Ask the Expert Q&A, 6 November: Curating larger and working objects by Dieter Hopkin
Dieter Hopkin, Museum Development Officer for York, North Yorkshire Moors & Coast, will be answering your questions on Curating Larger and Working Objects in Museums on Friday 6 November between 2-3pm GMT.
Dieter Hopkin has worked in and with a wide variety of independent, local authority and national museums including the National Railway Museum in York.
Curating larger and working objects
Larger and working objects have often been problematic for many curators. They tend to be heavy, difficult to handle and often arrive in a poor or dirty condition. They also demand space for display or storage and may be difficult to collect and move to the museum site. They were also frequently seen as robust objects and kept outdoors or with minimal protection. Perhaps this is why nineteenth and twentieth public transport in many social and local history museums tends to be represented by the odd ticket, timetable, photograph or model rather than a real vehicle like a bus or tram. In taking this practical approach have we missed out on opportunities for presenting and interpreting major parts of our nation’s and region’s social and economic history?
Some national and regional museums responded to the decline in traditional industries by collecting machinery, plant, transport and agricultural equipment and are now facing the challenge of rationalising their legacy collections. These include objects which may have had little curatorial care or practical maintenance since they were acquired ten, twenty or more years ago so are in a poor condition or may have been taken apart many years ago and the notes, plans or drawings lost. As “technical jigsaws” they pose additional challenges. Other museums have chosen to withdraw from this entire area of collecting and pass their material to the independent or enthusiast sector sometimes with minimal safeguards. At sites like Snibston in Leicestershire, recently forced to close, there is a threat that the large industrial objects in the museum collection will have an uncertain future.
Since the Second World War individuals or groups of enthusiasts have independently “saved” material and frequently restored it to “working” condition. Indeed, their work in undertaking what in some instances are “heroic restorations” has meant that objects continue to exist. However, objects have been significantly modified and key information for their biographies is destroyed. This approach in keeping objects “alive” is often contrasted with a caricaturing of the museum approach of museums which “stuff and mount” them to preserve primary evidence.
The independent museum sector responding to the perceived lack of intuitional interest in new disciplines like Industrial Archaeology filled the vacuum left by most local authority funded museums and founded what are now very successful institutions like Ironbridge or the SS Great Britain.
This sort of material has frequently been the Cinderella of the museum world and in these times of straightened public sector resources how can significant material which has been retained be assured a secure future? The question also needs to be asked: what is worth saving? Many “preserved” objects may have had a longer working life in a heritage context and have been significantly degraded through “restoration”, re-building and re-painting. Others have deteriorated due to a lack of basic care. Can they still be genuinely seen as real tangible evidence of the industry that produced and used them originally?
A dearth of practical standards on how museums should effectively care for and conserve these collections from within the sector has led to the standards of the enthusiast restorers becoming the norm by default. Similarly, there appears to be a popular position which legitimises re-painting, rebuilding and restoration as continuing the practices that would have been used during the working lives of these objects. This approach seems to ignore the fundamental change in significance and status of an object when it enters a museum collection. It is good to see that the Standard for the Museum Care of Larger and Working Objects is currently under long-awaited review which should hopefully re-enforce the need for practical, museological and ethical approaches to understanding and managing these collections.
There are no simple solutions to the preservation of Britain’s industrial heritage in museum collections but we should avoid knee-jerk and ill thought out solutions to ensuring the long-term care of this important part of our national heritage.
Dieter Hopkin, will be answering your questions on Curating Larger and Working Objects on Friday 6 November between 2-3pm GMT.
You can post questions before the Q & A session, on 6 November , or you can converse in real time with our expert. You can use the comment box below to post a question, or you can use twitter with the hashtag #mdyask.
Comments have to be moderated, to protect the blog from spam, so if your comment doesn’t appear straight away, don’t worry, we’ll get to it as quickly as we can.
If you have a problem submitting questions, either in the comment box, or via twitter, please email your questions to gillian.waters@ymt.org.uk
If you have ideas for subjects you’d like to see us cover in future, or would like to take questions yourself, please get in contact with us and let us know.
Your Comments
Gillian Waters |
@MDTurnpenny asks “Is there a guide that I could share with a colleague, trustee or volunteer to explain the basics of working with larger and working objects? #MDYask
Rachel Wade |
Is there anything museum visitors can do to help encourage the protection and conservation of large and working objects?
Gillian Waters |
How doe re-building and re-painting larger and working objects harm the objects?
Dieter Hopkin |
Hi Michael,
Although published in 1994 MGC’s Standards in the Museum Care of Larger & Working Objects remains one of the most useful documents and it has not been superseded
It can be downloaded from: http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk/news/item/487-standards-in-the-museum-care-of-larger-working-objects
The Association of British Transport & Engineering Museums earlier in 2015 commissioned a piece of work to look at the need to review and update the publication.
Dieter
Darran Cowd |
Should museum’s that have large objects externally stored or displayed that have significantly deteriorated seek to arrest it through preventive conservation or restore them to the condition they were in when accepted in the collection?
Dieter Hopkin |
Hi Gillian,
Many people consider that re-painting, re-building or radically restoring simply carries on the practice that many industrial, agricultural and transport objects would have been subject to during their operational lives. However, what this seems to loose sight of is the fact that objects have been selected with a history or “biography” for the museum’s collections and that this is a key element of what the museum is trying to preserve.
“Heroic restorations” can almost reduce the object to being an effective replica and in some instances the “preserved” machine is as much a product of the museum process than the industry which originally manufactured it. What is also key is that any work undertaken is accurately recorded and important evidence not destroyed. It should also in good conservation practice be reversible.
Sometimes compromises have to be made but sound curatorial and conservation approach needs to be taken to keeping key material evidence. If objects have to be stored outside then it is practical to repaint them to give them at least a basic level of care from the environment but again this should be recorded. Of, course it would be better if it could be kept under cover. However, for some reason it appears to have become common practice to ignore the usual curatorial standards in looking after this type of object and it is seen as less important than say fine art – would we consider radically over painting a nineteenth century oil painting or sticking the arm back on Michelangelo’s Venus? If not, then why would we do it to important objects from our industrial past?
Dieter Hopkin |
Hi Rachel,
Visitors are key to proving the worth of our industrial collections. Many find this type of material inherently more accessible and they are able to connect with it – perhaps more than they might immediately engage with say contemporary fine art (with apologies to my curatorial colleagues in that field). They often provide a tangible link to an individual or community’s past. Many museums and heritage organisations in the independent sector are successful in fundraising for acquisition and conservation of industrial material from their visitors and users because of this. Communities can also be very articulate in advocating for funding for these types of collection or against threats to industrial collections as has recently been highlighted in the campaigning to save the collections at the Snibston site in Leicestershire.
They can also engage with national and regional bodies like the Transport Trust, the Association of British Technical and Engineering Museums and the Association for Industrial Archaeology which are active at a local and national level.
On a practical level many museums with this type of collection depend on volunteer support to help them do many of the practical tasks involved from engineering to subject and local history expertise. So you don’t have to get covered in rust, grease and grime if you want to support in a practical way. Becoming a volunteer can frequently be a useful and rewarding way of supporting preservation in this field.
Gillian Waters |
Hi Dieter,
When will the Association of British Transport & Engineering Museums work on reviewing and updating MGC’s Standards in the Museum Care of Larger & Working Objects be published?
Gillian Waters |
Rebecca Mileham @r_mileham asks How do you feel large industrial objects are best interpreted? #mdyask
Dieter Hopkin |
Hi Darran,
I suppose the “trixie” answer is “it all depends”. I’ve covered some of the points on this in my earlier response. In an ideal world museums which are active in this field ought to aim to be able to arrest deterioration of a new acquisition by putting it in a secure environment. I raised the point about dual standards relating to this sort of collection as opposed to most other kinds. I can’t think of a museum that would acquire a large work of art and then allow it to stand outside waiting for some day when it might be restored. So why has it become to practice in this field?
We are all aware that there was an urgency in collecting much of this material as we moved into a post-industrial world after the second world war but to-day I think that we need to seriously look at what is a sustainable collection both locally and nationally that we can adequately look after in our museums and heritage organisations. this may require a radical re-appraisal of what is currently held. In some instances the object may have suffered significantly from neglect due to a lack of resources and consideration needs to be given as to whether the evidential value of that object has been so degraded that it ought to be de-accessioned and disposed of to allow the concentration of the available resources on more important items. One thing that I think is absolutely fundamental is that we make decisions about the objects in question on the basis of a good understanding of them and their significance which includes a comprehensive examination of the internal record of the object itself.
Some of the practicalities of preventative care do not have to be all that expensive. some metal transport objects for example can have a reasonable life outside if protected from the extremes of the weather and are regularly given some kind of barrier coating which could be a protective coat of paint or a product like Waxoyl. This is not ideal but better than nothing. I’ve come across organisations that have had the slightly misguided approach of “If it does not move then pain it!” when it comes to industrial objects and while well-meaning this can frequently be a flawed approach.
Each significant object should really have its own conservation and management plan which is based on a sound understanding of the specific object or the needs of that type of object. Although this may not currently be achievable for some museums it ought to be at least an aspiration.
There is nothing better than properly understanding our collections and their significance locally, regionally and nationally to help to determine the best approach to the care of individual and groups of objects.
Dieter Hopkin |
Hi Gillian,
I’m not sure when or how ABTEM will take this work forward beyond the feasibility stage which should have been completed by now. You could look at their Blog site at https://abtemssn.wordpress.com
or get in touch with them directly via their www site http://www.abtem.co.uk/
Dieter Hopkin |
Hi Rebecca,
It is often argued that industrial, transport and similar collections are best interpreted through demonstration and operation. This also gains great support from those who want to get involved in the practical arrangements to “make the thing go”. This is often contrasted with the popular public perception of what “dusty fusty museums” do when they “stuff and mount” industrial objects on plinths.
It cannot be argued that the sight of a locomotive or airplane at speed is not very impressive and capable of pulling all kinds of emotional strings which give a great experience foe the viewer. However, this seems to miss the point that the material evidence in those objects is being continually degraded with very substantial replacement of materials and upgrading to meet modern regulations and safety standards. There are also sadly cases of critical loss to material and human lives when old machines fail in operation. The sad losses of historic aircraft and people which recently hit the national headlines is a frightening reminder of this.
One colleague from the USA had cause to correct a visitor who remarked in a transport museum “Would it not be better if it was working?” with the reply “It is working but in a different way” Our challenge as museum curators and interpreters is to get the objects to give up their stories to engage our audiences and users with the wealth of fascinating stories that they hold. These things are often awesome pieces of machinery themselves but they also link to lives and stories of many others. Technology can help but the tangible contact with the real thing is the uniqueness of the museum experience.
Dieter Hopkin |
If your museum is interested in networking with other museums with transport and industrial collections in the Yorkshire region why not come along to a meeting looking at local needs for an industrial and transport museum network for Yorkshire
Wed 9 December, 10.00am to 3.30pm
The Ironworks, Elsecar, Barnsley
From mining and mills, to waterways and windmills, Yorkshire’s industrial landscape reflects the nation’s rich history of industry.
HLF and Elsecar Heritage Centre are hosting a free event for local groups to celebrate Yorkshire’s industrial heritage as part of the 2015 European Year of Industrial and Technical Heritage.
This free event will give you the opportunity to:
• Find out about successful industrial heritage projects and meet with other organisations
• Discover funding opportunities for your project
• Take part in discussions about the need for a Yorkshire Industrial Heritage Network
• Feedback ideas and issues to the Industrial Heritage Support Officer for England
Find out more and book your place now at: http://www.eventbrite.co.uk