This week my local council in Newcastle upon Tyne announced their intention to cut arts funding by 100%*, in response to cuts to their budget central government. The city has enjoyed a cultural renaissance over the past decade, with an image of industrial decline to a large extent transformed by a series of high profile new arts venues and museums.
However, austerity Britain can no longer afford such luxuries and many of the beautiful new buildings which house our museums, theatres and galleries will now have to fight to keep the lights on.
With the arts under tremendous financial pressure will any museum consider abandoning their physical space and look to digital media and pop up museums as an alternative way to fulfil their missions, or is a physical space which is open to the public vital to being a museum?
While collections dictate the need for a physical space of some description, is putting this collection on permanent display to the public in an expensive building vital or are there alternative ways to tell their stories.
While I am not suggesting that all museums should close their doors, I do think that just as every museum doesn’t need to have dinosaurs in it, every museum doesn’t necessarily have a physical space.
Should museums look at reducing their physical footprint and growing their digital outreach in response to smaller budgets?
* Note: Whilst arts funding was cut by 100%, two museums will still receiving some funding at a reduced rate while other lose all local government funding.
No, the physical building is part of a museum experience. While virtual/ digital is a great layer it does not replace the memory-building experience that happens within museums walls.
I live in a rural area where trips to FREE museums in bigger cities cost £17 per child for coach hire. This is not always possible for every parent to pay so we sometimes have to settle for a ‘Museum in a Box’. While these boxes contain fabulous pieces of artifacts (with all the relevant educated data) it is NOT the same for the kids. I once asked the kids what their preference was (Year 5 kids, 9-10 year olds) and not one of them chose Museum in a Box.
Should all museums remain open? Probably not. But with all the cuts from the last couple of years, I’m not sure what fat is left to cut off.
Once again we are taking away the next generation’s right to art, cultural and libraries.
Museums are an integral part of communities. They aren’t luxury commodities that should be reined in or, even worse, flippantly dispensed with. Hands on interactive zones are fantastic, they draw people in, encourage conversation and interaction with others regardless of age or background. I work as front line staff in a museum, and know this as a fact. From personal experience I also know that museums are a window in to the possibility of a different sort of world, particularly for young people who may be living in an otherwise soul-less environment. Museums - and libraries, galleries and theatres for that matter - inspire creativity and aspiration. Don’t stick them in a box!!
Oonagh Murphy posted this link asking ‘Is a museum website really vital to a museum?’ on Twitter.
http://oonaghmurphy.com/2011/08/16/museums-dont-need-a-website-to-be-online/
That seems like a great follow up to my provocative question above.
I am sorry to say this, but a real art historian or a museologist would never propose such an option. While it is critical to expand museums’ digital presence, the idea of diminishing these institutions’ physical spaces is disastrous. Instead, arts and cultural advocates need to be more agressive - less elitist and exclusionary - in asking for public (government) and private (collector & business) support.
Having said this, the above proposition makes us realize the tragic state of economy in Britain. I wish you much luck!
FYI From ACE chat today when asked about NCC:
Alan Davey: To Joe Duggan: I appreciate that NCC has to make some hard decisions about how to deploy its reduced budget, but a small amount of local government funding in culture can go a long way in making somewhere an attractive place to live, work and visit. Sustained investment over the last 15 years has made Newcastle a centre of culture for the North East, home to some of our most treasured and exciting galleries, theatres and museums ¬– all of which make a big contribution to the regional economy and the quality of life in the area. All that’s at risk if NCC does cut cultural investment by 100% over the next three years. We know from past experience that drastic cuts in cultural funding over a number of years can mean a whole generation of young, creative people don’t get the breaks at a crucial time in their fledgling careers. We don’t want to see that happen in Newcastle or anywhere else and that’s why we’re working so hard with NCC and local authorities all over the country, arguing hard for the value of continued investment in art and culture. Public consultation is a good thing, too – everyone who feels strongly should put their view forward.
Thanks for an interesting post!
It touches upon a topic, that I have often wondered about myself: What if there were no museums, and we had to invent them today? Considering our missions, which platforms would we choose?
We have, of course, a very important task in “physical care” - in preserving and studying objects. But what if we consider our governing policies in general? It is my impression, that most of us have mission statements which are in fact quite broad, claiming that we are in the world to educate, promote knowledge, inspire and facilitate the use of cultural heritage.
So, if no museums existed, and we were to construct brand new institutions to fulfill the present missions, how much emphasis would we place on physcial visits, compared to other spaces?
For some reason, many of us have come to think of “digital” or “outdoor” as “metaplatforms”. Often, we do not see them as primary tools or spaces, where mission itself can be directly pursued.
Allthough I´m no fan of closing museums (I like physical museums too!) your post highlight what I feel is a burning question: the way we assess the potential and importance of our different spaces (physical, digital etc.) in respect to the effect, we wish to have in society. This also considering, that society and culture of today is quite different from when most museums were “born”.
A museum is SO much more than a venue – or at least: it has the potential to become so.
In retrospect, it was perhaps foolish to talk about museum closures due to budget cuts and the development of digital tools to fulfil the mission of a museum in one post. I certainly seem to have raised a few eyebrows on Twitter.
However I do think that digital tools are already doing a great job for museums. Isn’t the Museum of London StreetMuseum app for example an exhibition in it’s own right, hasn’t Flickr proved a powerful research tool which has added information to collections and isn’t the Google Cultural Institute a worthwhile resource.
The consensus seems to be that digital could not replace a museum experience, but can it be used as an exhibition?
In a provocation I delivered at the Engage Annual Conference 2011, I argued that we needed to rethink where art and culture will be best situated in the future, to ensure it remains a vital and inclusive contributor to the lives of people and communities.
Replacing phyisical buildings with virtual buildings may be one way of drawing in newcomers and different audiences into the arts and of redefining how cultural value is delivered and measured.
However, I asked: “How can traditional compliance-led, risk-averse institutional models be the best vehicles for the level and depth of participation we are seeking for the arts can do its job effectively [in the years to come] within society?”
http://www.a-n.co.uk/place_for_art