Over the past five years of work on collections at the Museums Association (MA), I’ve championed increased loans between museums and to other public venues as one of the primary means of improving use of collections.
But even compared with disposal, loans has been a tricky subject on which to find agreement and to see change. Partly, this seems to be about an aversion to risk, but it is made more complicated by the fact that only some museums have the staff, the resources and the most in-demand collections, to have invested in formal loans processes.
Thinking about how we approach risk, the line that often emerges is “museums balance access now with preservation long-term”.
To my mind, the scales are weighted wrongly. We need to assume the imperative to lend in a range of contexts, and then think about reasonable steps to mitigate risk in doing so.
More of us need to accept that less material will be preserved forever – and that’s OK. The second challenge is harder to define because we’re talking about a disparity between museums.
A museum with a handful of staff might well find the decision-making processes at giant operations incomprehensible. I’m sure that the big lenders get frustrated by a lack of detail behind loan requests. In each case, the budget of the other party must seem implausible.
Each side of the loans partnership can do their part – understanding breeds confidence, so provide information; research different options; and work on solutions. Be friendly, as cliched as that sounds.
One application to the Esmée Fairbairn Collections Fund earlier this year included loan costs (those incurred by the lender, for transport and insurance) of nearly £15,000 for nine objects from a national museum.
I find it hard to believe that the standards set in this example were specific to the vulnerability of the objects concerned. Perhaps they did not consider the benefit to the lender of getting material out. I wonder how much the cost of the loan was scrutinised – its size made members of our grant selection panel’s eyes widen.
On the other hand, many Effective Collections projects show what real collaboration can do, with some goodwill and creativity. Derby Museum’s 1980s living room installation at the Vintage Festival in July proves that objects can travel, and can be displayed with different levels of security so that visitors can interact with objects in ways that don’t happen in a museum.
Also, with just a £10,000 grant, Dorset County Museum will lend 140 fossil specimens to 14 partner museums. You might argue that the material in my examples isn’t comparably significant, but that’s the point – standards and costs should be flexible for different loans.
Museums need to appreciate the benefits of lending and borrowing. We need to recognise that loans allow activity, engagement and impact that no other part of museum practice achieves. Loans should be celebrated, and be core to museum activity.
Over the last year we’ve been working on Smarter Loans to try and tackle some of these issues. A working group drawn from the museum sector (with input from key groups such as UK Registrars Group and the Government Indemnity Scheme team) have set out what it means in practice to be a good lender or borrower.
This document is up for consultation on the MA website until 21 October, and I hope readers will take the opportunity to comment. More than this, I hope people will honestly appraise their approach, and adopt Smarter Loans.
Sally Colvin is the collections coordinator at the Museums Association
Click here for more on the consultation
But even compared with disposal, loans has been a tricky subject on which to find agreement and to see change. Partly, this seems to be about an aversion to risk, but it is made more complicated by the fact that only some museums have the staff, the resources and the most in-demand collections, to have invested in formal loans processes.
Thinking about how we approach risk, the line that often emerges is “museums balance access now with preservation long-term”.
To my mind, the scales are weighted wrongly. We need to assume the imperative to lend in a range of contexts, and then think about reasonable steps to mitigate risk in doing so.
More of us need to accept that less material will be preserved forever – and that’s OK. The second challenge is harder to define because we’re talking about a disparity between museums.
A museum with a handful of staff might well find the decision-making processes at giant operations incomprehensible. I’m sure that the big lenders get frustrated by a lack of detail behind loan requests. In each case, the budget of the other party must seem implausible.
Each side of the loans partnership can do their part – understanding breeds confidence, so provide information; research different options; and work on solutions. Be friendly, as cliched as that sounds.
One application to the Esmée Fairbairn Collections Fund earlier this year included loan costs (those incurred by the lender, for transport and insurance) of nearly £15,000 for nine objects from a national museum.
I find it hard to believe that the standards set in this example were specific to the vulnerability of the objects concerned. Perhaps they did not consider the benefit to the lender of getting material out. I wonder how much the cost of the loan was scrutinised – its size made members of our grant selection panel’s eyes widen.
On the other hand, many Effective Collections projects show what real collaboration can do, with some goodwill and creativity. Derby Museum’s 1980s living room installation at the Vintage Festival in July proves that objects can travel, and can be displayed with different levels of security so that visitors can interact with objects in ways that don’t happen in a museum.
Also, with just a £10,000 grant, Dorset County Museum will lend 140 fossil specimens to 14 partner museums. You might argue that the material in my examples isn’t comparably significant, but that’s the point – standards and costs should be flexible for different loans.
Museums need to appreciate the benefits of lending and borrowing. We need to recognise that loans allow activity, engagement and impact that no other part of museum practice achieves. Loans should be celebrated, and be core to museum activity.
Over the last year we’ve been working on Smarter Loans to try and tackle some of these issues. A working group drawn from the museum sector (with input from key groups such as UK Registrars Group and the Government Indemnity Scheme team) have set out what it means in practice to be a good lender or borrower.
This document is up for consultation on the MA website until 21 October, and I hope readers will take the opportunity to comment. More than this, I hope people will honestly appraise their approach, and adopt Smarter Loans.
Sally Colvin is the collections coordinator at the Museums Association
Click here for more on the consultation
