This month marks the publication of the Museums Association’s cuts survey. It will come as no surprise that the cuts are continuing, with more than a third of respondents reporting a second year of budget reductions.
Predictably, museums with cuts of more than 10% face difficult times, and have responded by axing staff, introducing admission fees and, in some cases, closure.
What is perhaps surprising is the rise in optimism in the sector, with 36% saying they think there will be an increase in the quality of the services they can provide over the next year, compared with only 13% who said the same last year.
So where has this new-found optimism come from? Booming visitor figures might be one reason – there’s nothing like a full house to make you believe in what you’re doing.
Prizes also help. Last month’s Art Fund Prize and the Clore Award for Museum Learning help raise the profile of museums and give credit, and cash, to good projects.
The optimism might simply be down to taking a more pragmatic approach and adapting to the new landscape. This includes trying to find ways to raise extra cash.
Last month, the Catalyst Awards, which will help establish endowments for cultural organisations, were unveiled. It’s good news that this seed funding has been provided, although only 14 of the 36 projects are museums or galleries – and most of those are south of the Watford gap.
The problem with endowments is that they work for only a certain type of institution in certain parts of the country. They are not a solution for the average local authority museum or industrial heritage collection.
Most museums have no option but to keep on keeping on, which at least they can do in the knowledge that the public seems to be increasingly appreciative of what they do.
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
This is the July/August issue. Look out for extra news and views online. Next issue out on 1 September.
Predictably, museums with cuts of more than 10% face difficult times, and have responded by axing staff, introducing admission fees and, in some cases, closure.
What is perhaps surprising is the rise in optimism in the sector, with 36% saying they think there will be an increase in the quality of the services they can provide over the next year, compared with only 13% who said the same last year.
So where has this new-found optimism come from? Booming visitor figures might be one reason – there’s nothing like a full house to make you believe in what you’re doing.
Prizes also help. Last month’s Art Fund Prize and the Clore Award for Museum Learning help raise the profile of museums and give credit, and cash, to good projects.
The optimism might simply be down to taking a more pragmatic approach and adapting to the new landscape. This includes trying to find ways to raise extra cash.
Last month, the Catalyst Awards, which will help establish endowments for cultural organisations, were unveiled. It’s good news that this seed funding has been provided, although only 14 of the 36 projects are museums or galleries – and most of those are south of the Watford gap.
The problem with endowments is that they work for only a certain type of institution in certain parts of the country. They are not a solution for the average local authority museum or industrial heritage collection.
Most museums have no option but to keep on keeping on, which at least they can do in the knowledge that the public seems to be increasingly appreciative of what they do.
- This month's vox pop asks: have the cuts done long-term damage to the sector?
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
This is the July/August issue. Look out for extra news and views online. Next issue out on 1 September.