When I was starting my museum career in the 1980s, I was privileged to be involved in the setting up of a new museum about the Manchester Regiment. It was to be called the Museum of the Manchesters and be about their social and regimental history. The curatorial team made a conscious effort not just to tell a traditional regimental story, but also to locate it in a broader social context looking at what was going on in the world at the time – industrialisation, the development of an urban working class, conscientious objectors, pacifism and the growth of the anti-nuclear war movement.
We mapped the regiment’s foreign campaigns against the “pink” map of the British empire, trying to provide political and economic context to why they were there and present a more balanced view of the army’s relationship with the world.
When we opened in 1987, there was a flurry of articles in Museums Journal about regimental collections and a perceived need for them to be relevant to more than just “the regimental family” by using this type of material culture to engage audiences to think more critically about the complex issues and responses to the army and warfare.
Such issues and responses are relevant today, so I approached the redeveloped National Army Museum with considerable interest in how the subject would be approached.
After several years’ closure, the National Army Museum opened in April following a £23.75m refurbishment, which includes a new frontage and reconfiguration of the interior space. A spacious atrium is an attractive addition: it is bright, airy and welcoming. From there you can see where all the galleries are located and it is an easy and pleasant experience to orientate yourself around the building. In addition to the temporary exhibition space, there are four permanent galleries titled Soldier, Army, Battle, and Society.
Soldier looks at the individual experience of being in the army, from joining to discharge. Battle is self-explanatory, charting key battles with the occasional soldier’s perspective thrown in. Army gives a chronological narrative starting with the formation of the standing army after the English civil war (1642-51) and Society, so the leaflet says, brings together objects and stories that “tell us about our relationship with the British army”.
You and whose army?
Overall, the displays are comprehensive and brightly coloured. The wealth of the collection on display is impressive if a bit overwhelming in its design. There is good use of oral history and personal testimonies to provide insights into the individual experience, be that male or female.
Throughout the galleries efforts are made to encourage visitors to think about issues relating to the army. The Soldier gallery starts by asking visitors to decide whether they could be a soldier and can enter yes or no under the question, and repeats the gimmick as you leave that part of the museum. This is not, however, the type of exercise where visitors experience different things by choosing different paths though.
The exhibition is peppered with questions to make visitors think – for example, “Are civilians a legitimate target?” in the Battle gallery. And at the “What do you think?” stations, you are invited to register your opinion on topics such as “Should Britain have an army?” – (incidentally, the most popular answer was “No, the money spent on the army should be spent elsewhere”). This is an effective way to prompt responses and build a databank of opinion.
The displays are aimed at a family audience and when I was there I saw visitors of all ages engaging with and enjoying them. One of the most popular interactives was in the Soldier space – an interactive screen of a drill sergeant on a parade ground, with visitors acting as his new recruits, instructed to obey his commands. Good marching on the spot was rewarded, while someone failing to take part received the stereotypical, but obviously moderated, abuse. It must be said that not all the interactives were this popular or effective – some were simply confusing.
Steeped in tradition
I was disappointed in the traditional approach to displaying military objects – repetitive displays of weapons and uniforms – and although my criticism here might be a little harsh, a more imaginative approach than a purely art history one would have been welcome.
The arrangement in each gallery also lacks imagination. The Soldier section takes a process-based approach, from recruitment and medical to training and warfare. The Army and Battle galleries take a chronological approach, perhaps missing an opportunity to provide a contrast between similarities and differences of the army and warfare in different periods, and how war stimulates technological advances as well as employing them.
Ironically, the Society gallery, which would have benefited from chronology – takes a thematic approach, starting with representation in film and going on to explore toys and games, fashion, military and innovation as well as changing attitudes. These are big issues and while there are some insights into varying reactions to the army – as represented in pop culture – they are buried in an overwhelming and anachronistic display of printed media. A stronger curatorial approach would have been beneficial.
I also felt that the museum’s definition of the British army was too limited. While the Soldier gallery looks at the experience from the perspective of the individual, there is little focus on the experience of others – wives, husbands, children and army camp followers are all the silent partners in the displays.
The impression created is that the army is a separate entity from society – indeed the text panel in the Society gallery titled Army Neighbours states this: “The modern army is separated from mainstream society, so we understand less about soldier’s roles and lives.” This is a sweeping statement that lacks justification or explanation, yet it’s a subject around which an exciting and informative exhibition could have been built if given a more critical approach.
On this same panel, I learned that in “a survey in 2012, 22% of uniformed soldiers had been refused service in pubs, hotels or elsewhere in the previous five years”. This intriguing piece of information isn’t explained or explored anywhere else in the show. A chronological approach to the shifting public attitudes to the army could help understand the many and complex perceptions of the forces today.
Similarly, in the Army gallery on the panel headed Identity, the text says: “As society and war transform, our requirements of the army change.” But this passive statement is not interpreted in any substantive way that deepens our understanding of the factors that have shaped society, or indeed our national army.
As a sideline to the main four subject areas the museum covers, there is a temporary exhibition space showing War Paint: Brushes with Conflict until 14 November. This contains paintings from the museum’s permanent collection. There is also the Insight gallery, which is a small temporary exhibition area on the lower ground floor with interactive information stations. The subject when I visited was Sikhs in the army. This was interesting and well presented, but would easily be missed due to its lack of prominence.
Although the museum is welcoming and engaging I left frustrated with the overall experience and did not feel at all challenged to rethink what an army museum is and could be (as the museum’s leaflet claimed I would).
Does the National Army Museum provide new insights or deepen our understanding of the complex relationship between army and society? Sadly, I think not. While the exhibitions are interesting, they do not challenge us to think again about what an army museum is. Nor do they represent any innovative approaches in the representation of this subject matter in a museum context.
Graham Boxer is the head of museums at the Canal & River Trust, Milton Keynes
Main contractor Gilbert-Ash
Exhibition design Event
Exhibition fitout The Hub
Audiovisuals Squint Opera; Graham English & Co;Clay Interactive
Exhibition ends War Paint: Brushes with Conflict, until 19 November
Admission Free
We mapped the regiment’s foreign campaigns against the “pink” map of the British empire, trying to provide political and economic context to why they were there and present a more balanced view of the army’s relationship with the world.
When we opened in 1987, there was a flurry of articles in Museums Journal about regimental collections and a perceived need for them to be relevant to more than just “the regimental family” by using this type of material culture to engage audiences to think more critically about the complex issues and responses to the army and warfare.
Such issues and responses are relevant today, so I approached the redeveloped National Army Museum with considerable interest in how the subject would be approached.
After several years’ closure, the National Army Museum opened in April following a £23.75m refurbishment, which includes a new frontage and reconfiguration of the interior space. A spacious atrium is an attractive addition: it is bright, airy and welcoming. From there you can see where all the galleries are located and it is an easy and pleasant experience to orientate yourself around the building. In addition to the temporary exhibition space, there are four permanent galleries titled Soldier, Army, Battle, and Society.
Soldier looks at the individual experience of being in the army, from joining to discharge. Battle is self-explanatory, charting key battles with the occasional soldier’s perspective thrown in. Army gives a chronological narrative starting with the formation of the standing army after the English civil war (1642-51) and Society, so the leaflet says, brings together objects and stories that “tell us about our relationship with the British army”.
You and whose army?
Overall, the displays are comprehensive and brightly coloured. The wealth of the collection on display is impressive if a bit overwhelming in its design. There is good use of oral history and personal testimonies to provide insights into the individual experience, be that male or female.
Throughout the galleries efforts are made to encourage visitors to think about issues relating to the army. The Soldier gallery starts by asking visitors to decide whether they could be a soldier and can enter yes or no under the question, and repeats the gimmick as you leave that part of the museum. This is not, however, the type of exercise where visitors experience different things by choosing different paths though.
The exhibition is peppered with questions to make visitors think – for example, “Are civilians a legitimate target?” in the Battle gallery. And at the “What do you think?” stations, you are invited to register your opinion on topics such as “Should Britain have an army?” – (incidentally, the most popular answer was “No, the money spent on the army should be spent elsewhere”). This is an effective way to prompt responses and build a databank of opinion.
The displays are aimed at a family audience and when I was there I saw visitors of all ages engaging with and enjoying them. One of the most popular interactives was in the Soldier space – an interactive screen of a drill sergeant on a parade ground, with visitors acting as his new recruits, instructed to obey his commands. Good marching on the spot was rewarded, while someone failing to take part received the stereotypical, but obviously moderated, abuse. It must be said that not all the interactives were this popular or effective – some were simply confusing.
Steeped in tradition
I was disappointed in the traditional approach to displaying military objects – repetitive displays of weapons and uniforms – and although my criticism here might be a little harsh, a more imaginative approach than a purely art history one would have been welcome.
The arrangement in each gallery also lacks imagination. The Soldier section takes a process-based approach, from recruitment and medical to training and warfare. The Army and Battle galleries take a chronological approach, perhaps missing an opportunity to provide a contrast between similarities and differences of the army and warfare in different periods, and how war stimulates technological advances as well as employing them.
Ironically, the Society gallery, which would have benefited from chronology – takes a thematic approach, starting with representation in film and going on to explore toys and games, fashion, military and innovation as well as changing attitudes. These are big issues and while there are some insights into varying reactions to the army – as represented in pop culture – they are buried in an overwhelming and anachronistic display of printed media. A stronger curatorial approach would have been beneficial.
I also felt that the museum’s definition of the British army was too limited. While the Soldier gallery looks at the experience from the perspective of the individual, there is little focus on the experience of others – wives, husbands, children and army camp followers are all the silent partners in the displays.
The impression created is that the army is a separate entity from society – indeed the text panel in the Society gallery titled Army Neighbours states this: “The modern army is separated from mainstream society, so we understand less about soldier’s roles and lives.” This is a sweeping statement that lacks justification or explanation, yet it’s a subject around which an exciting and informative exhibition could have been built if given a more critical approach.
On this same panel, I learned that in “a survey in 2012, 22% of uniformed soldiers had been refused service in pubs, hotels or elsewhere in the previous five years”. This intriguing piece of information isn’t explained or explored anywhere else in the show. A chronological approach to the shifting public attitudes to the army could help understand the many and complex perceptions of the forces today.
Similarly, in the Army gallery on the panel headed Identity, the text says: “As society and war transform, our requirements of the army change.” But this passive statement is not interpreted in any substantive way that deepens our understanding of the factors that have shaped society, or indeed our national army.
As a sideline to the main four subject areas the museum covers, there is a temporary exhibition space showing War Paint: Brushes with Conflict until 14 November. This contains paintings from the museum’s permanent collection. There is also the Insight gallery, which is a small temporary exhibition area on the lower ground floor with interactive information stations. The subject when I visited was Sikhs in the army. This was interesting and well presented, but would easily be missed due to its lack of prominence.
Although the museum is welcoming and engaging I left frustrated with the overall experience and did not feel at all challenged to rethink what an army museum is and could be (as the museum’s leaflet claimed I would).
Does the National Army Museum provide new insights or deepen our understanding of the complex relationship between army and society? Sadly, I think not. While the exhibitions are interesting, they do not challenge us to think again about what an army museum is. Nor do they represent any innovative approaches in the representation of this subject matter in a museum context.
Graham Boxer is the head of museums at the Canal & River Trust, Milton Keynes
Project data
Cost £23.75m
Main funders Heritage Lottery Fund; the Ministry of Defence; The Foyle Foundation; Peter Harrison Heritage Foundation; City Bridge Trust; Garfield Weston Foundation; Cadogan Estates; WRENArchitect BDPMain contractor Gilbert-Ash
Exhibition design Event
Exhibition fitout The Hub
Audiovisuals Squint Opera; Graham English & Co;Clay Interactive
Exhibition ends War Paint: Brushes with Conflict, until 19 November
Admission Free
