I recently attended the Canadian Museums Association’s annual conference. As in the UK, the Canadian museum sector is discussing what they call the D-word, although they call it de-accessioning, not disposal.
My experience in Canada has made me think again about our attitude to disposal and the UK Museums Association’s (MA) ethical framework.
Recent and current high-profile disposals have been of fine art at auction, although when London’s Science Museum advertised several tractors for disposal, no one batted an eyelid. As there was so little response, the disposal was circulated round the Rural Museums Network’s joint information service mail in case rural museums missed it.
Is the outcry about disposals of paintings solely because of the large figures associated with fine art? You could say that a tractor is a mass-produced object, so not unique like a painting, but there is more than this simple difference.
There is a snobbery that causes a hierarchy of objects. Is the disposal debate about the value of collections and holding them in trust for the public, or is it about how we, the museum sector, value some types of collections (art) more than others (tractors)? What sort of example are we setting?
The MA’s code of ethics was written in 1972 in response to sales of collections by local authorities (are they always the villains of the piece?), so the situation that gave birth to it is similar to today’s.
At the recent disposal seminar organised by Farrer’s, the code was referred to time and again as vital and the only mechanism for making these decisions. As the spending cuts bite deeper, what price do we pay for this framework if some governing bodies ignore it?
How can we make them see the difference between desirable de-accessioning and financially motivated disposal – specifically forbidden in the code?
I spoke in support of the change to the code in 2007. As a consultant I have seen too many museum stores full of neglected, decaying objects: bulk archaeology, crumbling architectural fragments, rusty flat-irons, engravings and paintings flaking, foxed and forgotten.
There is limited market value in these objects in such unloved states, but I still believe that disposing of them for the benefit of the rest of the collections is the correct thing to do.
Others may have use for these objects even if we do not but the sector does not consider private owners as “suitable” to care for even decaying museum objects.
In Canada, the MA’s framework is admired and envied as they have no equivalent to our code, to accreditation or even the AMA, and they seem unable to start creating their own. Even if there are flaws in our ethical system, it is a force for good and we are in a stronger position to have these difficult conversations with the code rather than without it. That way chaos lies.
Hilary McGowan is a museums consultant and executive coach
My experience in Canada has made me think again about our attitude to disposal and the UK Museums Association’s (MA) ethical framework.
Recent and current high-profile disposals have been of fine art at auction, although when London’s Science Museum advertised several tractors for disposal, no one batted an eyelid. As there was so little response, the disposal was circulated round the Rural Museums Network’s joint information service mail in case rural museums missed it.
Is the outcry about disposals of paintings solely because of the large figures associated with fine art? You could say that a tractor is a mass-produced object, so not unique like a painting, but there is more than this simple difference.
There is a snobbery that causes a hierarchy of objects. Is the disposal debate about the value of collections and holding them in trust for the public, or is it about how we, the museum sector, value some types of collections (art) more than others (tractors)? What sort of example are we setting?
The MA’s code of ethics was written in 1972 in response to sales of collections by local authorities (are they always the villains of the piece?), so the situation that gave birth to it is similar to today’s.
At the recent disposal seminar organised by Farrer’s, the code was referred to time and again as vital and the only mechanism for making these decisions. As the spending cuts bite deeper, what price do we pay for this framework if some governing bodies ignore it?
How can we make them see the difference between desirable de-accessioning and financially motivated disposal – specifically forbidden in the code?
I spoke in support of the change to the code in 2007. As a consultant I have seen too many museum stores full of neglected, decaying objects: bulk archaeology, crumbling architectural fragments, rusty flat-irons, engravings and paintings flaking, foxed and forgotten.
There is limited market value in these objects in such unloved states, but I still believe that disposing of them for the benefit of the rest of the collections is the correct thing to do.
Others may have use for these objects even if we do not but the sector does not consider private owners as “suitable” to care for even decaying museum objects.
In Canada, the MA’s framework is admired and envied as they have no equivalent to our code, to accreditation or even the AMA, and they seem unable to start creating their own. Even if there are flaws in our ethical system, it is a force for good and we are in a stronger position to have these difficult conversations with the code rather than without it. That way chaos lies.
Hilary McGowan is a museums consultant and executive coach
