and, given the £35m investment in Manchester Art Gallery, there is an expectation that this needs to be satisfied. Our ability to create and attract major exhibitions relies heavily on our willingness to lend.
Yes: Exhibitions have a stranglehold on museums. Since Tutankhamun, the blockbuster art and dinosaur displays have become a staple activity and financial necessity for museums. Without these profits, many museums, national or otherwise, would be even closer to financial failure.
An exhibition programme demands a department, and a department demands a programme. The process becomes inexorable, with the public expecting a regular diet of temporary events. While some are valuable, too many current exhibitions add little to anyone's understanding of an artist or period.
The first victims are the curators, forced to concentrate on blockbusters at the expense of their permanent collections, closely followed by the poor old works of art. It's the 20 or so really big-name artists that are constantly recycled, whether that is in increasingly obscure examinations of a particular aspect of their work (what aspect of Monet will be explored next?), or through inventive juxtaposition, such as the forthcoming Rembrandt/Caravaggio display in Amsterdam.
It's unlikely anyone will learn much from this but the Dutch public will see works by an artist they can seldom enjoy, in a display that brings together two mega names.
These pictures were not designed to be constantly moved around, but some people think they should work for their living, even if in the end they wear out. It's ironic that institutions set up to save works of art eventually exploit, and even damage, the objects they were founded to preserve.
Virginia Tandy, director of Manchester City Galleries
No: Major works in any collection are one of an organisation's greatest assets. They are part of its identity, the things that specialist and regular visitors associate with the institution and make a specific journey to see.
They are also often the basis for approaches from other art institutions offering national and international collaborations on major exhibitions. Partnerships of this kind help secure the loan of major works to tour and, in return, bring important works from other collections to the lending institution.
We must manage these precious assets wisely, particularly where the resulting exhibition is not offered to the lending gallery, or the exhibition proposal does not appear to add to existing knowledge of the subject.
While their long-term preservation is paramount, releasing works to be presented in a new context to new audiences is an important part of the museum or gallery's role and contributes to the ongoing development of understanding various specialist subjects. This is surely one of our sector's key responsibilities.
In Manchester, we know from experience that there is a huge appetite for access to important works of art beyond those in our own Designated collections and, given the £35m investment in Manchester Art Gallery, there is an expectation that this needs to be satisfied. Our ability to create and attract major exhibitions relies heavily on our willingness to lend.
