ARTS
Stop this litany of buzzwords
Josie Appleton argues that museums are losing sight of their real purpose If I hear the word "Access" one more time,' said ex-British Museum director Sir David Wilson at this year's Museum Asso- ciation annual conference, 'I shall reach for my gun.' I have to say the same impulse grabbed me more than once over the course of the three-day conference. Many of the sessions seemed little more than a litany of buzzwords. One speaker talked about 'shared learning' between the muse- um and the public and the 'right of the public to contribute directly' to exhibitions. Another emphasised the need to work with `users' to 'address different or specific learning needs'. Nearly every session men- tioned the need to 'include' new 'audi- ences' (groups like 18 to 24-year-olds or ethnic minorities who are statistically less likely to visit museums).
We are accustomed to hearing these terms from our leaders. This government produces report after report trying to work out new ways of drawing the disabled, the young, the old, and the poor into the big tent of New Britain. Culture has been allot- ted a leading role in their project. In May this year the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published Cen- tres for Social Change: museums, galleries, and archives for all, arguing that these cul- tural institutions should take on responsi- bility for social inclusion. By engaging the marginalised and encouraging them to learn from, participate in and contribute to our national culture, museums could help make the country a better place. All muse- ums funded by the DCMS now have to publish 'measures which indicate how they are widening access to a broad cross-sec- tion of the public, for example by age, social class, and ethnicity'.
So museums and government seem set for a purposeful marriage. It is perhaps not surprising that there is love (or calculated interest) on the part of the government they have political aims and have 'decided that culture is a way of achieving them. The more interesting — and reprehensible side of the story is that museums seem to be outdoing government in their enthusi- asm. Museums are responsible for the care and interpretation of artefacts, yet today they seek to push this into the background and find their raison d'être in the needs and desires of their 'audience'. Just how far and fast they are prepared to go is shown by the recent Group of Large Local Authority Museums (GLLAM) Social Inclusion Report. GLLAM is an associa- tion of 22 local museums (including Ply- mouth, Glasgow and Sheffield City Museum), convinced that 'government must continue to urge and cajole our sector to get to grips with pursuing socially inclu- sive ends'. They resolve to make social inclusion 'integral, not bolt-on' to museum practice — Tyne and Wear's statement of Purpose and Beliefs reads 'we act as an agent of social and economic regeneration'. Exhibitions and projects listed in the report are underlain by a desire to do social good — to improve the self-image of minority groups, to turn juveniles away from crime, or to give problem children a new focus to their lives. Justifiably, GLLAM demands government recognition of its efforts (and extra funding to match).
Indeed, the DCMS could learn a lot from the precision with which GLLAM treats the issue. For the DCMS 'social inclusion policy' was a list of policy pre- scriptions grouped around a rather nebu- lous concept. GLLAM is much more sophisticated; the report defines seven social inclusionary outcomes, including positive impact upon individual growth and development, community empowerment, representation of inclusive communities and tackling crime and unemployment. With this schema, museums could orientate themselves more precisely towards these social ends and be held to account for doing so.
Of course many of the GLLAM projects do improve people's lives. No one could argue that it was bad that David had his life turned around by museum art classes, or that young vandals in Birmingham were given their own football team. But should this be the main role of museums? The danger is that the most important and valu- able aspects of museums will be pushed aside if they don't fit into the new focus. What about educating the public about his- tory and science, studying and preserving artefacts, or holding collections in perpetu- ity for the enjoyment of subsequent generations?
Imagine trying to turn the British Muse- um into an 'agent for inclusion'. How does the Rosetta Stone help to engage marginalised social groups? It has allowed us to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs and understand the writings of the ancient Egyptians, but what use is that to kids in Hackney? It has done nothing to stop crime or unemployment, nor has it improved a community's self-image. As for the Parthenon Marbles — they cause noth- ing but ethnic strife with the Greeks, the antithesis to harmonious and respectful multiculturalism.
Yet the Marbles and the Stone are two of the most rare, inspiring artefacts in Britain. Clearly, the value in our national collections cannot be reduced to the terms laid down by the GLLAM or the DCMS. We are lucky in this country to have many fascinating objects in our museums. These tell us about the past, give us insights into other worlds, inspire and impress us. It would be highly damaging for museums to try to squeeze collections into serving nar- row social ends (and, if they cannot be squeezed, should they be cast off?).
Social inclusion policy also does a disser- vice to the millions of people who, year upon year, flock to see just such wonders as the Marbles and the Stone. I for one go to see and learn about objects, not to visit the social worker or the shrink. I do not want to 'contribute directly' to exhibitions that I know little about. Nor do I want to be `engaged' or 'included' by earnest educa- tion officers.
It is one thing for government to try to make museums into 'agents for inclusion'. The political use of culture is something we have come to expect from New Labour. More worrying is the fact that museums entrusted with the care and interpretation of the artefacts of art, science and history — seem more than happy to work towards the same immediate social and political ends.
Josie Appleton writes for spiked and is author of the forthcoming Institute of Ideas publication on museums.
Previous page
