Bristol council must fulfil its responsibilities to the museum service
Your recent article summarises what threatens to be an alarming situation if the proposed changes in the current service review of Bristol's Museums, Galleries and Archives are to be implemented from April 2009 (Museums Journal January 2009, p6).
In tandem with a statement on the review by the Unite and Unison unions, this has caused concern among many former museum and art gallery curators and conservators employed the city council.
We feel that the proposal's far-reaching implications, as set out in available information, are such that a serious expression of our concerns should be offered to the museum sector.
We deplore the proposed deletion of numerous curatorial posts (nine out of 26) and conservation posts (eight out of 13) and consequent redundancies, restructuring of security and "front-of-house" posts with reductions in opening hours at museums, and the inappropriate doubling up of curatorial and conservation functions into single posts. The likely detrimental impact would represent a loss to the south west.
We recognise that the review has been prompted by a funding crisis in the service. However, reduced Renaissance in the Regions funding can not be the sole cause. That funding was established for innovation and expansion, not for subsidising the existing infrastructure.
We believe that the funding crisis has been precipitated by the projected harbourside Museum of Bristol. This is an exciting project which meshes with Renaissance criteria. It appears, however, that it can come to fruition only at the expense of existing staff and with the downgrading of the existing service and the collections, which are of national and international importance.
A proposed new emphasis on 20th century and contemporary visual arts would compound the effects of the proposed cuts and draw resources away from the core collections and any initiatives for their development.
Compromises should be found before widescale damage is inflicted. We urge Bristol City Council to reconsider its aspirations and look to its responsibilities for the service as a whole.
Victoria Airey FMA, Katharine Eustace AMA, John Griffin AMA, Clare Miles AMA, staff at Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, 1970-1985. A list of over 30 signatories, including former staff and supporters, with details of positions held, is available from svairey@gmail.com
Touchy about Titian
Brian Ivory, chairman of the National Galleries of Scotland trustees, described the "saving" for the nation of Titian's Diana and Actaeon as a "fantastic day for culture and heritage", amid the congratulations of those who fought hard to raise the £50m.
I add my congratulation to theirs. They have done a good job. But was it a fantastic day? Doesn't this purchase pose more questions? Does it set up a fantastic future for culture and heritage or just mark a safeguarding of the status quo?
I would not presume to go into the merits of this painting, or indeed the Bridgewater collection, which has been secured for the next 21 years as part of the deal. Undeniably, it is of immense cultural significance. But analysis of this purchase does bear closer scrutiny.
The Duke of Sutherland, one of the richest men in Scotland, is receiving £50m, more than half of which is public money. The ramifications of this for culture and heritage will be felt over the next four years, until another £50m is needed to be raised to save the companion piece, Diana and Callisto.
The issue of property rights and how they relate to history is crucial to understanding museums and the world in which they operate. And it would be difficult to condemn a collector whose wealth was acquired through what might now be regarded as somewhat dubious activities without undermining the basis on which so many museum collections were originally acquired.
The key question is not about the work's provenance or how it was acquired, but whether it can be afforded and, if so, how does the cost-benefit analysis stand up?
In the context of the sector, £50m is a lot of money. In Scotland's museums and galleries sector, we have become adept at making a little go a long way.
The £3m provided by the Scottish government through the Strategic Change Fund, as well as money through the Regional Development Challenge Fund and Recognition, has had a huge impact on the sector, entirely disproportionate to the sums involved.
Imagine the change we could have made by granting, say, £2m to 25 museums across Scotland. This funding could go be spent on employing new staff to develop our collections and make them more accessible to all, providing jobs in a time of recession, improving sustainability and boosting the local heritage economy.
Dare I say it would amount to a true "Renaissance" for the cultural landscape of Scotland. Instead, our government and others have chosen to "invest: in this one painting.
I am not disputing that the national collections underpin jobs in Edinburgh's cultural economy, and that as a capital, it must aspire to excellence in all things. But the estimated £27m tourist spend attributed to the National Galleries is not down to this one painting or even the duke's entire Bridgewater collection.
Also, questions need to be asked as to the precedent being set by our agreement to such a deal. How many other UK museums have collections similarly on loan that could be "offered at preferential rates to be saved for the nation"?
Why did the purchase price remain stable over the five months of the appeal, while the world's economy slowed? I believe we do need to save any such assets for the nation but at what cost to the other cultural infrastructure?
These funds being absorbed in this way will put a brake on other collecting and make less funding available for other investments. All that has happened is that a painting that has been on show continually in Edinburgh will now be shared with London, which, given the make-up of the funding, would also seem far from a glorious success.
So a fantastic day for culture and heritage? I am afraid I must disagree.
John Stewart-Young, arts and heritage manager, Dundee City Council
Get it shipshape
Your magazine recently announced that the four separate UK naval museums (Royal Naval Museum in Portsmouth; Royal Marines Museum in Southsea; RN Submarine Museum in Gosport; and the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton) are to be brought together under one Ministry of Defence administration unit as the National Museum of the Royal Navy (Museums Journal, February 2009, p6).
In fact, HMS Victory is also being brought into the group. See www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5295
Martin H Evans, Cambridge
Your recent article summarises what threatens to be an alarming situation if the proposed changes in the current service review of Bristol's Museums, Galleries and Archives are to be implemented from April 2009 (Museums Journal January 2009, p6).
In tandem with a statement on the review by the Unite and Unison unions, this has caused concern among many former museum and art gallery curators and conservators employed the city council.
We feel that the proposal's far-reaching implications, as set out in available information, are such that a serious expression of our concerns should be offered to the museum sector.
We deplore the proposed deletion of numerous curatorial posts (nine out of 26) and conservation posts (eight out of 13) and consequent redundancies, restructuring of security and "front-of-house" posts with reductions in opening hours at museums, and the inappropriate doubling up of curatorial and conservation functions into single posts. The likely detrimental impact would represent a loss to the south west.
We recognise that the review has been prompted by a funding crisis in the service. However, reduced Renaissance in the Regions funding can not be the sole cause. That funding was established for innovation and expansion, not for subsidising the existing infrastructure.
We believe that the funding crisis has been precipitated by the projected harbourside Museum of Bristol. This is an exciting project which meshes with Renaissance criteria. It appears, however, that it can come to fruition only at the expense of existing staff and with the downgrading of the existing service and the collections, which are of national and international importance.
A proposed new emphasis on 20th century and contemporary visual arts would compound the effects of the proposed cuts and draw resources away from the core collections and any initiatives for their development.
Compromises should be found before widescale damage is inflicted. We urge Bristol City Council to reconsider its aspirations and look to its responsibilities for the service as a whole.
Victoria Airey FMA, Katharine Eustace AMA, John Griffin AMA, Clare Miles AMA, staff at Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery, 1970-1985. A list of over 30 signatories, including former staff and supporters, with details of positions held, is available from svairey@gmail.com
Touchy about Titian
Brian Ivory, chairman of the National Galleries of Scotland trustees, described the "saving" for the nation of Titian's Diana and Actaeon as a "fantastic day for culture and heritage", amid the congratulations of those who fought hard to raise the £50m.
I add my congratulation to theirs. They have done a good job. But was it a fantastic day? Doesn't this purchase pose more questions? Does it set up a fantastic future for culture and heritage or just mark a safeguarding of the status quo?
I would not presume to go into the merits of this painting, or indeed the Bridgewater collection, which has been secured for the next 21 years as part of the deal. Undeniably, it is of immense cultural significance. But analysis of this purchase does bear closer scrutiny.
The Duke of Sutherland, one of the richest men in Scotland, is receiving £50m, more than half of which is public money. The ramifications of this for culture and heritage will be felt over the next four years, until another £50m is needed to be raised to save the companion piece, Diana and Callisto.
The issue of property rights and how they relate to history is crucial to understanding museums and the world in which they operate. And it would be difficult to condemn a collector whose wealth was acquired through what might now be regarded as somewhat dubious activities without undermining the basis on which so many museum collections were originally acquired.
The key question is not about the work's provenance or how it was acquired, but whether it can be afforded and, if so, how does the cost-benefit analysis stand up?
In the context of the sector, £50m is a lot of money. In Scotland's museums and galleries sector, we have become adept at making a little go a long way.
The £3m provided by the Scottish government through the Strategic Change Fund, as well as money through the Regional Development Challenge Fund and Recognition, has had a huge impact on the sector, entirely disproportionate to the sums involved.
Imagine the change we could have made by granting, say, £2m to 25 museums across Scotland. This funding could go be spent on employing new staff to develop our collections and make them more accessible to all, providing jobs in a time of recession, improving sustainability and boosting the local heritage economy.
Dare I say it would amount to a true "Renaissance" for the cultural landscape of Scotland. Instead, our government and others have chosen to "invest: in this one painting.
I am not disputing that the national collections underpin jobs in Edinburgh's cultural economy, and that as a capital, it must aspire to excellence in all things. But the estimated £27m tourist spend attributed to the National Galleries is not down to this one painting or even the duke's entire Bridgewater collection.
Also, questions need to be asked as to the precedent being set by our agreement to such a deal. How many other UK museums have collections similarly on loan that could be "offered at preferential rates to be saved for the nation"?
Why did the purchase price remain stable over the five months of the appeal, while the world's economy slowed? I believe we do need to save any such assets for the nation but at what cost to the other cultural infrastructure?
These funds being absorbed in this way will put a brake on other collecting and make less funding available for other investments. All that has happened is that a painting that has been on show continually in Edinburgh will now be shared with London, which, given the make-up of the funding, would also seem far from a glorious success.
So a fantastic day for culture and heritage? I am afraid I must disagree.
John Stewart-Young, arts and heritage manager, Dundee City Council
Get it shipshape
Your magazine recently announced that the four separate UK naval museums (Royal Naval Museum in Portsmouth; Royal Marines Museum in Southsea; RN Submarine Museum in Gosport; and the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton) are to be brought together under one Ministry of Defence administration unit as the National Museum of the Royal Navy (Museums Journal, February 2009, p6).
In fact, HMS Victory is also being brought into the group. See www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5295
Martin H Evans, Cambridge
