There has been some discussion lately about the role of temporary exhibitions and permanent displays. The Museums Association’s 2020 work has raised the question of how permanent we want our displays to be and if, in fact, we need them at all (see this month's main feature).
So, should we be building more flexibility into capital projects? Although some museums and galleries have attempted to do this, the norm is still fixed displays that have to be refreshed after five to 10 years – the director of a museum that had a £15m-plus renovation just six years ago recently told me that most of its display already needed revitalising.
An obvious way of making noticeable change is a good temporary exhibition programme. Despite budget squeezes, many are still being planned.
Curating and producing temporary exhibitions can be creative, challenging and exciting, but it is also exhausting, resource heavy and a drain on budgets.
Some venues that programme only temporary exhibitions, Gallery Oldham for example, are looking to develop permanent displays to prevent what one curator described as the “treadmill” of temporary exhibition making.
I was reminded of this temporary vs permanent vs flexible debate when touring the Museum of Liverpool recently. This is one of the bigger capital projects of late and has gallery after gallery of permanent displays.
Of course, there is room for temporary exhibitions and events and community spaces, all the things that bring museums to life and encourage repeat visits.
A percentage of flexibility has been built into the displays to allow them to be updated. The catch is that when budgets have been cut to the bone, and it’s a choice between closing venues or not refreshing displays, the displays lose out. And, sadly, so do the museum and gallery visitors.
Who said that cuts don’t have an impact on frontline services?
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal
So, should we be building more flexibility into capital projects? Although some museums and galleries have attempted to do this, the norm is still fixed displays that have to be refreshed after five to 10 years – the director of a museum that had a £15m-plus renovation just six years ago recently told me that most of its display already needed revitalising.
An obvious way of making noticeable change is a good temporary exhibition programme. Despite budget squeezes, many are still being planned.
Curating and producing temporary exhibitions can be creative, challenging and exciting, but it is also exhausting, resource heavy and a drain on budgets.
Some venues that programme only temporary exhibitions, Gallery Oldham for example, are looking to develop permanent displays to prevent what one curator described as the “treadmill” of temporary exhibition making.
I was reminded of this temporary vs permanent vs flexible debate when touring the Museum of Liverpool recently. This is one of the bigger capital projects of late and has gallery after gallery of permanent displays.
Of course, there is room for temporary exhibitions and events and community spaces, all the things that bring museums to life and encourage repeat visits.
A percentage of flexibility has been built into the displays to allow them to be updated. The catch is that when budgets have been cut to the bone, and it’s a choice between closing venues or not refreshing displays, the displays lose out. And, sadly, so do the museum and gallery visitors.
Who said that cuts don’t have an impact on frontline services?
Sharon Heal, editor, Museums Journal
sharon@museumsassociation.org
www.twitter.com/sharonheal