MEG Conference 2022 - Write Up by Amie KIrby.

 A word from our Chair

Thank you to everyone to made it to the MEG conference this year, including the incredible speakers who generously shared their thinking and practice, challenging us all to approach our work in news ways. A particular thanks to National Museums Scotland for hosting us, and putting on such a well-planned couple of days. After two years of online conversation, it was wonderful to catch up with friends and colleagues, and a real reminder of what makes MEG so unique as a community. 

 

This year’s Bursary holders, Amie Kirby and Rhea Blem were tasked with writing a blog about their experiences of the conference. They capture some of the conversations that were had, and offer critical insight that I think we can all learn from. I was particularly struck by Aime's reflection on the radical - a term which as she articulates so well has a moral capital, drawn on through change-oriented language used by museums with increasing confidence. 

 

Amie Kirby is an early career professional in the museums & heritage field. She currently works for Stockport War Memorial Art Gallery and is available for freelance projects. She holds a BA in Archaeology from the University of Durham, an MA in Art Gallery & Museum Studies from the University of Manchester, and is active in various political organising groups across Manchester. She is interested in the foregrounding of decolonial and abolitionist perspectives in the museum, seeing this space as a site of care-centred, relational practice.

 

“After all, radical simply means ‘grasping things at the root’”

Angela Y. Davis, Women Culture and Politics (1989)

I thought about this quote a lot on my train journey home from MEG 2022. My first time attending any academic conference, this event also was the first time I had met any MEG members in person since joining earlier this year. As a fresh-faced “early career professional” recently out of postgraduate study and considering a PhD, my motivation for attending was to engage not only with the latest invigorating research and chatter permeating the sector, but with people who believe similarly to me – that museums can be agents of social change.

Whilst there were many stimulating, insightful, and productive presentations, provocations and Q&A sessions, and I will summarise my favourites shortly, I couldn’t help but think of the above quote from Davis when reflecting on the many and varied ways in which the work being done is described as “radical”. As it was noted in the plenary discussion, Sara Wajid had previously called the group “quiet activists”. In a similar vein to the use of “radical”, there is much to unpack in the connotations of museum work being “activist”; notably in its romanticisation as Dr. Ayesha Fuentes noted. Moreover, with the decolonisation agenda firmly planted in institutions’ consciousness, how much “activist” museum work is quiet – and how much should it be?

This short summary of my experience at #MEG2022 aims to emphasise that, whilst amazing work is being done, there remains much to do – and it’s our collective responsibility to empower and amplify the voices of the communities who are the most excluded or marginalised by our institutions (Sheila Asante used the term “priority communities” and it has since remained fixed in my vocabulary).

Relationship-oriented Practice

One of the key themes running throughout multiple sessions of the conference was that of co-production. This brought about important critical points, such as how to approach those you wish to work with – instead of expecting them to come to you, how to recognise and act to correct the power imbalances between institution and community, the problems of “community” itself as a homogenising term, and how to ensure relationships are sustainable past the completion of a project.

These issues point towards a greater reckoning of “value” in the museums sector. As Miles Greenwood astutely pointed out, museums have the potential to hold value, i.e. in being freely accessed in cases where there is no admission charge, but their value is far from innate and is not something to be taken for granted. Indeed, the value of museums and the work we find ourselves in is constructed – and once we recognise this, we must question who imposes this value and to which ends. This was further emphasised by Sheila Asante’s provocation that in order to embed care-centred, relational practices into museum work, we must “flip the narrative”. Rather than asking how we can engage our priority communities, we must ask: why encourage people to engage in the perpetuation of trauma? What would their involvement do to enrich their own understanding and wellbeing?

Once this is understood, it is imperative to change the ways in which we work with people. As Asante noted, this must involve the very structures and processes of decision-making that permeate our work; when we lead with the importance of process, there is great scope to understand cultivated relationships as an ongoing process – not a “decolonial” tick-box. Many of the talks across Day 1 highlighted the importance of relationship-oriented practice, such as Dr Karen Jacobs, whose work with Māori artist George Nuku emphasised the importance of privileging Indigenous worldviews which emphasise the relationships between people, and their relationship to land.

Elaborating in the Q&A session, Jacobs asserted a wariness of relationships constructed for or in tandem with a project – as relationships should be reciprocal, longstanding, community-led, and “not extractive”. Similarly, Rosa Dyer noted the importance of building relationships between two individuals, rather than the homogenising and spurious categories of “institution” and “community”. In this way, we must not only rethink structures and processes embedded in our institutions – but we must continually interrogate the place we hold in these institutions and how we carry ourselves as such.

We Must Reinvent to Move Forwards

“But the urgency for decolonisation didn’t come from us! It came from activists out there, indigenous communities out there” – Prof Wayne Modest

In realising the need to diverge from our identities as agents of museum institutions, it becomes apparent that we must break out of the museum walls, so to speak, and to reinvent if we are to engage with the individuals we wish to reach in a way that is meaningful to them. One of the primary ways to do so is to step outside of our conceptions of the important work our institutions do, and to realise instead that relationship-centred, care-grounded community work is being done all the time, it already exists – just outside of museums. By being more aware and mindful of where work already exists, we can begin to look inwards and see where our museums may, or may not, serve, supplement, and amplify this work.

One example I was rather captivated with was that of the Nigeria60 project by the Horniman Museum & Gardens, discussed by Dr Johanna Zetterstrom-Sharp. This project, produced in collaboration with Alafuro Sikoki-Coleman and other prominent Nigerian creatives, explores and celebrates the global impact of Nigerian creativity and directly brings this into conversation with collections of Nigerian material in the Horniman. Here, contemporary collecting of creative material was used as a method to interrogate existing collections with more accountability and criticality whilst using the process of creativity to form an “anti-collection”, in which ideas of fixing, permanence and centrality are refuted. As Zetterstrom-Sharp illustrated, this project serves to remind us that creativity is flourishing all the time, especially outside of museums. By emphasising creation and creativity, museums are better placed to don the role of facilitators, as opposed to animators or controllers of the narrative. This is again supported by Karen Jacobs’ description of the work completed with George Nuku – whereby nurturing relationships with artists and activists can lead to work that challenges the role of institutions.

Where Next: Interdisciplinary, Collaboration, and Grasping at the Root

One of the most exciting elements of this conference was the Work In Progress session, where current PhD students presented their research. The presentations themselves and the Q&A that followed felt dialogic and engaging; allowing speakers the opportunity to receive feedback on their work, and audience members to be provided with fresh, critical thought. Amy Shakespeare’s presentation on “Exhibiting Absence”, for example, was well-conceived and thought-provoking, putting forwards some of the arguments mentioned in this article – such as prioritising the formation of relationships between individuals.

Shakespeare’s use of “the three radicals” (radical trust, radical hope, and radical empathy) as a methodological basis prompted questions surrounding the use, or over-use, of ‘radical’ as terminology. Indeed, we must interrogate our language use continually whilst it changes at rapid pace; this includes recognising that larger institutions are guilty of co-opting or romanticising terms such as “radical” (which are often politically-charged) to denote a wildly different or innovative way of doing things; when in fact this way of doing things has been commonplace for many groups on the peripheries of our networks. Indeed, as I asserted at the beginning of this article, Angela Y. Davis says that radical simply means “to grasp at the root”: to get to the root cause of what you are trying to do and who you are trying to form relationships with. This should not be wildly innovative.

Conclusion

#MEG2022 has proved that museums are at their best when they are for and within the communities they serve. As practitioners, we are at our best when we work together: across distance and across disciplines. The prioritising of relationships and sustainable, embedded care-oriented practice holds true power to enable our users to define the value of museums for themselves: changing institutional culture beyond short-term participatory projects.

As an Early Career Professional whose interests lie in the intersection between museums and political organising, it is welcomed and refreshing to hear so many assertions of what should be done differently in order to prioritise relational working. The next step, whilst difficult, is to let such provocations spur us to action – to work together step-by-step to plot how change can occur in our institutions from the ground-up. As MEG member Mario Tuki from Rapa Nui noted in the end discussion, priority communities are more than capable of speaking for themselves. Arguably, the way we commit to change is to decentre ourselves.

MEG Conference 2022 - Post-conference Reflection by Rhea Blem

A word from our Chair

Thank you to everyone to made it to the MEG conference this year, including the incredible speakers who generously shared their thinking and practice, challenging us all to approach our work in news ways. A particular thanks to National Museums Scotland for hosting us, and putting on such a well-planned couple of days. After two years of online conversation, it was wonderful to catch up with friends and colleagues, and a real reminder of what makes MEG so unique as a community. 

 

This year’s Bursary holders, Amie Kirby and Rhea Blem were tasked with writing a blog about their experiences of the conference. They capture some of the conversations that were had, and offer critical insight that I think we can all learn from. I was particularly struck by Aime's reflection on the radical - a term which as she articulates so well has a moral capital, drawn on through change-oriented language used by museums with increasing confidence. 

 

Rhea Blem is completing her master’s in Art history of the African continent at Freie Universität Berlin. She holds a bachelor’s degree in Art history and English Literature from the University of Zurich, she has worked as a research, curatorial and teaching assistant at the Kunsthaus Zurich, the University of Zurich, and the Max Plank Institute for Art History in Rome. Her master thesis investigates “collecting” practices in late 19^th to early 20^th century KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa in the context of extractive colonialism. Her research interests include the arts and material cultures of the African continent, colonial practices of “collection”, accumulation, and display, postcolonial provenance research, and exploring possibilities for restorative, anti-colonial, and anti-racist approaches to (art-)history and museology.

Post-conference Reflection

Rhea Blem

 

Arriving in Edinburgh from Berlin on the 27^th of April, I was not sure what to expect. The 2022 MEG Conference was the first larger event I would be attending in person since before the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. Looking forward to and simultaneously feeling slightly nervous of human-to-human conversations, I consoled myself with the thought that we were all a little bit “out of practice” when it came to social interactions. I felt excited to spend the following days among people who shared an interest in thinking about museum pasts and presents in order to shape better futures within and beyond museums. Having only recently applied for MEG membership, I knew no one else and was initially quite overwhelmed with the number of people who turned up at the National Museum of Scotland on Thursday morning. Quite soon though, I realised I was not the only one feeling this way and adjusted to the new space, which was already buzzing with lively discussions, and people greeting old friends. The collective excitement at finally meeting up again in person was palpable and contagious. I quickly found myself involved in numerous conversations in what I experienced as a warm, welcoming, and open-minded environment.

What followed were two intense, very interesting days of talks, discussions, exchanges, reflections, which I have decided not to summarise in detail. Instead, I want to revisit the beginning and end of the conference, touch upon recurring themes, and share some thoughts on what struck me as particularly important, what moved me and continues to accompany me now, almost two months later.
In the introduction to the conference, Dr Samuel Alberti (NMS) asked how we can make world culture museums relevant for contemporary and diverse audiences. This served as a point of departure for the subsequent “provocations” panel, which explored the question: How can we make museums relevant for social and environmental justice today?

The respondents spoke about the enduring legacies of colonialism, empire, enslavement, and racism. They stressed the need for museums to be held accountable in addressing and actively disproving these legacies. Sheila Asante (Museum Galleries Scotland) observed that museums, which had been part of a conscious effort to subjugate people historically discriminated against, frequently continue to perpetuate exclusionary and racist narratives. These ways of telling “history through the lens of white [middle class] people” continue to feed the assumption that museums are for certain people and not for “Others”. Museums, Sheila Asante argues, need to develop “racial literacy” and anti-racism needs to be embedded in work structures and museum practices. Miles Greenwood (Glasgow Life) recentred the educational value and responsibility of museums to confront the challenges faced by our societies today (racism, poverty, structural inequality, climate change…). Miles Greenwood also questioned what value is created through increasing the perceived relevance of museums and whom this value serves, asking: What are museums doing to provide social justice for marginalised communities?

 This question was echoed by Nelson Cummins (Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights), who criticised the lack of engagement with questions of empire, colonialism, and racism in some museums, as well as a frequent failure to mention anticolonial resistance and agency of (formerly) colonised peoples. Insisting that museums can be sites of learning and critical engagement, Nelson Cummins argued that museums need to acknowledge not only the history of racism and colonialism, but how these continue to shape our present. Dr Peter Loovers’ (University of St Andrews) contribution reminded of the need to bring social and environmental justice together in tackling issues such as global heating, and of the central role of indigenous peoples in this process. This point resurfaced in subsequent papers that addressed ethnographic collections as “environmental archives” with capabilities to facilitate intercultural and interspecies knowledge dialogues (Rosa Dyer, Birkbeck, University of London and Pitt Rivers Museum), collaborative approaches to research on and conservation of “biocultural” collections (Dr Mark Nesbitt et al., Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Birkbeck, University of London), and indigenous (creative) responses to addressing the colonial dimensions of climate change (Dr Karen Jacobs, Sainsbury Research Unit).

The provocations discussed the challenges and structural problems of the museum sector, but also highlighted the possibilities for museums to potentially function as spaces for learning about and furthering the cause of social justice, for (re)building trust, for community engagement, for healing, for reflection, for restitution[1], for reparations, for forging new narratives, for imagining and shaping better futures, locally, as well as on a planetary level.

Many of the papers presented over the following days would pick up on these aspects, notably the participation  of historically marginalised and/or descendant communities. Several speakers reiterated the necessity for sustainable, long-term partnerships and relationships based on trust, and long-term funding in efforts to put these principles into practice. The equal (re)valuation of and exchange between different forms of knowledge was another returning theme. This should entail equivalent and adequate value (including financially) for participants contributing “indigenous knowledges”. Yet how can this be ensured within ongoing structures of (global) inequality and asymmetries of power? I have also been wondering about the value afforded to the emotional labour invested by descendant and creator communities in these processes. We heard about collaborations, co-curations, and co-production of knowledge(s), about interdisciplinary approaches to provenance research, about repatriation as a historically situated practice, about how social and environmental (and perhaps epistemic) justice need to be thought in conjunction, about reactivations and reanimations of “objects”, emotional and spiritual aspects of working with “colonial collections” and ancestral remains, about museums as process and the potential of impermanence.
It was interesting and also personally relevant to me to hear Dr Giovanna Vitelli (The Hunterian), Dr Briony Widdis (Queens University Belfast), Dr Jeremiah Garsha (University College Dublin) and Mark Hall (Perth Museum and Art Gallery) speak about the specificities of addressing legacies of empire and colonialism in (Northern) Ireland and Scotland. Although I grew up for the most part in Switzerland, my family on my father’s side are white South Africans of mostly British, and, (perhaps not) incidentally, predominantly Scottish descent. Understanding how I am implicated in (ongoing) histories of colonialism and racism, and how this informs and motivates my research, is an ongoing process. I therefore appreciated Briony Widdis’ frank self-positioning regarding her own colonial ancestry as an introduction to her talk. Thinking further about particularities of Scottish or Irish participation in projects of empire and colonialism seems crucial, if issues related to social justice, racism and structural inequality are to be addressed.
As someone who has spent many years observing museums from the “outside” as a student and university researcher, but who aims, eventually, to work in the museum sector, gaining insight into some of the practical challenges, which museum professionals encounter on an everyday basis, was an especially helpful aspect of the conference. Even though I am aware that implementing theoretical approaches to the “ethics” of curation, display, and “care” of “colonial collections” is rarely straight forward, hearing directly from museum professionals about the complexities, challenges, and affective dimensions of their work, is fascinating and humbling. Contributors  reflected on the practicalities of restitution, storage, conservation, and questions of classification with critical self-awareness and humility. Dr Lucie Carreau and Sam Daisely’s honest account of their attempts to respectfully interact with human remains, acknowledged not practical as well as emotional aspects of the “Stores move” project at MAA, Cambridge. Hearing these testimonies touched and impressed me.
I was especially heartened by and would like to highlight the “work-in-progress” papers of the “early-career” PhD researchers (Melissa Shiress, Amy Shakespeare, Nathalie Cooper, Alba Ferrándiz Gaudens, but also Rosa Dyer), who presented convincing approaches to dealing with cultural heritage collected in contexts of colonial injustice.
In a talk on the South African collections at the Horniman Museum, Nathalie Cooper (University of Warwick) referred to Dr Wandile Kasibe’s description of the museum as a colonial “crime scene”, and ethnography as tool of empire and racist violence. These violent legacies are still very much alive in our institutions, in our methods, and in ways of seeing and representing formerly colonised people and places. As we heard at the outset of the conference, these legacies  need to be addressed and repaired by museums, who continue to profit from the absence of cultural heritage in places “of origin”.
For institutions built on dispossession and violence (symbolic, structural, and physical), whose self-image as places that accumulate, store and ostensibly “care for” the cultural heritage of people who continue to be constructed as “Other”, what does “decolonisation” actually mean?
Possible ways forward were proposed in Dr Johanna Zetterstrom-Sharp’s (Horniman Museum and Gardens) talk on the “anti-collection”, which questioned the very nature of museums as spaces with and for collections. The paper offered suggestions for museums to move beyond the logic of accumulation and retention that has shaped their identities and actions. Similar questions were addressed by PhD researcher Amy Shakespeare (University of Exeter), who proposed a “return and explain” approach and explored the potential of engaging with “empty spaces” left behind by objects when they return to places or communities of belonging. These presentations raised questions about the role of restitution in a wider anticolonial framework.
It is absolutely crucial to celebrate every small step in the direction of more equitable relations between museums and descendant communities as well as the growing awareness about colonialism and racism. Nonetheless, I was left with the overwhelming realisation of how much still remains be done. Notwithstanding the comforting examples of “successful” projects, such as the first restitution of “Benin Bronze” from a UK institution by the University of Aberdeen (Neil Curtis) or the possibilities offered by digital technologies to facilitate and enhance encounters and connections between people, places, and things (Louisa Minkin et al; Alice Watterson et al; Dr Ali Clark et al), it seems vital, at this point, not to become complacent. As Neil Curtis admitted, “if you’re more than a hundred years late there’s no sense in saying you’re ‘first’”. The work that lies before us is essential and long overdue. It is unsettling, uncomfortable, and leads into the unknown. Keeping in mind that “decolonization is not a metaphor”[2], as Jeremiah Garsha and Amy Shakespeare cautioned, we need to ask ourselves what museums and what, in particular, white museum and university professionals, including myself, are willing to give up, to further the cause and urgent need for decolonisation? “True” decolonisation  must lead to social-economic justice, i.e., restitution and reparations, and is, ultimately, “not about museums” (Neil Curtis). It has thus become clear, that for museums to be(come) relevant, they need to become instruments of social and environmental change. And this change must serve the needs and wishes of those who have been negatively impacted by the often violent extraction of natural and cultural resources under colonialism, empire, and racism.
I was moved and motivated by the varied and sometimes vulnerable accounts of people’s experiences of working with or on “ethnographic collections”, increasingly together with descendant communities, and of how they are addressing colonial continuities in their institutions. In concluding, I want to recentre questions of positionality and representation by revisiting a prescient statement made in the closing discussion: Mario Tuki (Museo de Rapa Nui, Isla de Pascua, Chile) observed that although repatriation had been mentioned in many of the talks, there had been a lot of talking about and talking for indigenous and marginalised communities. The assertion that there were “communities who could speak for themselves” and the consequent call for a “more balanced testimony of people doing the work on repatriation” was met with an uneasy silence. This silence lingered on and stayed with me after the conference. It reinforced, for me, the urgent need for fundamental and structural change as well as the importance of listening to and actually hearing the voices of people who have been marginalised through European colonial narratives and actions. The recognition that this was still a very white space, also made me question my own position as a white, middle class educated,  “early career” researcher who wishes to contribute to processing colonial history with and perhaps at some point without “world culture collections”.
Prioritising antiracist work on a personal, institutional and societal level and striving for structural change, seems even more urgent in the light of these remarks. Returning to the questions posed in the introduction – “how can we make world culture museums relevant for contemporary and diverse audiences?” and “how can we make museums relevant for social and environmental justice today?” – the participation of people from communities who have been negatively impacted by colonialism, empire, and racism, is key. “Contemporary and diverse audience” need to be part of shaping the futures of museums, not only as audiences or external advisors but on all levels.
Nonetheless, as was made apparent through the provocations, and by the remarks outlined above, museums continue to function as spaces of exclusion and, in some cases, re-traumatisation. As Sheila Asante rightly asked, “Why would you want to participate in a racist museum?” Considering the history of museums, ethnography, and other colonial disciplines as tools of empire and racial violence, and the fact that museums still often re-enact or fail to deconstruct this violence, maybe we should be asking ourselves a different question. For museums to be(come) relevant and accessible to “contemporary and diverse audiences”, and for them to contribute to social and environmental justice today, they need, first and foremost, to become safer, less violent, and more inclusive. So, how can we make world culture museums safer places, not only for “contemporary and diverse audiences”, but for fellow researchers, collaborators, and co-creators, including for members of descendant communities? This question could and should, I think, be extended to events such as this conference where we discuss possible futures of museums.
Realising that the same ideologies and structures that enabled the removal of “objects” from people to whom they belonged, continue to shape our border regimes that violently restrict people’s freedom of movement today, and the added injustice that formerly colonized people and places are disproportionately endangered by the effects of global heating, re-affirms the responsibility of museums and other institutions with colonial histories, but also the need for political action and change. This is a vast and intimidating task, but one which I believe is already underway, and one which people all over the world understand to be essential and are committed to being a part of. The wide range of institutional affiliations of people attending the 2022 MEG Conference attests to the will of many individuals to confront the colonial legacies and racism in their institutions, to focus resources and skills on building trust, to learn and unlearn, to repair. Attending the conference impressed upon me the significance of community for this work, of forming mutually supportive relationships through knowledge exchange and social interactions.
It was incredibly special and a privilege to be able to take part in the 2022 MEG Conference. I am very thankful for the opportunity. I am happy for the many friendly and engaging conversations, grateful to those who charmingly coaxed me out of my shyness, who made me feel part of this community. I look forward to joining again in subsequent years, to seeing new and known faces, and to contributing to creating an open, inclusive environment for discussing and drafting visions of how to build better futures, both within, and beyond museums.

---

[1] During the conference, the term “repatriation” was mostly frequently used. I choose to use the term “restitution”, which alludes to the actual act of “taking” as well as the act of “giving back” to a place or people of “origin”.
[2] Tuck, E., Yang, K. W., “Decolonization is not a metaphor”, in: Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2012), pp. 1-40.
 

MEG Events Officer – Committee Vacancy!

 Museum Ethnographers Group are a UK-based, but international collective, whose members include:

Museum professionals, academics, researchers & students
artists, activists & enthusiasts

Originally established in 1975, MEG has a long history of bringing individuals, institutions and museum collections together to build knowledge and understanding.

MEG believes that our museums have an important role to play in building understanding, foregrounding respect, and caring for each other. However, this is predicated on institutional and practical changes that we all have a responsibility to work towards. We cannot do this work alone and so we use our platform to support each other, share best practice, and collectively imagine a different future.

MEG is an active interface between museum professionals and university-based researchers and is recognised in the UK museums sector as a key subject-specialist network.

MEG is a volunteer run organisation and we are currently looking for an Events Officer to join our Committee from April 2022. The Committee currently consists of:

-          Chair

-          Secretary

-          Treasurer

-          Individual Membership Officer

-          Journal Membership Officer

-          Digital/Web co-ordinator

As Events officer, you will lead on MEG’s program of events and gatherings aimed principally at our membership. This includes our bi-annual Keeping Connected events held online, as well as co-ordinating around 1-2 UK-based visits a year. Primary responsibilities include:

-          Being informed about key projects and exhibitions that are leading best practice within the sector, or can provide inspiration from outside it, and reaching out to organisations/individuals to host MEG events.

-          Consulting with the membership about the kinds of events or best practice that they feel would most develop and support their work.

-          Leading on the co-ordination of events/workshops/study days, online and in person, including developing content, scheduling and sharing information with the MEG committee for distribution.

-          Corresponding with members who are attending to share details about the day.

The role would suit someone who:

-          Is excited about following the most recent developments in conversations, projects and professional practice concerning global collections.

-          Would like the opportunity to network and build relationships with people and organisations in the sector.

-          Has existing, or would like to develop, experience co-ordinating events.

-          Enjoys thinking through and holding conversations about the questions facing the sector, in particular around ethics, justice and future change.

We welcome expressions of interest from across the membership, including early career and graduate students, who can commit for a minimum of 2 years.

This can be a job share/joint role.

To apply, or ask any questions, please contact Johanna Zetterstrom-Sharp at chair@museumethnographersgroup.org.uk

 

 

Keeping Connected – Repatriation

By Johann Zetterstrom-Sharp (Chair)   

 On March 16^th we hosted the first of MEG’s Keeping Connected events, focusing on repatriation.

These events emerged through conversations about what MEG is and what we have to offer, and the recognition that MEG is a community. It has been a place where colleagues have felt supported, able to ask questions they struggle asking within their organisations, talk things through and get advice in a friendly, supportive environment. We have been thinking this past year about what we can do to support our members to do important work, particularly around opening up access (including through repatriation) and decentring knowledge about collections.

At the moment this support feels important. The urgency of acknowledging and working through the colonial nature of our institutions and collections is crucial, but many are working in isolation with little, or unstable, institutional support. Colleagues are often expected to provide quick and complete answers to requests for action within organisations whom publicly promised change in the summer of 2020 without necessarily being ready for it. In other contexts there is the institutional will, coupled with anxiety over risks to funding. We feel sharing best practice and making changes collectively can help.

Repatriation, restitution and return have been flagged repeatedly as something our members feel passionately about, want to support, and see as important to their roles. In many cases, however, our institutions, processes and policies are not ready: there is no clear road map. This is a barrier for all concerned. Institutional inexperience and unreadiness (at CEO, Director or Trustee level) can get redirected towards people whose job it is to care for collections, but have very limited direct power about what happens to collections beyond their status as museum objects. Likewise for individuals and organisations who would like to make a request for the return of their belongings or material heritage, the lack of a clear road map means they do not know how their request will be received, what supporting evidence will be required, or what emotional labour will be expected of them. This is harmful and disrespectful.

The Keeping Connected workshop included short introductions by JC Niala and Juma Ondeng, Emma Martin, and Stephen Welsh, about building trust, writing repatriation policies, and processing requests. Members were then able to indicate who they wanted to speak to and seek advice from in break-out rooms. Some of the conversations had are explored below.

Building Trust

JC Niala and Juma Ondeng reflected on their experience as part of the Rethinking Relationships and Building Trust around African Collections project based at the Horniman Museum in South London, MAA in Cambridge, Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford and World Museum, Liverpool. This project was focused on developing new ways of working in order to build the trust needed to have equitable conversations about the futures of collections, including repatriation. As a result of Covid-19, the project became increasingly focused on understanding and working through barriers to digital access, in recognition that for the majority of community members who would like to access their material heritage in European collections, this access will happen digitally.

Both Juma and JC highlighted how trust is not a given, it takes time and is based primarily not on models of working or templates, but on individuals and their relationships with each other. Relationships are not between museums and communities, they are between people.

A question was raised about how to work through conflicting needs and opinions within communities where the future of collections are concerned. We were reminded that community dynamics are not ours; that includes making decisions about whose opinion is most valid, but also playing the role of arbitrator. By focusing on access and transparency (about collections and provenance, but also crucially museum processes and terminologies) we can provide a community with the information they need to reach decisions that work for them.

For me this is a reminder that we are often impatient to see clear and neat conclusions that fit within the structures of ownership and entitlement that our professions already work within. What is needed is patience and openness. It also highlights that trust goes both ways: we also need to trust that communities know themselves how to manage and work through differences in opinion.

As part of demonstrating that trust, Juma noted the importance of taking the time to identify cultural gatekeepers, leaders and elders within a community, and showing them due respect. This includes ensuring they are kept informed from the beginning so that everyone is on the same page and has all the relevant information.

Repatriation Policy Development

Emma Martin spoke about the process of developing a new repatriation policy at World Museum, Liverpool. The last few years have seen the development of individual repatriation policies for museums across the UK, rather than relying on Arts Council templates. This is significant because it has in many cases forced a reflection on what these policies need to do in anticipation of a rise in formal requests made directly to the museum. For Liverpool, the formal policy will be accompanied by a document written for individuals and organisations who want to approach the museum to make a request or claim. This aims at clarity around process, with step-by-step guidance to build a clear road map. This is as much about supporting the claims process as it is being honest and open in order to manage expectations. That includes the time that it takes to process claims, the potential costs involved, and how claims will be assessed.

This honesty is crucial. Whilst it is understandable that museum leaders want their institutions to be perceived as ethical and committed to social justice, raising expectations that requests for restitution will be always granted, or that the process will be straightforward - when this is not the case - is both disrespectful and harmful. It serves no useful purpose.

Emma reflected on the importance of taking time over the writing of policy, thinking carefully about who will read and use it. At Liverpool this meant speaking with colleagues in the organisation as a first step, ensuring that the whole organisation was on board. This included senior management who would need to defend and understand the policy to advocate for it, and get it signed off. It also included an external public conversation focusing on how this policy might affect visitors to the museum. It is important to recognise that people feel strongly about the museums they love, and may be afraid of change. There is rarely space to discuss what repatriation or restitution actually means in practice, why it is important, and what changes visitors might see, through examples and case studies. The result was that the museum was able to bring people on board who were initially resistant to a transparent and clear policy that might encourage claims.

Processing Claims

Something that comes up repeatedly is the lack of experience colleagues have in working on requests for restitution. This also means that there is a lack of transparency about process for individuals or organisations making a claim. This can be a source of mistrust and misunderstanding for all those involved. It is difficult to provide reassurance that claims will be dealt with respectfully when there are no other examples to point to, likewise inexperience can mean that the integrity of a request is not taken seriously.

Stephen Welsh was invited to talk about his experience working with AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) during the unconditional repatriation of secret, sacred and ceremonial objects to Aboriginal communities in Australia. AIATSIS is a collecting, publishing and research institute dedicated to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and peoples, and led the Return of Cultural Heritage project. Stephen highlighted how once the formal claim was made by AIATSIS, the processing of the claim by the museum took 10 months. This accelerated timeframe was enabled by existing research and experience of repatriation at Manchester Museum, and the experience of AIATSIS working with external repatriation processes and policies, as well as the fact that they had been able to resource their own research process into the collections.

This is of course vital when museums are themselves under resourced to do this work themselves. Agreements had further already been made on the costs and logistics of the return, including clarity about where the belongings would be returned to. There are a total of 3039 Aboriginal and Torres Strait objects in the collection at Manchester, and 43 of these were subject to the request. It is worth adding that although AIATSIS has been incredibly successful acting as an intermediary between communities and museums in supporting the return of objects, some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities approach relationships with museums, cultural rejuvenation and repatriation in other ways.

This case study highlights the importance of building strong relationships prior to the claim, but also how the processing of the AIATSIS claim was relatively uncomplicated because the senior management at the Manchester Museum trusted the organisation and its research methodology. It is important to consider the power of governmental legitimacy, and how this is difficult to translate in contexts where communities do not have that platform nor its resource to make their case, or where the case for return sits in tension with a national position. It is also worth considering the fact that there are strong claims for the return of objects that were clearly taken under duress and have significant spiritual value in other contexts, that have not been answered. This highlights how although policies often state that claims will be answered on a case by case basis, it is not only the details of the case that determine the outcome, but also the way in which a case is articulated and by whom, and how it is resourced. This brings us back to the importance of trust, and access. Without trust and the conversations it enables, we are scrambling around trying to pull pieces together into a mold that was not built to accommodate them.

--------------------------------------

 

At MEG we feel as a collective that enabling the possibility of restitution to become a normal part of museum work is the way to building a better and more humane future for museums with colonial era collections. Crucially, it will help build the trust that is so vital to enabling good work, to understanding our collections better, being more representative, creative and useful to community members and visitors alike. If you have ideas or suggestions as to how we can support you, please get in touch.

Sharing Collections: the future of borrowing and lending

 

 Sharing Collections: The future of borrowing and lending,is a brand new series of free-to-attend live webinars. Each webinar, lasting an hour, will include a panel of professionals working across the arts sector in the UK today. They will explore the journey of borrowing loan objects and exhibition planning, as well as share their insights on the impact the coronavirus pandemic has had on museums and galleries and what the future might look like for lending and borrowing as a result. 

 

The live events will take place online from 2-3pm on the below dates, but will also be available to watch on demand after the series has ended. Each session will focus on the following topics:

 

1.     25 March, Thinking about borrowing: research and planning   

2.     1 April, Making the case and getting it funded: securing your funds 

3.     22 April, Preparing for a loan: managing change and risk 

4.     29 April, Marketing and audience engagement: building a strategy 

5.     6 May, What do we do now: the future of borrowing and lending 

 

The series is closely connected to the Weston Loan Programme with Art Fund, which provides funding for museums and galleries to borrow works from national collections, encouraging the sharing of works more widely across the UK. Attending the webinars will be a useful introduction for potential and new applicants to the programme but isn't a prerequisite and is open to all. Visit  artfund.org/supporting-museums/programmes/weston-loan-programme or contact Katie Lloyd, grants manager, at klloyd@artfund.org for further information.   

 

The series is supported by the Garfield Weston Foundation, and brought to you by Art Fund in partnership with the Touring Exhibitions Group (TEG), National Museums Directors’ Council (NMDC) and the UK Registrars Group (UKRG).

 

Register and find out more information about the series here.

 

BARKER LANGHAM CURATES SESSIONS FOR WORKING INTERNATIONALLY CONFERENCE FOR INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSEUMS UK

 

Working Internationally Conference

Leading cultural consultancy, Barker Langham, has joined forces with the International Council of Museums UK (ICOM UK) to curate a series of panels for the 2021 Working Internationally Conference. Titled Shifting Landscapes, Shifting Perspectives, this online conference takes place over three days (16–18 March) and will explore and debate some of the most significant global issues affecting the cultural industry: social justice, sustainability and the future of museums.

 

ICOM UK and Barker Langham share a common goal to open up discussion on museums, their future and their evolution. Both organisations want to throw a spotlight on the projects and people behind the scenes that are making change in the world.

 

Barker Langham’s global team works with museums, institutions and cultural organisations across the world. This international outlook shapes every aspect of their work and their focus on identifying different perspectives, fresh ideas and best practice has been the genesis of the sessions that they have developed for the Working Internationally Conference.

 

Eric Langham, Founder, Barker Langham 

“It’s a real privilege for us to contribute to this conference and to offer our perspective on the museum world as it continues to shift and evolve. What is especially fascinating is that although we acknowledge that no single country, region or even museum faces an identical set of challenges, or behaves in the same way, the three topics that we focus on – social justice, futures and sustainability – are topics that define humanity.”

 

Each day of the conference will focus on a major global issue: 

Social Justice: Museum responses to decolonisation, restitution, Black Lives Matter, representation and youth on Tuesday 16 March

Museums and Sustainability: Challenges of working in and responding to a changing climate on Wednesday 17 March

The Future of Museums: Where are we now, and where do we go from here? on Thursday 18 March

 

Barker Langham Curated Sessions

 

The Barker Langham curated sessions will examine the complexity of the debates around each of these topics. The films aim to curate a toolbox of ideas and experiences that conference delegates can use to inform and shape their own thinking.

 

Eric Langham, Founder, Barker Langham

“It is our aspiration to make the films conversational so they work in dialogue with the conference participants but also allow us to draw on the wealth of ideas already out there in the world – creating a bigger conversation.”

 

The three hour-long sessions, each based around an audio-visual think-piece, feature a diverse group of speakers. A live Q&A will be held during each session as part of the chat function on the conference platform.

 

Day 1: Wednesday 16 March – Social Justice 

14:00 – 15:00 Barker Langham Curated Session – Just Outcomes 

In the context of a sustained move to decolonise museums, the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and the growth of a global debate about economic inequality, social justice has become a hot topic for museums.

Subhadra Das (UCL), Clara Paillard (Public and Commercial Services Union), Deborah Tulani Salahu-Din (National Museum of African American History and Culture), Matt and Jess Turtle (Museum of Homelessness) and Anne Wetsi Mpoma (independent curator, Brussels) tackle some of the toughest questions facing our profession, from re-centering the stories we tell, to changing pay and hiring policies, to empowering visitors to transform their communities.

_____

 

Day 2: Tuesday 17 March – Museums and Sustainability

14:00 – 15:00 Barker Langham Curated Session – Testaments from the Age of Humans 

Every object can tell a story of humanity’s impact on our planet and every museum has the power to be a voice for climate action. In this session, Barker Langham will take the audience on a virtual journey across the world’s museums and cultural landmarks, showcasing captivating and unexpected stories that shed new light on the way we think about our places, collections and institutions in the context of the global environmental crisis.

This international tour will take in institutions including the District Six Museum, the Brooklyn Museum, the National Museum of Qatar and many more. At each museum, we will hear stories of environmental change and people’s evolving relationship with, and effect on, the world.  

_____

Day 3: Thursday 18 March – The Future of Museums 

This day will be introduced and chaired by Eric Langham

14:00 – 15:00 Barker Langham Curated Session – Responsive Futures

Through political turmoil, public health crises, economic downturns and seismic shifts in global culture, museums have to adapt to survive and remain relevant. Today, many are using rapid-response collecting as a proactive tool to build archives that speak to who we are now. 

 

Sharing inspiring stories of the ways in which museums have responded to disruption, this film will examine the act of collecting in times of strife. With insights from Foteini Aravani (Museum of London), Dr Aaron Bryant (Museum of African American History and Culture), Anna Burckhardt (Museum of Modern Art) and Suzy Hakimian (Museum of Minerals and Chair of ICOM Lebanon), it will ask how museums are navigating ever-changing landscapes, and shed light on why and for whom they collect.

 

Further Information

The 2021 Working Internationally Conference, organised by ICOM UK in partnership with NMDC, with support from the British Council and curatorial support from Barker Langham, takes place online from 16–18 March 2021.  

The conference is free of charge for ICOM UK and NMDC members. For booking, and the full programme of speakers and events, please visit: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/2021-working-internationally-conference-registration-136012148999?aff=erelexpmlt

About Barker Langham

The Barker Langham team includes museum and culture professionals living and working across Europe, China, Africa, the Middle East and North America. Together, they are one of the world’s leading cultural consultancies, creating pioneering and sustainable projects for museums, historical sites, governments and charities. They have successfully delivered over 250 projects, from community oral history initiatives to international mega-museums. Barker Langham’s interdisciplinary team works collaboratively across curation, strategy, interpretation, business planning, audience development, research and recruitment, and approaches every project with the same enthusiasm for seeking out and telling compelling stories and for creating memorable and meaningful experiences. They are expert advisors and mentors for the UK Heritage Fund, the European Union, the Museums Association and UNESCO.

 

www.barkerlangham.com