MA Conference 2013 - A National Disgrace

Did the title get your attention?

I tweeted my comprehensive review of the conference on 14th November, so in this blog I want to concentrate on a conference phenomenon I have become increasingly aware of over time. Namely 'nationals bashing' the fine art of criticising our national museums at each and every opportunity (at this point the conference organiser Sharon Heal breathes a big sigh of relief).

It is there, subtly, blatantly, snidely; in keynotes, workshops and practice sessions; at lunchtimes, coffee breaks and network sessions. If the subject of 'the nationals' comes up criticism is not far behind. 'They get all the money', 'they won't work with the smaller museums', 'philanthropy all goes their way', 'DCMS is only interested in the nationals', 'they couldn't care less about us' ad nauseam. This is then backed up by figures trotted out about Londoncentric funding etc. Has it not occurred to anyone that if you put the sector's best people with the best collections in the biggest city(ies) you are going to get inequality... of excellence.

Yet the nationals can't hit back and state the bleeding obvious to the rest of us. This is because they represent and are symbolic of our nation. I now need to narrow down my hypothesis. Last year in Scotland the talk around 'national' was dominated by 'nationalism' and the 'Scottish question'. I imagine a different dynamic next year in Wales, but in England there is no National Museum of England and England is the subject from now on.

The strong cannot criticise the weak, the wealthy the poor, the best collection the worst collection. It comes across as arrogance and panders to the very perception that you are being criticised for. The obvious comparison to draw is that of the arch criminal in a Hollywood blockbuster movie. The criminal is well educated, refined, wealthy, speaks with received pronunciation and is usually to be found in his (v. rarely her) lair surrounded by priceless artefacts exhibiting taste and culture. In other words the very epitome of a national museum director. Added to that is the scheming, the ruthlessness, the sacrifice of everything and everybody for personal gain - again the very epitome of a national museum director. The iconic archetype is Alan Rickman in Die Hard (1988) - the clues are all there that he is a museum director. The film makers try to throw you off the scent by calling him Hans Gruber - 'grubby hands?' as in 'get your grubby hands off my collection' - the message could not be more obvious. And what does Hans Gruber do? He seems to be able to fund a well staffed and well equipped army of combat curators determined to get private sector sponsorship and if not then to stop at nothing to take the money anyway.

Only the downtrodden underfunded small regional independent McLane Teddy Bear Museum is there to stop him - in other words a cowboy playing at being a museum. So how does Hollywood solve the problem and create a Leninist museum utopia of equality? Answer - throw the museum director off the top of a very tall building.

Now I am not advocating that we find the tallest building in Cardiff next year and start chucking the directors off the top (although I would quite like to throw Sandy Nairne, the Director of the National Portrait Gallery, off simply because half way down I think he will unfurl his bat wings and soar skywards laughing manically - or is it just me that thinks that?).

Can I make a pitch now to the MA for my talk next year's conference, 'The Die Hard Effect: how Hollywood is to blame for the poor staff morale in UK museums.'

The solution is to simply work through and then beyond these perceptions at the beginning of the conference. We should literally pillory any and all members of staff from a national museum (I am sure there are plenty of regional museums willing to lend them). The short term satisfaction of throwing rotten vegetables at David Roth shouting, "Yippee-ki-yay V&A!" is soon assuaged and proper English guilt will kick in and numerous apologies exchanged. The resulting dialogue over a cup of tea will commence and an understanding will soon emerge that we are all in the same boat working towards the same purpose to make the world a more educated and cultured place for the future of mankind.

And if that doesn't work we can still throw them off a tall building.

Make 2014 'Love our nationals' year - the campaign starts now.

Its All in the Name

Voice of America News July 13, 2011

Israel Approves Jerusalem Museum of Tolerance Project Despite Muslim Objections

Muslims groups have objected to the Museum of Tolerance being built on an ancient burial site. Is it the covering of the site, or the museum that’s the problem? Apparently part of the site was built over by a car park without objections. So it must be the museum. Museums always have a tricky task of presenting the past in places of conflict, they can help the situation but can also make things worse. In this case it doesn’t appear to be bringing both sides together. Can cloudy thinking help?

Is it the name? Is ‘Tolerance’ part of the problem? I bet the Muslim community has a different name for it.  Companies change their names when there is a commercial imperative, so why not a museum? Instantly wipe away the baggage of years of unwanted history and start again? Cloudy thinking recommends a wholesale radical museum renaming programme.

But, firstly lets fix the Arab/Israeli conflict. If a car park is something both sides can accept. Ergo ‘The Car Park Museum’ solves the problem. It will also be a world first, something both sides can share equally (as long as spaces aren’t reserved) and be a celebration of togetherness. It may not end years of conflict, but in future academics may see this as the turning point, and really clever academics will invent ‘The Car Park Theory of Social Integration’ and make a fortune – but you heard it here first.

Cloudy thinking suggests taking it one step further and make it a museum of car park spaces. Visitors will get to drive their car over a museum artifact. What museum visitor doesn’t secretly want to do this? Or any museum curator for that matter. OK, so there may be a few access versus conservation issues but what museum doesn’t have those?

In gentle old Blighty can the same strategy be applied? The V&A took tentative steps towards this a few years ago with their advert ‘An Ace Caff With Quite A Nice Museum Attached’. Should they have gone further and actually changed the name of the museum to that as well? In these times of commercial imperitves its an even better name now.

Visit the UK’s premier national museum, the British Museum. Go inside and you’ll struggle to find anything British. It is a world museum so why not call it that? However, this may lead to more requests from countries to have their stuff back appropriated in the days of Empire. If this conflict can’t be avoided address it head on – rename it ‘The Museum of Stuff That is Ours Now’. The Museum of Unreason realizes this is not a snappy title but seems to confront a pressing issue for all museums with world collections. Surely it will stop countries unreasonably asking for their stuff back, but it may actually increase conflict.

Cloudy thinking recommends the reduction of conflict rather than the opposite. So can this diaspora of collections around the world be condensed into an abstract noun? How about the ‘Museums of Tolerance’? That might work, but if not, they can always start building car parks.

Health Warning

If you take any of the views expressed in this blog seriously then you should really think about changing your name as well.