Mark O’Neill is the director of policy, research and development at Glasgow Life. Tim Ewin is an earth sciences curator at the Natural History Museum, London
Dear Tim
Objects are preserved because of their human meaning; they have no value apart from this. Good stewardship is seamless with good access. The false dichotomy between intrinsic and instrumental value has held the sector back since the distinction was first made.
It is a distinction that the founders of the classic museums would have found meaningless. Hans Sloane left his collection for the “general use and benefit of the public”. We must find new ways to share these benefits with the many communities who are suffering hardship and remain excluded from museums.
Mark
Dear Mark
I agree that the benefits of museums should be more widely shared; however this must not be done at the expense of all other museum work. Why? Because to reach these audiences and meet all their other responsibilities, museums need a balance between intrinsic and instrumental values.
Many museum advocacy pieces fail to make this case and instead encourage museums to focus resources solely on instrumental impact. This unbalancing will only lead to a poorer service for all and diminish support for museums as they fail in their duty to act as stewards of society’s heritage.
Tim
Dear Tim
Research on public views shows that citizens will invest in stewardship, but they also expect tangible social benefits. While individual staff may experience conflicting demands, there is no evidence that access has improved at the expense of stewardship.
On the contrary, some museums’ introverted approach has not only reneged on the social commitments of founders but it has also led to ineffective stewardship.
Collections are better stored, documented and conserved now than ever before – because of access-led investment of billions by trusts and government. Continued advocacy is essential because many publics, including those who could benefit most, are still not served by museums.
Mark
Dear Mark
To be responsible and effective museums must understand their collections and society’s heritage. Access, databases and collections management alone are insufficient, a fact seemingly missed by many. Consequently, inadequate provision has been made for this in many museum models, the Code of Ethics, Accreditation and Designation.
Neither are the benefits of this knowledge mentioned in advocacy documents. This is incredibly damaging given that this is one of the most important museum functions. So, museums need to continue to advocate through all tangible benefits, including access, but refrain from regarding collections and knowledge of heritage as “luxuries”.
Tim
Dear Tim
These were examples of the deployment of expertise. Apart from unsupported claims about neglect and public attitudes, you offer no account of the benefits that you claim are missed.
The “But what about us?” response suggests a view of knowledge and collections as possessions rather than a nexus of relationships and collaborations with users.
Museums need a thought-through account of their role in society that is less about professional identity and more about public service, less about museums feeling neglected and more about empathy towards the growing number of people who are excluded from society’s benefits.
Mark
Dear Mark
I highlight collections and knowledge in isolation only because they have been underrepresented elsewhere in this context. It is saddening that awareness of these and the many other benefits seems so poor.
The Collections Trust recognises the importance of raising awareness of these benefits, for all museums, and so is launching the Good Curatorship Campaign. I encourage everyone to engage with it.
Tim
Dear Tim
Objects are preserved because of their human meaning; they have no value apart from this. Good stewardship is seamless with good access. The false dichotomy between intrinsic and instrumental value has held the sector back since the distinction was first made.
It is a distinction that the founders of the classic museums would have found meaningless. Hans Sloane left his collection for the “general use and benefit of the public”. We must find new ways to share these benefits with the many communities who are suffering hardship and remain excluded from museums.
Mark
Dear Mark
I agree that the benefits of museums should be more widely shared; however this must not be done at the expense of all other museum work. Why? Because to reach these audiences and meet all their other responsibilities, museums need a balance between intrinsic and instrumental values.
Many museum advocacy pieces fail to make this case and instead encourage museums to focus resources solely on instrumental impact. This unbalancing will only lead to a poorer service for all and diminish support for museums as they fail in their duty to act as stewards of society’s heritage.
Tim
Dear Tim
Research on public views shows that citizens will invest in stewardship, but they also expect tangible social benefits. While individual staff may experience conflicting demands, there is no evidence that access has improved at the expense of stewardship.
On the contrary, some museums’ introverted approach has not only reneged on the social commitments of founders but it has also led to ineffective stewardship.
Collections are better stored, documented and conserved now than ever before – because of access-led investment of billions by trusts and government. Continued advocacy is essential because many publics, including those who could benefit most, are still not served by museums.
Mark
Dear Mark
To be responsible and effective museums must understand their collections and society’s heritage. Access, databases and collections management alone are insufficient, a fact seemingly missed by many. Consequently, inadequate provision has been made for this in many museum models, the Code of Ethics, Accreditation and Designation.
Neither are the benefits of this knowledge mentioned in advocacy documents. This is incredibly damaging given that this is one of the most important museum functions. So, museums need to continue to advocate through all tangible benefits, including access, but refrain from regarding collections and knowledge of heritage as “luxuries”.
Tim
Dear Tim
These were examples of the deployment of expertise. Apart from unsupported claims about neglect and public attitudes, you offer no account of the benefits that you claim are missed.
The “But what about us?” response suggests a view of knowledge and collections as possessions rather than a nexus of relationships and collaborations with users.
Museums need a thought-through account of their role in society that is less about professional identity and more about public service, less about museums feeling neglected and more about empathy towards the growing number of people who are excluded from society’s benefits.
Mark
Dear Mark
I highlight collections and knowledge in isolation only because they have been underrepresented elsewhere in this context. It is saddening that awareness of these and the many other benefits seems so poor.
The Collections Trust recognises the importance of raising awareness of these benefits, for all museums, and so is launching the Good Curatorship Campaign. I encourage everyone to engage with it.
Tim
