Can a collection be important enough to be Designated if the museum that looks after it is in chaos?
That’s one of the issues at the heart of Arts Council England’s (ACE) review of designation. Until now, before a collection is Designated (as of outstanding merit) the museum holding the collection has to be good enough to be fully Accredited.
But that’s very different to the way we identify important buildings. Every building of merit is Listed, whoever owns it and however badly they look after it. The advantage of that system is that we know about all significant buildings– and can look out for those that are in trouble.
In contrast, there are many important collections that don’t appear on any list and so risk being completely ignored. It’s probably impractical to designate all the important collections that are in private hands – but could designation attempt to identify every collection of national significance in public and charitable ownership?
That would mean disconnecting designation from Accreditation, but it might be a good thing to have greater clarity about the difference between them. (As I wrote that sentence it struck me that designation needs a new name if it is to have any resonance with the public.)
What should happen if one of today’s Designated collections becomes badly neglected and at risk? Should the arts council withdraw Designated status and cast the collection into outer darkness (especially if it loses Accreditation at the same time) – or would it be better if ACE instead of ‘punishing’ the collection, recognises its importance and does all it can, working with others, to try to get it back on an even footing?
The Museums Association’s (MA) response to the review includes calls for more explicit references to public engagement and public benefit. You can read more about the MA’s views on our responses page, and leave your comments and complete the ACE survey, which closes on 16 September, here.
That’s one of the issues at the heart of Arts Council England’s (ACE) review of designation. Until now, before a collection is Designated (as of outstanding merit) the museum holding the collection has to be good enough to be fully Accredited.
But that’s very different to the way we identify important buildings. Every building of merit is Listed, whoever owns it and however badly they look after it. The advantage of that system is that we know about all significant buildings– and can look out for those that are in trouble.
In contrast, there are many important collections that don’t appear on any list and so risk being completely ignored. It’s probably impractical to designate all the important collections that are in private hands – but could designation attempt to identify every collection of national significance in public and charitable ownership?
That would mean disconnecting designation from Accreditation, but it might be a good thing to have greater clarity about the difference between them. (As I wrote that sentence it struck me that designation needs a new name if it is to have any resonance with the public.)
What should happen if one of today’s Designated collections becomes badly neglected and at risk? Should the arts council withdraw Designated status and cast the collection into outer darkness (especially if it loses Accreditation at the same time) – or would it be better if ACE instead of ‘punishing’ the collection, recognises its importance and does all it can, working with others, to try to get it back on an even footing?
The Museums Association’s (MA) response to the review includes calls for more explicit references to public engagement and public benefit. You can read more about the MA’s views on our responses page, and leave your comments and complete the ACE survey, which closes on 16 September, here.
