For those of us that like to chastise museums for ‘not doing it all’ and ‘now’ some food for thought from Charlotte Gray in Canada’s Globe & Mail newspaper (note: print, not online edition):
The article talks of the crisis (in Canada) of funding for museums and the problem of “constantly groveling about the racism and sexism of past events – that we rarely attempt a coherent narrative. So we make do with bits and pieces and allow museum scholarship to dry up.”
Money. Without money, no proper research:
“Without museum research, and sufficient well-trained curators, there is a real danger that within a generation or two we may have warehouses filled with great stuff that nobody knows much about, because the only museum staff left will be guides and gift shop workers.”
Hmm. As an ex-museum guide, I might take exception to being regarded as ignorant of my museum, but I would admit that was able to guide because of the work of the curatorial staff; who are expected to do more, with less and make flashy current exhibitions out of it. Back to the front though:
“ ”We must always be thinking” explains Laura Brandon, Curator of War Art at the Canadian War Museum, “about what we need so that future generations can see our lives today in their completeness.” Unplanned acquisitions create gaps. Warfare, for instance, was once viewed as an exclusively male activity which means that the war museum has tons of guns and medals but little on women’s lives during wartime – no 1940s wedding dresses made of parachute silk, for example, or old copies of Chatelaine with articles on “how to make do.” Without acquisition budgets, or curators to make informed decisions, museums have less opportunity to redress the balance and stay relevant to future generations.”
The same problem faces museums worldwide. Governments give them less cash, we (paying) visitors expect more engagement or entertainment for our money, and gripe if it doesn’t fit our desires. In the UK, the UK Government has pulled a neat trick of getting the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) to underwrite a lot of museum projects. Great, except the HLF funds short-term plans (never paying for staff or basic everyday resources) and the government has cut to the bone direct funding, cheerfully pointing at the HLF as a panacea.
Is there an answer? I don’t know, but I do know that museums need more cash. They certainly need more support, and (constructive) criticism. They don’t need us demanding that ‘everything’ is restored ‘now’ and into the colours you or I prefer this month. Many do profit from having volunteers; so if you care do something.
It’s an open forum, so as they say,
Discuss…
By: Smith - 13th January 2005 at 10:01
Good argument John – I’m with you. Not that it’ll help a hell of a lot! 😉
By: Peter Mills - 13th January 2005 at 08:42
David,
In my experience when showing youngsters of the “playstation generation” around our aircraft they are somewhat awed. It is suddenly very different when you can see the size of even a relatively small airframe and touch hard, cold metal. Eyes are opened and most can clearly see that there is little or no relation to the computer generated kind. I can only hope that this impression lasts, because if we can capture just a few of these “hearts and minds” then we are setting up a chance of ensuring the future for many of these aircraft. I certainly see repeat visits and from many a real interest in the aircraft. So perhaps we should not dismiss the younger generations so lightly.
By: JDK - 12th January 2005 at 23:39
Just checking John. 😀
By: J Boyle - 12th January 2005 at 23:21
Hi Veltro, John,
Thanks for the responses.I’m presuming, John, you aren’t advocating all Spitfires and Lancasters to Britain, Mustangs and B-17s to the USA? One of the great things for me about world aviation is the odd spread – the DH-9 at Le Bourget; the Concorde (in Air France colours 😉 ) in the NASM; the Aussie Seagull V at the RAF Museum, England while the RAAF Museum in Australia has a Walrus – BUT that Walrus has Australian history.
No James, not at all. My point was IF a museum was short on money, I’d rather see it do one thing well.
The NASM needs a Concorde (even if it is in the wrong colour scheme :diablo: ) and the Seattle Museum of Flight (aka The Boeing Collection) needs a Comet to show the evolution of jetliners.
There have been plenty of posts on this forum complaining thet the AAM at Duxford diverted resources (I don’t know if this is true) way from other, sometimes rarer, aircraft that need a roof over them or restoration.
The BoBMF works because it does one thing well. An attempt to say, include a Vulcan, might make the project so expensive it could face the chopping block in a future government cutback. The “Sally B” group doesn’t need a nice Mustang to escort the B-17 to displays.
I do stand by my comments on the NASM’s restoration of the Japanese floatplane. While it’s a neat esoteric piece of history and engineering, it shouldn’t have been pushed to the front of the restoration line ahead of more historic aircraft.
By: JDK - 12th January 2005 at 22:47
David,
You’ve put your finger on a key point again. As many airshow organisers have learned to their cost, get the toilets right (particularly the ladies) and the family favour will follow. Get them wrong… :rolleyes:
Thanks for the feedback Veltro. As you know culture and heritage in Italy is (generally) more critical and tricky than many other countries. Something to do with a Renaissance or something?
I’m not entirely convinced that the ‘playstation generation’ issue rightly highlighted by David and Merlin70 is really such a shift as we think. Vintage aviation was probably always a marginal interest; and I suspect there’s more people coming into the game than we realise. However, we’ve no reason to be complacent. When did you last take a kid to a aviation museum AND make it a great time so he (or she) wants to go back? Steve Young’s son can’t be the only boy with ‘my’ Lancaster…
Stories?
By: David Burke - 12th January 2005 at 22:17
JDK – I agree in some respects. However the public’s perception of a museum
can come down to something as simple as the state of the toilets or indeed the general tidyness of the place as a whole. The influx of money into museums is certainly on the wane and the ‘Playstation generation’ of kids now revolve their lives around aforesaid item to the extent that all else is tame and mundame in comparison. The appreciation of an object for what it is gets harder to explain.
Interactive is certainly a buzzword but I feel that greater co-operation is definately needed between museums. The massive duplication of some types
is detrimental. I support some of the ideas of John – I certainly feel that having sole surving examples of Japanese technology interesting but I would really like to see a genuine restored Zero on display in the U.K . There are prime examples of aircraft in the U.K which could be returned to their former
axis operators without denuding our heritage.
There are very difficult times ahead for museums – I hope they learn to
change.
By: JonathanF - 12th January 2005 at 20:54
I can only agree completely JDK. In relative terms, the money available to museums goes down every single year, whilst the expectations of the public, the funding bodies and the professional museum world at large, go up.
To restate, only the high profile projects attract the sort of high-capital, one-off grants that are then perceived by the public to be mispent by the museums. When there was never any prospect of their particular favourite exhibit receiving a penny.
By: Veltro - 12th January 2005 at 20:54
You are probably right when you that we cannot prove either point: lack of information, different accounting systems and so on.
Certainly in my neck of the woods there is one museum which was never rich and is now hurting , one which was a private collection and got substantial money in the early Nineties and is now regularly open with a small staff and one which is military and therefore carries on as ever. A medium private museum opened in the Eighties and subsists, without ever having had any scientific pretensions. A small private museum opened without a business plan and closed.
Most of the WW2 and pre-WWW2 stuff is better looked after than ever before. Some of the post-WW2 American stuff is somewhat worse for tear. Except for the great Caproni push in the early Nineties, virtually everything worth doing has been done by volunteers.
For all the tweed in the world, looking at the overall balance I can’t say much changed here in the sunny Med in the past 20 years.
Veltro
By: merlin70 - 12th January 2005 at 20:49
we (paying) visitors expect more
I wasn’t aware that you paid to get into aviation museums? :rolleyes:
James I share your concerns.
As much as we may discuss this on the forum, the only way things will change is if Governments change their attictude towards museums. However, the internet proivides many of todays young people with all the information they desire without wandering around a cold windy airfield. Fact of life I’m afraid.
What is potentially worse is the skills deficit. As a/c become more expensive to purchase, maintain, restore, insure, there are fewer people with the interest (and sufficient cash) to perpetuate the historic and authentic. Further more, those that learn to build or repair a/c, learn modern techniques. Modern a/c have circuit boards that are replaced and discarded. The skills that are required to re-skin or re-fabric are now vested in only a few.
Looking at some of the modern restorations of vintage a/c which are done under contract rather than love, many of the parts that would be replaced by a loving restorer may now be left as they cost too much or take too much time, and by the time the skins are on who would know? (This is not intended to be a judgement of all restorers, and certainly not the ones that I have regular contact with).
As for many museum restorations they rely on past masters that are now retired, to volunteer their spare time. Who will be there in a decade or so?
By: JDK - 12th January 2005 at 20:10
Hi Veltro, John,
Thanks for the responses.
I’m presuming, John, you aren’t advocating all Spitfires and Lancasters to Britain, Mustangs and B-17s to the USA? One of the great things for me about world aviation is the odd spread – the DH-9 at Le Bourget; the Concorde (in Air France colours 😉 ) in the NASM; the Aussie Seagull V at the RAF Museum, England while the RAAF Museum in Australia has a Walrus – BUT that Walrus has Australian history.
Veltro, ‘more money than ever before’? I don’t think so. I agree with the improved quality of what is done, and it’s impossible to ‘prove’ our views one way or another, but as I tried to show, a big fanfare for a new HLF funded building often in the long run detracts from funding for the basics – someone to keep the museum open and to document the artifacts – the fashions of museums do indeed come and go, but these facts are prennial, cost, don’t get splashy funding and, IMHO are in difficulties.
What has been overlooked again is what might be termed standing costs – security and storage. If you then put the items on display, the cost increases again, plus cost of interpratation. Most enthusiasts just don’t concieve of the amazing costs these are. And that has to be paid for to maintain the status of being a Museum. There’s less money for this than there ever has been (generally) and (to streach a metaphor) we are expecting lots of jam, but there’s less bread and no butter there.
Any other thoughts?
By: Veltro - 12th January 2005 at 08:35
To say that “unplanned acquisitions create gaps” is Orwellian doublespeak. “Unplanned acquisitions” are what saved so much of the material now in existence and afford us the luxury of looking at specific gaps (bride gowns) rather than a generalised lack of artefacts (there is a single Breda type in existence in the entire world, for instance).
If it had been for official foresight, curatorial clarvoyance and other such things, most of our heritage would have gone like the FW200 present in the UK but now lost forever.
This said, I do not see the issue as a funding crisis: there can be little doubt that the museum sector has more money and volunteers than ever before. Those old enough to remember the pre-1976 NASM, the pre-Noble Frankland IWM, pre-Hendon RAF collection might want to compare the standards of restoration, number of displays, major airframes etc with those of today.
I think that Laura Brandon brings to light the changing views of the role of the museum within the museum profession. Curators see their role increasingly as “teaching through displays” and look for money for temporary exhibitions rather than acquisitions, restorations and so on. The trouble is, this does not sit well with enthusiasts. I have been on both sides of the fence and see the merit of both. There is probably no easy right or wrong, and we should be happy that there are so many things going on, everywhere, with private or public money, or indeed with no money at all – like volunteers.
Veltro
By: J Boyle - 12th January 2005 at 03:10
My idea…
One way for museums to save money would be to specialize a bit more.
In aviation the could mean sending aircraft to other museums where they’d be better appreciated. (When I suggested this awhile back, I was shouted down….but I’m brave. 🙂 )
We know that getting a nice plane (like the Vulcan at Blackpool) without having the money to properly conserve it often only delays the visit by the scrapman.
Likewise, I believe there was some controvery when a museum received a Concorde but had to turn its other planes out to the cold to house it.
Sure getting a Concorde is a nice think and will raise a museum’s profile…and income, by increasing the number of casual punters who visit. But often acquisitions lead to a collection losing its focus.
As an example, instead of spending God-knows how many hours/dollars restoring an obscure Japanese sub-launched airplane that never saw combat, I would rather have the NASM spend that time restoring a plane that really means something to Americans (either with a combat history like the B-17 ‘Swoose‘, or one that showcases technology). After all it is the National Air & Space Museum, not the Tokyo Museum of Science and Industry. This isn’t blind nationalism speaking…the NASM is a world class collection and a Comet and Concorde certainly have a place there as technological pace -setters, but at some point a museum has to be selective about where its money goes.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the seaplane isn’t historic or worthwhile, but for that museum and the tax dollars spent, I’d rather see the money going to something else.
My suggestion: send the plane to Japan where it will be appreciated and seen by the society that built and flew it. The NASM did send the DO335 Arrow to Germany for a free restoration (in return for letting it be displayed there for awhile…but again, I’d rather the 335 stayed in Germany for the resons mentioned above).
Likewise, the USAF Museum spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 80s-90s having replica WWI planes (Fokker Dr1, etc) built before spending money to restore or replicate more USAF-appropriate planes of the 20s and 30s.
Unless you have money to burn (like the NASM tax dollars) a museum ought to pick a topic and do it well, rather than be the “Jack of all trades and master of none.”
Sign In
January 12, 2005 at 2:55 am