The Twenty-First Century Museum and Gallery

Submitted by Catherine Croft

Introduction
Valuing Buildings: the importance of a place to go
Social Inclusion and Social Capital
Valuing Collections: why not just a café then?
What is wrong with Exhibitions?
Curators: Taste makers and leaders or facilitators responding to public trends?
Something nasty in the woodshed: Collections in the cupboard
Interaction and interpretation- will IT transform museums?
Regional Relationships
Conclusion
References
Other Sources

Introduction

Given the chance, the 21 ^st Century will be a great century for museums- for popular museums that people enjoy going to again and again. There is an enormous need for places that bring people together, places where people can meet, be inspired, refreshed and reinvigorated. Museums can give all this and more, they can allow us to see the world in new ways, challenge assumptions, offer relaxation, entertainment and education. Many of our regional museums combine three great strengths: great collections, great buildings, and great staff. Starved of resources, none of these is being used to full advantage. We need to concentrate on working out what museums could do better than anyone else, and be sure that this is something that the public wants as a priority it is prepared to see public money spent on.

As yet, despite in many cases trying hard to overcome traditional preconceptions, museums are still seen as places "for intellectuals and posh people" where the atmosphere is "quiet, reverential and unwelcoming to children" (Hooper-Greenhill, 1994:7). The real challenge is to make changes without losing the best of what we have: many visitors want museums to be calm and contemplative, and museums should remain as centres of expert research and scholarship, and places where "valuable" objects are kept and cared for. We need to investigate how we can achieve "the coexistence of almost urban noise experiences alongside experiences that enable focus and slowness." (Obrist, 2000:45). Obrist has crystallised the problem:

"That is, for me, the most exciting way of thinking today- the incredible surrender to frivolity and how it could be compatible with the seduction of focus and stillness."

What external changes in the C21 will impact on museums and galleries? To envisage what the C21 museum could be we clearly need to consider what the impact of new technology will be. (Appleton, 2001a; Various, 2001) This is sure to be a significant factor, but broader trends will also have a major impact. These include changing work patterns, including changes to the number of hours worked, the times people work and the location of work. We are also likely to see changing social patterns such as more single person households, more single parent families, more active retired people, more concern about letting children out on their own, more ethnic diversity and less shared cultural knowledge, and changing relationships of both individuals and instructions with schools and colleges. (Cabinet Office, 2000) All these are very relevant to any analysis of what museums should be doing, and who they are doing it for.

Equally essential is a recognition of the changing role of the city, and the changing roles of other public buildings, institutions, leisure facilities and visitor attractions, such as libraries, homework clubs, and commercial new media resource centres. Museums (with some notable exceptions such as the homework-club at Walsall Art Gallery), have been poor at recognising and responding to changing patterns of institutional structure, are too inward looking, desperately trying to maintain what they have and not looking for new opportunities. One example is a lack of interest amongst museum professionals in the fate of parish churches. Few see this as something they wish to engage with, but if church attendance levels continue to drop at their current rate we will soon be facing a pattern of widespread redundancy of buildings across the country. These are buildings which hold the combined memories of the whole economic cross section of society, recorded in inscriptions, monuments, fittings and textiles as well as architecture. Conversion to any economically viable alternative use is more or less impossible without major destruction. Is there scope for church visiting to become as popular as country house visiting? And if so surely museum professionals should see themselves as the people with the most relevant skills to make the most of this?

What do we want from museums? Universal provision for all, or idiosyncrasy and specialisation? Should we be aiming to provide a standard range of museum experiences for everyone, at regional level? Should each region have a Cézanne, a stuffed tiger, a display of Roman archaeological finds and a set of early electrical kitchen appliances? Does equality of museum experience mean a standardised approach? We are already seeing a backlash against the monotonous unification of our high streets, a longing for the one off rather than the chain or the multiple. Surely the same desire exists with museums? We want a basic level of provision across a wide range, but we want to enjoy the quirky, the specialist, and even the outright eccentric. Should museums concentrate on what makes the regions special, in terms of history, people or landscape? Textile industry in Manchester, landscape painting in Cornwall, Asian culture in Leicester? All these are critical questions.

Remarkably there is a general consensus among all groups in society that museums are "a good thing", even if they personally have no interest in visiting them. (Davies, 1994; MORI, 1999). It would be disastrous to risk losing this feeling of passive goodwill. This could happen through placing too great an emphasis on "accessibility" and seeking to compete with entertainment-sector attractions such as amusement parks, computer games, soft-play centres or multiplexes. For museum staff to be seen as principally as outreach workers, providers of art therapy or social workers in cultural disguise, also risks undermining this basic credibility: more people believe what they see written on the museum wall than what is written in the press, broadcast, or spoken by a politician. This is amazing.

top

Valuing Buildings: the importance of a place to go

There is no doubt that the museum sector is in a pretty poor physical shape at the moment. Shabby buildings make staff and visitors feel undervalued. Unlike our similarly run down hospitals, where we are more or less compelled to spend time if we are sick, no one has to go to a museum. We only go out of choice. Many of our existing museums are in fantastic buildings: they desperately need major investment to make them the sort of places that people want to go to. Too many have the ambience of a run down hospital or workhouse, the chipped layers of gloss paint, the stained suspended ceilings, mismatched show cases, out of date displays. People notice and care. The solution is not just good new buildings, although we should be aiming to build anew in each generation. We can also capitalise on our existing buildings. Very few regional museums are in dull buildings, and these ones should be sold. The private sector recognises the value of good historic buildings; the success of numerous bar/club/restaurant/coffee shop conversions shows this. Building types once regarded as stuffy and elitist (such as banks) have no difficulty in drawing new, younger, racially diverse range of customers. Many of our museum building are in state more likely to evoke mild public pity than make people want to be in one, or be seen in one.

In contrast many galleries are more buoyant. It is no co-incidence that many of the more successful galleries have taken on some of the ambience of commercial galleries, to which no stigma of under funding is attached: we want to participate in success. The open front desk laid out with a few carefully arranged stacks of elegant catalogues that greets visitors to the new galleries at the Lowry Centre owes more to the world of the gallery-as-shop made cool again by the impact of Brit Art. The much quoted "Tate Modern Effect" has demonstrated that people are not shy of modern and contemporary art, but most importantly it has shown that people value a new place to go, a place that is spacious, free of entrance charges, and encourages people-watching with glazed balconies over the central space with its dynamic ramp. An emphasis on buildings is not a fashionable starting point for a review of the role of museums (compared to exploring outreach or Internet possibilities), but with people more desk bound in their jobs, and more hours spent in front of the TV or the computer screen, places where we can go for a change of scene, a recharging break are vital. The building itself is the largest and most prominent "object" in any museum's collection. It should be displayed to its best advantage. The Tate Modern is undoubtedly a glamorous spatially exciting building. The importance of this cannot be under emphasised. The Guggenheim in Bilbao is too, and Kiasma, Helsinki. These are all buildings where people go to see and be seen. They are prominent buildings externally, dominating major views. They are redefining the physical image of cities and featuring on the picture postcards. At a smaller scale the Walsall Art Gallery and the Tate St Ives have had the same impact: both are highly visible, dramatically different and draw attention to themselves. It seems no co-incidence that all are located directly by water, combining an urban location with a traditional landscape of contemplation, travel and possibility. (Ritchie, 1994)

What do they offer internally? Can one generalise about what makes a good museum building? A mix of size of spaces, from large public ones to the more intimate; places to sit (visiting a museum can be a physically arduous activity for everyone)either alone (it is important that museums are public places it is socially acceptable to go to on your own, unlike cinema, or theatre) or in groups, with the collection or away from it. Beautiful materials which are tactile as well as visually attractive, a café, a cinema, a good bookshop, and smart WCs with baby changing facilities are all needed. Again and again visitors emphasise their desire for a decent cup of coffee, a nice glass of wine. There is an unfortunate presumption that many museum professionals see these as frivolous requirements to be intellectually superior about: but they are essential to people's enjoyment of what is in part a social event.

Museums should become important public spaces, our equivalent of the streets of the Mediterranean passagiato. The entrance hall and main circulation space of the new Millennium Galleries in Sheffield is explicitly conceived as a new street, linking through to the yet-to-be-built Wintergardens, it blurs the distinction between city and museum. (Long, 2001) But ideally we want museums that people will seek out, and not need to be subtly lured into. We desperately lack any new civic buildings we can be aesthetically proud of, and through which we can walk unrestricted by security exclusions. The nineteenth century role of churches, town halls and stations, has been inadequately replaced in the twentieth century by shopping malls. The museum can provide a safe public space, and one that is a socially acceptable meeting place. This may be especially relevant for members of vulnerable communities, and for families wanting to give children some sense of freedom, but not wanting to let them loose on the streets. (Hooper-Greenhill,1997) For both the museum becomes a manageable microcosm of a city. This has been recognised by architectural critics. For instance Rob Bevan cites Lefebvre, and identifies museums acting as "monuments to an apparent censuses about the present and future as well as the past." In his opinion "public buildings, and especially museums are positioning themselves as containers for cultural discourse other than cultural artefacts- repaying the usual locus of the street" (RIBA, 2001). This is a remarkable development.

top

Social Inclusion and Social Capital

Why is this issue of cultural discourse important? Commentators (primarily in the USA) including James S Coleman (Coleman, 1990) Mark Granovetter (Granovetter, 1995) and Robert D Putnam (Putnam, 1993,1995,1996) have charted the decline of "social capital", the "features of social organisations such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit" (Putnam, 1995:67). Civic engagement can be measured by recording the percentage of the population who turn out to vote, go to church, belong to a political party or to a local organisation; volunteering is one element of this, but the active service-provision that this implies is only a small part of a wider phenomena, which is shrinking. Government policy increasingly relies on public engagement, as school governors, health policy advisors, local residents groups. But this push towards greater public involvement runs contrary to current trends against joining and belonging. A recent cabinet office document "The Future and how to think about it" (Cabinet Office, 2000) puts the following dilemma top of its list of "dimensions of uncertainty": "Will increased prosperity and individual freedom allow us to build social cohesion and find new ways of living together, or will society become increasingly fragmented and conflict-riven as people pursue their own interests at the expense of others?" Is there a role for museums in reversing this decline?

To date museums have emphasised tackling social exclusion, aiming education programs in particular at those under-represented as museum visitors. Many of these happen outside the museum building, and there is evidence to suggest that they are little more than diversionary activities, involving people for the duration of the programme but with little long-term impact. They are also ghettoising; not often mixing members of different groups together, but concentrating on one sector at once. It would be more beneficial to consider how museums can create greater social cohesion amongst the breadth of their visitors. Are the majority of museum visitors feeling that they are participating in a communal activity? Do they feel any sort of connection to their fellow visitors? Do they speak to one another? (Rarely) Would they like to? (Have we ever asked them?). "Singles nights" at the Walsall Art Gallery were considered peculiar and risqué enough to attract national media attention, (BBC Radio 4: Front Row; 12/2/2001) but surely it is more odd that we set up private views and social events at museums where, unless there is a professional networking agenda, people very rarely talk to anyone besides the person they came with. Mass membership of organisations such as the National Trust, environmental charities and museum members or friends programmes etc. has been seen a contradiction, belying the trend towards increasing isolation, but Putnam categorises these sorts of involvements as "tertiary associations" : "For the vast majority of their members , the only act of membership consists in writing a check for dues or perhaps occasionally reading a newsletter..... Their ties , in short are to common symbols, common leaders, and perhaps common ideals, but not to one another" (Putnam, 1996:70) . Should museums be radically rethinking how they involve their "friends" or members as a start to changing patterns of how we interact with each other in museums? (O'Neill, 2000).

This objective of more interactive involvement of visitors should also (but certainly not exclusively) cause a re-think in how museums use volunteers. Volunteering is at a low ebb. Few museums make good use of volunteers, on the whole they are used for low-skilled, repetitive tasks, and often work in relative isolation from both staff and other visitors. Little thought is given to what volunteers themselves get from the process, and increasingly the volunteer is perceived not as an altruistic "good thing" but as a sad misfit and physical evidence of chronic under funding (ideally there would be more junior staff, working more efficiently, requiring less time consuming supervision and encouragement). Volunteers could be given tasks specifically geared to boosting the museum's role as a generator of social capital. For instance by encouraging mentoring or buddying programs where young adults are trained to give one-to-one tours for children. This may not seem significantly different to traditional volunteer guiding programmes (more common in small private museums and historic houses than major regional museums), but it is importantly less about conveying information and more about building relationships.

top

Valuing Collections: why not just a café then?

What have museums got to offer that restaurants, clubs bars and cafes cannot provide? The answer must lie in the strength and appeal of their collections. The pre-eminent importance of collections should be self evident and not need stating, but increasing focus on audiences is in danger of causing museum professionals to lose sight of what really makes museums special. The basic premise behind museums, that objects can embody values, tell us more and communicate more directly than a description (in written or spoken words, pictures, film, animation) is not an alien one. Why else do we continue to surround ourselves with objects in our homes? That objects have meanings, and have different meanings for different people and in different contexts is in fact universally understood, and not a piece of obtuse museology. We need to be more confident about the power and appeal of our museum collections.

top

What is wrong with Exhibitions?

Given the intrinsic appeal of the objects themselves, what goes wrong? Hooper-Greenhill (1999) describes how many exhibitions or displays follow a transmission model of communicating, aiming to transmit ideas and information from a knowledgeable information source to a passive receiver as a linear process. Replacing this basic model with a cultural approach which "understands communication as a society-wide series of processes and symbols through which reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed" builds on cultural studies thinking and should lead curators to a more iterative development process, and a healthier respect for the different starting points of different visitors. This kind of awareness is now current in many museums, so why have the results not been more satisfactory?

In part this may be due to prosaic factors: declining exhibition budgets, and lack of staff time, but it must also be the result of a general lack of direction, and lack of universally praised exemplars. Poor interpretation techniques come between the visitor and the object, rather than made for a more immediate and magical encounter. Design quality is important, as well as content and technique. Many displays (particularly interactive) belong in the bright plastic world of the toddlers' soft play centre. Greater aesthetic emphasis is needed because we are increasingly design aware: this knowledge has transformed restaurants, museums are lagging behind. Branding of museums, developing a design consistency at a high standard gives important coherence and links exhibition design to the overall museum experience.

There is a perhaps a misplaced belief that every exhibition has to be all things to all people. In this respect the recent Modern Britain exhibition at the Design Museum was interesting: a deliberate attempt to provide an introductory show and not necessarily push the boundaries of academic debate or suit the expert. "It is perfectly possible for some-one to have a high-art experience, even if they don't have a high-art background", according to Chris Smith (Wroe, 2001) but how to accommodate a range of viewers simultaneously still seems to be a problem. In his Guardian review Jonathan Jones (Jones, 2001) sees a patronising and cynical attitude as the root cause of his frustration with the British Museum's "Cleopatra" exhibition, which interestingly he feels had a dual focus, "aimed at two publics the museum imagines to be completely separate. One is a mass audience who need something crude to draw them in... and the other is the academic community". In his assessment, this led to picture boards everywhere "as if this was a corporate presentation", and a lack of real objects.

Many exhibitions have sought to make subjects more accessible by presenting them in a new context, perceived by curators as being less elitist. (Davies, 2001) This has been especially problematic for art galleries, accused of presenting works as social history evidence rather than fine art, with the presumption that the response to it will therefore be at a more prosaic level. The thematic rearrangement of collections at Tate Modern, the Museum of Modern Art Glasgow have met with poor critical reception, and been seen as examples of "dumbing down". Mark O'Neill quotes the Scotland on Sunday review of The Birth of Impressionism 1997 in Glasgow "this is quite simply the worst exhibition have ever seen.... It is crass unintelligible and a positive danger to the general public. What we have here is not an art exhibition but a history lesson.... in which the pictures become mere tools" (O'Neill, 2000) . The Sheffield Millennium Galleries have opened with Precious a classic "greatest hits" show of beautiful objects, but as well as show casing amazing things, it does seek to work on a more thematic level, asking what makes something precious? who attributes values? and how relative are they? The success of this show seems to be that visitors can feel at liberty to take on board or ignore the didactic themes, and this show has not been slated.

top

Curators: Taste makers and leaders or facilitators responding to public trends?

There is a real question of how valid much of this criticism is, whether it is any useful way representative of visitor responses. It is clearly not that critics are not trying to empathise with audiences, but the dialogue seems to be largely undermining of innovation.

TV programmes (such as "Changing Rooms") show that the role of an expert guiding facilitator does not have to be alienating. In principle, expert curators should be able to make great exhibitions and displays that are not elitist, but are there enough dynamic and imaginative individuals? Does our museum system nurture and support this type of creativity which is so central to its core objectives? Many institutions appear to have lost faith in their curators' ability to have vision, bringing in artists to juxtapose new with old, fine art with objects of mass production, to provoke new ways of seeing. Good examples of this are the work of Fred Wilson in the US (especially Mining the Museum 1993 The Contemporary/Maryland Historical Society in Baltimore), and another joint project, Give and Take, by Hans Haacke, which grouped objects from the V&A in the Serpentine and contemporary art works within the V&A galleries. (Corrin, 2001)

So what should curators be aiming to do? Making the visitor understand the object, learn who made it, why and when, is a limited objective. Making objects "relevant" is a simplistic definition which suggests a patronising approach to the visitor and does not recognise any forms of common human experience and concept of social inclusion. The best displays are those which stimulate the visitor to ask questions, to explore their own reactions to objects, which push beyond the authoritative, factual passing on of knowledge to a more discursive, associational exploration of ideas promoted by the object.

top

Something nasty in the woodshed: Collections in the cupboard

Having emphasised the value of collections, it is important to recognise that not everything that has ended up on a museum is necessarily worth keeping. We can't keep everything, and need to be highly selective and increasingly rigorous as the pace of production of objects and the sheer number of things out there carries on increasing. From a post-war mentality which saw saving things as thrifty, prudent and altogether admirable, there has been a remarkable shift. Magazine articles encouraging us to clear out our junk, send any garment not worn in the last twelve months to a jumble sale and Feng Shui our homes make it clear that harboring too much "clutter and baggage" is psychological dubious, if not an explicit sign of mental instability. This has been current in some degree for a long time (that burning the relics seen in Emma), and has been explored by art works such as Michael Landy's Break Down, the gradual public physical destruction and rendering down of all of the artist's possessions in the old C&A shop on Oxford Street, and the Not For Sale exhibition of discarded objects deemed "not worth keeping" which toured car-boot sales throughout the country. (Landy, 2001)

At some level this must make curators feel undervalued and marginalised, rather than important keepers of collective memory with a vital role. To reverse this we need a public convinced that we are keeping the right things. What do curators keep in their cupboards? There is a suspicion that much of it is junk that is expensive to house and conserve. Various strategies for freeing up museums from the "burden" of caring for collections have been proposed. Of most direct relevance to regional museums is the model of a giant regional store: a vast shed to which all duplicate objects and items not wanted on display could be dispatched. Apart from the logistics of negotiating where such stores should be constructed, and who should pay for them, there are many other problems. Would the public have access to these stores? Would only "legitimate researchers" be able to visit? Should servicing this sort of access be a financial priority? Would not having objects to hand limit the potential for curators to be inspired by objects and develop new display ideas?

Thompson (2001) explores what else and where else we could be using collections. Should we be using some "surplus" objects as handling collections, not worrying if they fall apart? Should regional museums be loaning objects to a wider range of local museums, libraries or schools? If we do, should museum staff be controlling what use is made of them? Programmes such as the Reading Museum (Reading, 2001) have successfully put objects into private office spaces (private office owners are prepared to pay for the service, although the fees charged do not reflect the true costs of providing this sort of service). Should we be extending this type of project? The most success objects selected by/for Reading provided a "wow factor" (ugh) , they had aesthetic appeal and presence: were attractive and intriguing. This sort of model would be far more effective if it reached out into the pubic realm, preferably to enliven places where we have to wait, or choose to linger. On this basis top of the list would be hospitals (rightly already involved in many projects), but what about displaying "real objects" at bus stops, train stations? pocket parks where we stop for a lunchtime sandwich? This would demand very tough display cases, and perhaps CCTV monitoring. But should that be an insurmountable barrier?

top

Interaction and interpretation- will IT transform museums?

For the last ten years museums have worked hard to put computer screens in galleries. If this means that visitors spend a large proportion of their time looking at a screen and not at the museum then this seems to be a major mistake. Josie Appleton describes how museums are misusing computers in three ways: "to promote interactivity", "to recreate whole experience multimedia displays" and "to modernise"(i.e. to compete with Play station 2). (Appleton, 2001a; 2001b) The novelty of looking at a computer screen is fast wearing off. Looking at a screen is a chore, looking at the real thing becomes a rare treat in comparison. Added to the problems of allowing sufficient access to screens at busy times, this suggests that computers used in this way will become less popular. Part of the obsessive interest in putting computers in museums has to be down to the age of the curators: many strategic decisions over display techniques are currently been made by a generation of curators who were taken to science museums when they first introduced experiments you could participate in, and they were great. Surely the most nostalgic grown ups argue if relatively primitive science could do much, then modern technology will be far better? Paola Antonelli an architecture and design critic a New York's Museum of Modern Art remembers igniting a Metropolis-looking high-voltage-discharge-machine in a Milan museum. "It was the most dusty and archaic machine you can imagine...and it was thrilling. In science museums this kind of primitive interactivity was a great bonus. But today the high-tech glitz is often a cover for a void of imagination. A goal in itself rather than the means to an end" (Osborne, 2000). Some uses of technology will endure: it does help to see a video of a hare running across an open field at the same time as seeing just how strong its legs look, up close to a stuffed specimen, but more and more visitors seem likely to have researched before hand, or to want to follow up on-screen information at their leisure later. The on-line catalogue therefore becomes far more important than the gallery interactive.

Jo Taylor (marketing officer at the Design Museum) sees an evolution from early museum web sites which replicated brochure information about what is on when, and how to get there, to ones which gave a taster of collections "a glimpse of thigh" (in the form of an on-line tour), to a more imaginative use of the web as a compliment to the physical museum (in addition to the more basic information); in the case of the Design Museum by commissioning web-based art works. As yet few museums make great use of notice boards or chat rooms, but potentially this type of facility could help to foster a greater sense of involvement and a greater readiness to interact with others on visiting the museum.

top

Regional Relationships

The museum/gallery sector has no problem recognising that London has the greatest concentration of brilliant art and museum collections in the country, housed in some of the best buildings. Not to acknowledge this would show a naive lack of self awareness which is definitely not present. That said many regional museums are proud of their own links direct to foreign audiences, not using London as an intermediary. Recent examples include the Aberdeen City Art Gallery tour of Japan, (Melville, 2000) . Manchester sees itself as a European hub, with its own airport, Hull has natural links across the North Sea (closer than much of mainland Britain) and many south-eastern towns are forging partnerships with towns across the Channel. Sharing museum collections can reinforce these links, and will become more prevalent and important.

The relationship of regional museums with the National museums in London needs to be a dynamic one. The idea that London will generously lend objects and expertise is overly paternalistic and offensive to regional staff and audiences, but regional museums want to participate in the high profile of the London Museum experience. Manchester City Art Gallery is delighted to have been the first regional museum to lend a work for display at Number 10 Downing St. They are anxious to gain the kudos such exposure brings: not least because it helps attract sponsorship and endorses value: everyone wants to be wanted. Regional museum staff are keen to promote collaborations between their staff and the staff of national museums.

top

Conclusion

If museums are to flourish and to nurture and stimulate society they need investment. They need to aim beyond the traditionally educational, beyond the business of facts to the realm of the imagination. They need to reach out to the young and the old, to those working in creative industries to those at the edge of society. They must act as agents of social inclusion, but they must also serve those seemingly most enfranchised, those in work, in relationships, in decent housing and decent health. If Museums and galleries are going to appeal to those at the margins they need to cultivate the centre too. They need additional resources to make best use of the Internet, to invest in buildings and to mount imaginative exhibitions. When this has been achieved, they will be agents of cultural change, and enrich the lives of a huge number of people.

top

References

Appleton, J (2001a) 'New Technology is dumbing down our museums', London: The Independent, May

Appleton, J (2001b) 'Museums: pushing the wrong buttons?', http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002d09d.htm

Cabinet Office. (2000) 'The Future and How to Think About It', http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2000/strategic/future.shtml

Coleman, James S. (1990) The Foundation of Social Theory, Cambridge: Harvard U.P

Corrin, L.G. (2001) Give and Take, London: The Serpentine Gallery

Davies, M (2001) 'Interactive art galleries' Museum Practice, pp25-33

Davies, S. (1994) By Popular Demand: A strategic analysis of the market potential for museums and art galleries in the UK, London: Museums and Galleries Commission.

Granovetter, Mark. (1995) 'Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness' AM, Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994) Museums and their Visitors, London: Routledge

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed) (1997) Cultural diversity: developing museum audiences in Britain, Leicester University Press.

Jones, J. (2001) 'Infamy! Infamy!' London: Guardian, April 14, Review p 6

Landy, M. (2001) Break Down, London: Artangel (see also - http://www.thingsnotworthkeeping.com )

Long, Keran. (2001) 'Underneath the Arches (The Millennium Galleries in Sheffield)' Building Design April 12, p 15-17

Melville, J et al (2000) A Scottish Collection -Treasures from Aberdeen Art Gallery, Aberdeen: Aberdeen Art Gallery

Miles, R., and Zavala, L. (eds) (1994) Towards the Museum of the Future: New European Perspectives, London: Routledge

MORI (1999) Visitors to Museums and Galleries in the UK - Research findings, London: Museums and Galleries Commission

Obrist, H-U (2000) 'Kraftwerk, Time Storage, Laboratory', in Wade, G (ed) Curating in the 21 ^st Century, Walsall: the New Art Gallery, pp45-56

O'Neill, M. (2000) 'The Good Enough Visitor', unpublished paper

Osborne,L. (2000) 'Kiss the Sky', Metropolis, http://www.metropolismag.com/html/content_0500/emp.htm

Putnam, Robert D. (1993) 'The Prosperous Community', The American Prospect, v4 no 13, March 21

Putnam, Robert D. (1995) ' Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital' Journal of Democracy, January

Putnam, Robert D. (1996) 'The Strange Disappearance of Civil America' The American Prospect, V7 no 24

Reading Museum Service (2001), Corporate Membership Scheme, Reading: Reading Museum Service: Internet: http://www.museumofreading.org.uk/maboutus.htm

RIBA (2001) 2001: An Architectural Odyssey Exhibition -The Renaissance of Public Space in Britain, London: RIBA

Ritchie, I. (1994) 'An architects view of recent developments in European museums', in Miles and Zavala, (eds), op cit

Thompson, K. (2001) 'Collections and Research', task force working party essay

Various (2001) Unpublished proceedings of Oxford Union debate - 'This house believes that museums are in danger of losing the initiative in the digital revolution'

Wroe, N. (2001) 'The fine art of politics', London: The Guardian, April 7, p 6

top

Other Sources

Anon. (2001) 'The DNA of the V&A', London: The Guardian, 4 April

Appleton, J (2000) 'Stop this litany of buzzwords', The Spectator, 25 November

DCMS. (2001) Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years, London: DCMS

Irving, M (2001) 'How to get on in the art world' London: The Independent on Sunday, 21 January, p 4.

Jenkinson, P (2000) 'The New Art Gallery Walsall', Wade, G. op cit, pp 13-18

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1995) 'Audiences - A Curatorial Dilemma', in Pearce, S (ed) Art in Museums, London: Athlone, pp 143-163

Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1999)"Education, communication and interpretation:towards a critical pedagogy in museums", in The Educational Role of the Museum,(ed) Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Routledge:London and New York

Lowenthal, D. (1996) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, London: Viking

Middleton, VJC. (1998) New Visions for Museums in the 21 ^st Century, London: Association of Independent Museums

Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery, 2000 'Sexwise', unpublished information sheet.

Roodhouse, S. (2000) 'The Wheel of History' - A Relinquishing of City Council Cultural Control and Freedom to Manage: Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust, International Journal of Arts Management, 3:1.

Selwood, S. (2001) The UK Cultural Sector: Profile and Policy Issues, London: Policy Studies Insititute

Solomon, D. (2001) 'The Whitney Museum's New Tastemaker' New York Times, May 2

Stringer, R (2001) 'Museum Chief urges art sales to raise cash' London Evening Standard, 3 May

Vergo, P. (ed) (1989) The New Museology, London: Reaktion

top