So much wrong with his take on this, even taking into account all the things the British Museum has on its crime sheet: Theft isn’t the only problem facing the cash-strapped British Museum – and I have some answers
Yes, and they are RONG and Point Thahr, Misst.
Museums are essentially phoney. Few of their objects were made for them but rather to be owned, used, enjoyed and traded. They were not meant to be wrenched from their context by fair means or foul, then put in a glass case or buried in giant state hoards, most of them never again to see the light of day.
Rubbish. Just because items are not permanently on display doesn't mean 'never' and some things should NOT be permanently on display but only occasionally and under carefully monitored conditions. Plus, I would much rather have things in museums than 'owned, used and enjoyed', or more likely stuck in bank-vaults, by private collectors. Do we not feel like weeping when some famed collector dies (or comes to ruin) and the collection goes on sale and we see what riches have been lying hidden and will probably go be hidden once more?
The whole ecology of the museum sector in the USA is different - Partner and I were discussing this and the role of Boards of Trustees who are themselves major collectors who maybe will donate when they pop off over breakfast a few weeks ago - and I do not think this is anything to emulate:
Dynamic museums in the US, like the Kimble Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas, are switching to buying and selling to update their collections, a process known as “progressive deaccessioning”. In 2017, the UK’s own culture department published a report that questioned whether “effective collections management can be truly effective and efficient without some disposals”.
Yeah, but that would be, would it not, to other publicly accessible collections in which they would be more appropriately held? I am sure I have whinged on about collections which have fetched up in Some Place because of Some Personal Connection, where they have absolutely no synergy with the general tenor of the institution and where interested researchers may well not think to look for them. In Museum Collection with which I had tangential association via its archives, there was a massive deaccessioning of materials not pertinent to its core mission, but they went to good homes (which then came back to us with queries....)
A more immediate source of funds is surely beyond argument. Free entry to the museum, except for special exhibitions, is not a moral issue but rather a device to keep its grant as a top visitor attraction. The New York Met now charges $30, the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum €22.50 and the Louvre €17. Are they immoral? Deals can be done for children and students, but free museum entry is simply a generous donation by British taxpayers, mostly to foreign tourists.
I daresay Mr Jenkins is younger than moi, but I can remember the days - was it the 70s or the 80s? - when the museums which fell under the Department of Education and Science's administration, which included the gems of South Ken, were obliged by the Political Masters in Power to start charging admission. And lo and behold, it turned out that it cost more to operate this system than it brought in in revenue. And now general admission is free even if special exhibitions cost an arm and a leg.
Bring back, I say, those fine Victorian Values of improving the populace with Art and Culture, absolutely free.
As I have probably already remarked, what needs funding is the invisible unglamorous work.