'Er, we like our museums just as they are, thanks'
April 8 2013
Picture: Museums Association
Good news from the Museums Association - a poll commissioned by the MA has rejected much of the curious nonsense it has been peddling in its document 'Museums 2020 - a bold vision for the future of the museums sector'. As a reader, and senior regional museum curator, writes:
The People have spoken! I hope you will open up more exciting debate by announcing the Museum Association's publication of the response to the daft 'Museums 2020' proposals, see here.
In summary, the Great British Public thinks museums are for (in this order):
- Care and preservation of heritage
- Holding collections and mounting displays
- Creating knowledge for, and about, society
- and is extremely doubtful about 'promoting justice and human rights', 'providing a forum for debate' etc etc.
Hurrah! Maybe I won't have to retrain as a social worker / political activist after all ...
Hurrah indeed. As I reported earlier, the Museums 2020 consultation document was often alarmingly off beam, full of museums-must-make-society-happier speak. It's therefore very useful that the poll, which was funded by the Arts Council England (ie, you and me), has clearly stated that museums 'should not expand from their core roles' into the areas of, for want of a better term, social work that the Museums Association was advocating. The sort of thing the MA wanted museums to do were demonstrated in five out of six 'impacts' set out in Museums 2020:
1 - Making a Difference for Individuals
Museums can improve individuals’ lives in ways such as supporting learning, stimulating interaction with friends and family, and building skills and confidence. To do this, museums often work in partnership with other organisations. Museums can expand this work, finding ways to engage with people more deeply.
1a - Wellbeing and Happiness.
Museums are well placed to improve individual wellbeing, improve quality of life and contribute to mental health.
2 - Making a Difference for Communities
Museums can strengthen communities by bringing people together, validating the experiences of particular groups and supporting community organisations. Most museums have more potential to become truly of their communities.
2a - Participation
Museums are seeking ways to increase community participation in their activities and decision-making. Done with care, and avoiding tokenism, this can improve museums and benefit communities.
3a - Human Rights, Equality and Social Justice
Museums have the potential to address the issues that matter most to society and to promote public debate and beneficial social change, rather than always assuming a position of neutrality.
Now this is all very laudable. But should making people happy be a museum's primary purpose, or a natural side-effect of, say, good exhibitions and well presented displays? Obsviously, AHN (and our senior curator quoted above) would say the latter. In fact, the debate over a museum's 'instrumental' value (the making people happy stuff) versus its 'intrinsic' value (the preservation and display of heritage stuff) has been going on for over a decade, and I'm surprised the MA is still going on about it. As the poll conducted by the MA shows, most people are quite happy with the intrinsic approach, thanks.
Only one of the six 'impacts' made any vague sense to stick-in-the-muds like me - that emphasising the preservation of collections - but even this was couched in unnecessarily chippy language:
3 - Making a Difference For Society
Museums safeguard and develop collections, create knowledge and contribute to cultural life.
Museums see themselves as serving society. In the MA’s definition of a museum, they “hold collections on behalf of society” and there is a very real (if not strictly legal) understanding that museums and their collections belong to everyone. Museums exercise “stewardship” or “guardianship” rather than acting as private owners of collections. They have been highly successful – perhaps too successful – in preserving things that matter to society (or at least to the more powerful members of society).
That's right. Raphael, Rembrandt, Hockney - they only matter to the more powerful members of society. One of the recommendations in the 2020 document seems to suggest that the MA has a curious contempt for the core content of museums - actual objects:
Museums could rethink the ways they allocate their space, with less occupied with fixed display and more available for a wider range of activities: for workshops, for short-term pop-up displays, for performances, for discussions, for people and groups to come together.
Update - a reader writes:
One of their main functions must be the availability of decent public toilets. Is that in the poll?
