I’ve been keeping an eye on this business of Southampton City Council selling off artwork from the collection in order to pay for a Titanic Museum/heritage centre. Mainly because I hate the idea of politician meddling in collection management policies. Also because Southampton City Council hasn’t exactly been stellar in its stewardship of the museums it already has.
Not that local paper has helped. I swear, if you a sample of the most philistine opinions possible, check out the comments section of the reports from The Daily Echo. I had to laugh at the suggestion that the Southampton City Art Gallery, which is free to enter, was “elitist”.
When it comes to deaccessioning debates, I may have got too caught up in the US version. I like the idea of museums being able to further their autonomy. I like the idea that collections could be made more precise and that objects be made available to other museums. I like the idea of a process that means museums don’t have to hold onto something for the sake of holding on to it.
This is where I neglect the UK aspect: I hate the idea of elected officials sabotaging museums to meet their own ends, especially with such short-term prospects. Make no mistake, this is not art to be sold for a Titanic Museum. This is art being sold to get politicians re-elected after they can show off their new tourist attraction building.
Thankfully, it seems the councillor who set up the Southampton City Art Gallery had the same thoughts. Robert Chipperfield made sure the Tate was consulted in anything concerning his bequest. Now that this museum heavyweight have made its feelings known, the Museum Association (who have been surprisingly quiet) have also said this risks breaching ethical guidelines.
I’m part of the Save Our Collection facebook group, who have done an excellent job on keeping everyone informed. They organised protests, petitions and even had someone on Antony Gormley’s plinth holding up a cut-out of Rodin’s statue. I’m really pleased at all they’ve done and proud to support them.
But this will only happen again soon. Some other council without any foresight will start targeting collections as some sort of plunder-able resource. It will continue until the Museum Association does something and states that elected officials cannot make deaccessioning decisions and that all such decisions must be made by museum institutions alone.
Surely the larger issue that needs to be addressed here is why the collections of local government seem like expensive shibboleths to those in charge of them.
The answer (from my viewpoint) seems that the UK has no respect for any of it’s cultural heritage. Nowhere is there an organisation that consistently defends the works of artists, writers and musicians, who often find themselves pilloried in the press.
Without a sense of heritage as a cultural norm, there cannot be a willingness to respect possible new additions to the cultural cannon. And that’s why the most important part of this story is the Tate gallery – tourist hotspot Tate gallery – whose comments allowed another cultural institution to finally weigh in on the matter.
We desperately need somebody to speak up on behalf of cultural matters in the UK, but relegating that task to the biggest gallery of the country seems unfair. They already have a job to do.
(The above Pete is Pete Hindle, to avoid any confusion)
You would think this is a job for the Museum Association. But their position seems to be more and more weakened (ever since letting Bury back into their gang)
Also, I need convincing that this “Titanic Museum” isn’t oneupmanship with Portsmouth getting close to opening their Mary Rose Museum.