Economic slowdown offers museums an unexpected chance to thrive
Where does the recession leave museums? Are we going to suffer as part of the general malaise or are there ways of mitigating the worst effects - or even finding a way to thrive?
The first point is that staff being laid off is largely confined to the service sector, principally financial services at present. Most museum posts should remain stable, although tight settlements for local government will make development hard and could also affect support grants to the independent sector.
The promise of tax reductions or increases in public spending are potentially advantageous to our sector. The first is marginal, in that any increase in disposable income should find its way into the market eventually, and potentially boost earned income. But the second is that as a sector, we are well positioned to provide services that can relatively quickly "pump" any funding into the economy.
It is recognised that the lead-in time for major capital projects might mitigate against public funding being put to this use. However, museums are adept at utilising funds for short-term projects that can have major social and organisational impacts.
Also, when unemployment rises, so does our potential visitor market. What can we do as a sector to provide activity and meaning for these newly unemployed? The redundancies are largely white-collar workers who, wisdom maintains, are an easier audience to engage than those laid off from manufacturing industries.
This might seem contentious, given the focus museums have had on social inclusion and engaging disadvantaged audiences in recent years. But it is a truism that we have a duty to all our potential audiences, and if a traditionally better educated and more affluent audience becomes in need of our cultural sustenance, we must rise to the challenge.
So it is not the time for retrenchment, but to argue vehemently that rather than being part of the problem, spending on museums can be part of the solution.
John Stewart-Young, arts and heritage manager, Dundee City Council
Gently with the remains
I was interested to read Maev Kennedy's article on how human remains are displayed. She asks whether museums might take a less sensitive approach to their display (Museums Journal November 2008, p17).
Kennedy uses by way of comparison the example of Gunther von Hagens, who has no qualms with regard to the exhibition of human remains, which he plastinates, and then poses in life-like positions. She suggests that museums might be encouraged to follow this lead.
I do not think the two examples are comparable. Von Hagens describes himself as an "entertainer", hence the absurdly realistic poses. His subjects decided voluntarily to give their bodies to science while they were still alive, in full knowledge of what will happen to them.
Museums, however, operate within an ethical framework. It is rare to have full provenance for human remains, which would include specific detail of acquisition in the country of origin.
Much material in ethnographic collections may potentially be fewer than 200 years old and may have been acquired illicitly (for example, taken from burials without the consent of the originating community).
Even where details of the source community are known, it would never be the case that the individual would have agreed to a future of being an exhibit in a museum.
Kennedy clearly has not read the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) guidelines for human remains, which state that "in many cases, they also have a personal, cultural, symbolic, spiritual or religious significance to individuals and or groups".
So it is essential that there are clear justifications for using human remains in displays (for example, to understand burial practices or for teaching purposes).
DCMS guidelines dictate that if human remains are used in display, contextual information should prepare visitors to view them respectfully, which is the reason that some displays offer visitors the option of not viewing them at all. Many UK museums have received requests for human remains to be repatriated, making the issue particularly current and sensitive.
The display of human remains is not an issue that should be taken lightly, and to do so would show a lack of cultural understanding and respect for the cross-cultural belief in human sanctity, and demonstrate an insular and outmoded working practice.
Harriet Hughes, curator of world art, Brighton Museum & Art Gallery
A consultant writes
Before I'm blacklisted by every consultant in the country, I'd like to respond to Steph Gillett's slight misrepresentation of my Museums Association (MA) conference blog (Museums Journal December 2008, p18).
The point I was making is that fees preclude many smaller organisations (which might well include consultants) from attending our major annual event, and the profession as whole needs to act to encourage people working in smaller museums to participate at conference.
Frequently, it is small organisations which provide the innovation the sector needs, and conference is the forum to exchange these ideas with the big players.
It certainly isn't for me to suggest who is more entitled to attend conference, be they museum director, consultant or politician. My own organisation has worked with some fantastic consultants over the past few years. Without the help of Julia Holberry, Emma Courtney, Jayne Earnscliffe and David Viner (there are others), the Museum of East Anglian Life we would not be embarking upon a £3m development.
Perhaps next time the MA should provide a comment facility for people to respond to blogs. There are some fascinating areas for debate here and it would be a shame that we have to wait until the next issue of Museums Journal before locking horns
Tony Butler, director, Museum of East Anglian Life, Stowmarket, Suffolk
Nonsense and stuff
Nick Gordon of the New Walk Museum, Leicester, says that he has had no complaints about its taxidermy gallery (Museums Journal December 2008, p30). May I be the first to register one.
I found the general tone of Patrick Kelly's article to be deeply disturbing in its uncritical approval of, and indeed enthusiasm for, the revival of the "art" of manipulating dead creatures for public entertainment (even if the source of the "material" is now considered acceptable), and its glib dismissal of ethical concerns.
As for the historic collections specifically, stuffed polar bears and so on may well be popular, (though I suspect mainly with children who have only a vague notion of the processes involved, the disregard for living creatures and the appalling cost to many species), but given the alternatives, education is surely no longer a valid justification.
There are many aspects of Victorian life which would rightly be regarded as unethical today, and I had imagined that killing animals simply to display them in museums and galleries was one of them. That various curators are apparently willing to display Victorian-era specimens seems a tacit endorsement of the grim reality behind the exhibits, no matter what the vagaries of art and fashion may dictate.
Paul Whittle, team assistant, Stanley & Audrey Burton Gallery, University of Leeds
Where does the recession leave museums? Are we going to suffer as part of the general malaise or are there ways of mitigating the worst effects - or even finding a way to thrive?
The first point is that staff being laid off is largely confined to the service sector, principally financial services at present. Most museum posts should remain stable, although tight settlements for local government will make development hard and could also affect support grants to the independent sector.
The promise of tax reductions or increases in public spending are potentially advantageous to our sector. The first is marginal, in that any increase in disposable income should find its way into the market eventually, and potentially boost earned income. But the second is that as a sector, we are well positioned to provide services that can relatively quickly "pump" any funding into the economy.
It is recognised that the lead-in time for major capital projects might mitigate against public funding being put to this use. However, museums are adept at utilising funds for short-term projects that can have major social and organisational impacts.
Also, when unemployment rises, so does our potential visitor market. What can we do as a sector to provide activity and meaning for these newly unemployed? The redundancies are largely white-collar workers who, wisdom maintains, are an easier audience to engage than those laid off from manufacturing industries.
This might seem contentious, given the focus museums have had on social inclusion and engaging disadvantaged audiences in recent years. But it is a truism that we have a duty to all our potential audiences, and if a traditionally better educated and more affluent audience becomes in need of our cultural sustenance, we must rise to the challenge.
So it is not the time for retrenchment, but to argue vehemently that rather than being part of the problem, spending on museums can be part of the solution.
John Stewart-Young, arts and heritage manager, Dundee City Council
Gently with the remains
I was interested to read Maev Kennedy's article on how human remains are displayed. She asks whether museums might take a less sensitive approach to their display (Museums Journal November 2008, p17).
Kennedy uses by way of comparison the example of Gunther von Hagens, who has no qualms with regard to the exhibition of human remains, which he plastinates, and then poses in life-like positions. She suggests that museums might be encouraged to follow this lead.
I do not think the two examples are comparable. Von Hagens describes himself as an "entertainer", hence the absurdly realistic poses. His subjects decided voluntarily to give their bodies to science while they were still alive, in full knowledge of what will happen to them.
Museums, however, operate within an ethical framework. It is rare to have full provenance for human remains, which would include specific detail of acquisition in the country of origin.
Much material in ethnographic collections may potentially be fewer than 200 years old and may have been acquired illicitly (for example, taken from burials without the consent of the originating community).
Even where details of the source community are known, it would never be the case that the individual would have agreed to a future of being an exhibit in a museum.
Kennedy clearly has not read the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) guidelines for human remains, which state that "in many cases, they also have a personal, cultural, symbolic, spiritual or religious significance to individuals and or groups".
So it is essential that there are clear justifications for using human remains in displays (for example, to understand burial practices or for teaching purposes).
DCMS guidelines dictate that if human remains are used in display, contextual information should prepare visitors to view them respectfully, which is the reason that some displays offer visitors the option of not viewing them at all. Many UK museums have received requests for human remains to be repatriated, making the issue particularly current and sensitive.
The display of human remains is not an issue that should be taken lightly, and to do so would show a lack of cultural understanding and respect for the cross-cultural belief in human sanctity, and demonstrate an insular and outmoded working practice.
Harriet Hughes, curator of world art, Brighton Museum & Art Gallery
A consultant writes
Before I'm blacklisted by every consultant in the country, I'd like to respond to Steph Gillett's slight misrepresentation of my Museums Association (MA) conference blog (Museums Journal December 2008, p18).
The point I was making is that fees preclude many smaller organisations (which might well include consultants) from attending our major annual event, and the profession as whole needs to act to encourage people working in smaller museums to participate at conference.
Frequently, it is small organisations which provide the innovation the sector needs, and conference is the forum to exchange these ideas with the big players.
It certainly isn't for me to suggest who is more entitled to attend conference, be they museum director, consultant or politician. My own organisation has worked with some fantastic consultants over the past few years. Without the help of Julia Holberry, Emma Courtney, Jayne Earnscliffe and David Viner (there are others), the Museum of East Anglian Life we would not be embarking upon a £3m development.
Perhaps next time the MA should provide a comment facility for people to respond to blogs. There are some fascinating areas for debate here and it would be a shame that we have to wait until the next issue of Museums Journal before locking horns
Tony Butler, director, Museum of East Anglian Life, Stowmarket, Suffolk
Nonsense and stuff
Nick Gordon of the New Walk Museum, Leicester, says that he has had no complaints about its taxidermy gallery (Museums Journal December 2008, p30). May I be the first to register one.
I found the general tone of Patrick Kelly's article to be deeply disturbing in its uncritical approval of, and indeed enthusiasm for, the revival of the "art" of manipulating dead creatures for public entertainment (even if the source of the "material" is now considered acceptable), and its glib dismissal of ethical concerns.
As for the historic collections specifically, stuffed polar bears and so on may well be popular, (though I suspect mainly with children who have only a vague notion of the processes involved, the disregard for living creatures and the appalling cost to many species), but given the alternatives, education is surely no longer a valid justification.
There are many aspects of Victorian life which would rightly be regarded as unethical today, and I had imagined that killing animals simply to display them in museums and galleries was one of them. That various curators are apparently willing to display Victorian-era specimens seems a tacit endorsement of the grim reality behind the exhibits, no matter what the vagaries of art and fashion may dictate.
Paul Whittle, team assistant, Stanley & Audrey Burton Gallery, University of Leeds
Write to: the editor, Museums Journal, 24 Calvin Street, London E1 6NW
Email: journal@museumsassociation.org
Museums Journal reserves the right to edit letters
Email: journal@museumsassociation.org
Museums Journal reserves the right to edit letters
