Much has changed in the time since the report was published and so in July 2007 the MA published Making Collections Effective, an update to the original Collections for the Future report. Links to each of the reports can be found below.
Collections for the Future report: http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=11121
Making Collections Effective report: http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=14112
The collections for the Future Report includes references to the hidden histories initiative, stating that:
The MA considers the hidden histories approach to be an important way forward, and will look for ways to support and encourage it.
New intellectual approaches like these invigorate collections, and museums have a responsibility to be open to all alternative perspectives. And yet it has become clear from the inquiry that the extent to which museums can or should share control over the meaning of objects remains a highly contentious issue, although the debate around the question is still oddly under-developed.
On one hand, it is an established intellectual orthodoxy that audiences always play an active role in making meaning; meaning is not determined by the author or producer. Furthermore, today’s museum users are not used to passively accepting advice and information from experts; they expect to have their opinions and experiences valued and taken seriously. They may also expect that services will be tailored to their individual needs and interests. Accordingly, some respondents to the consultation advocated a radical abdication of power by museums in this area. If collections are public, they argue, so should be their interpretation; museums need to stand back and stop being overly protective of their intellectual territory.
Other respondents were keen to stress that museums are valued and trusted as authoritative sources of information, and that they should not risk compromising this by taking overtly post-modern approaches or ducking out of offering information and opinion altogether. Visitors may in fact increasingly value the kind of authoritative information that museums can provide, precisely because we live in a world where there is such a proliferation of information. Museums also need to be clear that they are not ideologically neutral spaces; visitors may value clear advocacy of points of view – a danger of ‘balanced’ interpretation is that museums shy away from criticism, challenge and provocation, which should be part of their role.
Museums need to engage actively with this debate and work out its implications for the way that their collections are presented. They should find ways to be authoritative without being authoritarian. Perhaps one way to do this is to be more open about the role of museum professionals as mediators. It is still the case that the vast majority of their work is hidden behind the scenes, in spite of the fact that when museums open their own processes up to visitors, the results can be very rewarding. Conservators have offered a lead here, with many trying to find ways to let visitors see and understand their work. Museums could do more to open up the work of curators and researchers, so that visitors see where the information and opinions that museums present are coming from.
Museums can also utilise new technologies that make it easier to offer more than one perspective on an object or collection. Electronic storage of information and images will help to make these multi-layered approaches possible, and indeed has the potential to transform all experiences of museum collections. Many museums have already begun to explore the potential of interpretation using handheld electronic devices. As the technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, all museums should be able to offer visitors a variety of pathways through ideas and information about their collections.
Beyond the museum, the internet offers remote access to many collections and, crucially, to a wealth of information about them. However, the inquiry shows that some museum staff are sceptical about the benefits of investing in digitisation, believing that online access to collections offers a relatively poor-quality experience for a relatively high cost. But this is to underestimate its future potential. Digitisation is not an end in itself so much as a means to an end. It does not offer quick-wins but rather represents a long-term investment. Moreover, the potential of digitisation is not limited to collections themselves. In a digital environment, the ideas and research around collections are just as valuable a resource.
Museums must continue to digitise their collections and the information that accompanies them, as building blocks. There will be uses of digitised collections that cannot be imagined yet. Museums of the future will use the digital resources created today for their own ends, just as museums today use the buildings and collections established in the past for their own purposes. Continued investment in digitisation is vital, and should not be held back by scepticism about the quality of some of the products that currently use digitised collections.
New intellectual approaches like these invigorate collections, and museums have a responsibility to be open to all alternative perspectives. And yet it has become clear from the inquiry that the extent to which museums can or should share control over the meaning of objects remains a highly contentious issue, although the debate around the question is still oddly under-developed.
On one hand, it is an established intellectual orthodoxy that audiences always play an active role in making meaning; meaning is not determined by the author or producer. Furthermore, today’s museum users are not used to passively accepting advice and information from experts; they expect to have their opinions and experiences valued and taken seriously. They may also expect that services will be tailored to their individual needs and interests. Accordingly, some respondents to the consultation advocated a radical abdication of power by museums in this area. If collections are public, they argue, so should be their interpretation; museums need to stand back and stop being overly protective of their intellectual territory.
Other respondents were keen to stress that museums are valued and trusted as authoritative sources of information, and that they should not risk compromising this by taking overtly post-modern approaches or ducking out of offering information and opinion altogether. Visitors may in fact increasingly value the kind of authoritative information that museums can provide, precisely because we live in a world where there is such a proliferation of information. Museums also need to be clear that they are not ideologically neutral spaces; visitors may value clear advocacy of points of view – a danger of ‘balanced’ interpretation is that museums shy away from criticism, challenge and provocation, which should be part of their role.
Museums need to engage actively with this debate and work out its implications for the way that their collections are presented. They should find ways to be authoritative without being authoritarian. Perhaps one way to do this is to be more open about the role of museum professionals as mediators. It is still the case that the vast majority of their work is hidden behind the scenes, in spite of the fact that when museums open their own processes up to visitors, the results can be very rewarding. Conservators have offered a lead here, with many trying to find ways to let visitors see and understand their work. Museums could do more to open up the work of curators and researchers, so that visitors see where the information and opinions that museums present are coming from.
Museums can also utilise new technologies that make it easier to offer more than one perspective on an object or collection. Electronic storage of information and images will help to make these multi-layered approaches possible, and indeed has the potential to transform all experiences of museum collections. Many museums have already begun to explore the potential of interpretation using handheld electronic devices. As the technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, all museums should be able to offer visitors a variety of pathways through ideas and information about their collections.
Beyond the museum, the internet offers remote access to many collections and, crucially, to a wealth of information about them. However, the inquiry shows that some museum staff are sceptical about the benefits of investing in digitisation, believing that online access to collections offers a relatively poor-quality experience for a relatively high cost. But this is to underestimate its future potential. Digitisation is not an end in itself so much as a means to an end. It does not offer quick-wins but rather represents a long-term investment. Moreover, the potential of digitisation is not limited to collections themselves. In a digital environment, the ideas and research around collections are just as valuable a resource.
Museums must continue to digitise their collections and the information that accompanies them, as building blocks. There will be uses of digitised collections that cannot be imagined yet. Museums of the future will use the digital resources created today for their own ends, just as museums today use the buildings and collections established in the past for their own purposes. Continued investment in digitisation is vital, and should not be held back by scepticism about the quality of some of the products that currently use digitised collections.
