Last month, a consortium including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Heritage Lottery Fund, Arts Council England and the Art Fund, came together in a bid to save the Wedgwood collection after the attorney-general upheld a high court judgment that the collections could be sold to plug a £135m pension deficit.
The collection is Designated and is one of just 20 collections in the UK to be recognised in Unesco’s Memory of the World register. It would undoubtedly be a good thing if private funding could be found to keep the collection intact, in the public domain and in the local area.
But should the museum itself be saved? The £10m museum opened in 2008. The following year, it won the £100,000 Art Fund prize – a unanimous decision, according to the chairman of judges, David Puttnam.
The judges are entitled to their opinion, of course, but in my view, the museum is not only undeserving of the accolade, it is not worth saving.
On nearly every level – design, interpretation, display and engagement – the museum fails. The displays look dated, despite the fact that they are fewer than four years old.
The narrative is wordy and dull, and concentrates almost exclusively on the Wedgwood family – the voices of the thousands of workers that made pottery are conspicuous by their absence. The overall experience is disappointing, to say the least.
It is unfortunate that the museum has been landed with responsibility for the huge pension deficit, but this case highlights some of the perils of trust status, and should act as a warning to those considering the option – the starting point should be that the collection is protected and that legal arrangements are watertight.
In the Wedgwood case, the consortium should be brave enough to take a bold decision: find a funder, save the collection, keep it on public display in the local area – and forget the museum.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
The collection is Designated and is one of just 20 collections in the UK to be recognised in Unesco’s Memory of the World register. It would undoubtedly be a good thing if private funding could be found to keep the collection intact, in the public domain and in the local area.
But should the museum itself be saved? The £10m museum opened in 2008. The following year, it won the £100,000 Art Fund prize – a unanimous decision, according to the chairman of judges, David Puttnam.
The judges are entitled to their opinion, of course, but in my view, the museum is not only undeserving of the accolade, it is not worth saving.
On nearly every level – design, interpretation, display and engagement – the museum fails. The displays look dated, despite the fact that they are fewer than four years old.
The narrative is wordy and dull, and concentrates almost exclusively on the Wedgwood family – the voices of the thousands of workers that made pottery are conspicuous by their absence. The overall experience is disappointing, to say the least.
It is unfortunate that the museum has been landed with responsibility for the huge pension deficit, but this case highlights some of the perils of trust status, and should act as a warning to those considering the option – the starting point should be that the collection is protected and that legal arrangements are watertight.
In the Wedgwood case, the consortium should be brave enough to take a bold decision: find a funder, save the collection, keep it on public display in the local area – and forget the museum.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal