There was frustration last month at the Museums Association's one-day conference on museums' experiences of working with indigenous communities whose heritage they hold. Collaborations with artists and community members were seen as rewarding, educative and enriching.
But there were concerns about the decisions museums felt obliged to make about which cultures were to be prioritised. As ever, the decisions were political.
It was noted that the UK government was focusing on the African continent, China and India, which had all become flavour-of-the-month for museums. But that means others, such as Pacific Islanders, are left out.
There is an argument that Africans and descendants in the Diaspora, Indians and Chinese are in the UK in significant numbers and are sufficiently enfranchised to lobby for recognition.
But let's face facts. It's the F-word that rules here. The government's agenda leads to more funding being made available in specific areas - and museums are constrained by project funding.
At the conference, it was noted that when trying to build relationships with indigenous communities, whether based in the UK or overseas, it was necessary to do so over time, and project funding was far from ideal.
There was a sense, some said, that if funding had been made available once, it meant that funders believed that base had been covered and it was very difficult to argue for more.
This is not to say that great work hasn't been done on a longer-term basis and with cultures not seen as politically in mode. But some curators have had to raise money to go abroad themselves and to bring culturally knowledgeable representatives to Britain, when it might have been expected that the museum would cover this expense.
It seems to me that attitudes need to change. There were helpful suggestions from the audience that funding bodies such as the Arts and Humanities Research Council might be open to discussions about the funding process. But until politics is taken out of the mix, curators may need to look beyond the usual resource channels.
But there were concerns about the decisions museums felt obliged to make about which cultures were to be prioritised. As ever, the decisions were political.
It was noted that the UK government was focusing on the African continent, China and India, which had all become flavour-of-the-month for museums. But that means others, such as Pacific Islanders, are left out.
There is an argument that Africans and descendants in the Diaspora, Indians and Chinese are in the UK in significant numbers and are sufficiently enfranchised to lobby for recognition.
But let's face facts. It's the F-word that rules here. The government's agenda leads to more funding being made available in specific areas - and museums are constrained by project funding.
At the conference, it was noted that when trying to build relationships with indigenous communities, whether based in the UK or overseas, it was necessary to do so over time, and project funding was far from ideal.
There was a sense, some said, that if funding had been made available once, it meant that funders believed that base had been covered and it was very difficult to argue for more.
This is not to say that great work hasn't been done on a longer-term basis and with cultures not seen as politically in mode. But some curators have had to raise money to go abroad themselves and to bring culturally knowledgeable representatives to Britain, when it might have been expected that the museum would cover this expense.
It seems to me that attitudes need to change. There were helpful suggestions from the audience that funding bodies such as the Arts and Humanities Research Council might be open to discussions about the funding process. But until politics is taken out of the mix, curators may need to look beyond the usual resource channels.
