Sir Nicholas Penny and Dr Bendor Grosvenor respond to the ‘mansion experience’ report
Art historians have expressed their alarm at proposals to make curatorial staff redundant, reduce the opening hours of country houses and remove objects and furniture from display.
Sir Nicholas Penny
Sir Nicholas Penny, who was Director of the National Gallery in London until 2015, writes in the London Review of Books blog that the report ‘must have left many people feeling that further support for the organisation should be conditional on the removal from office of those in the executive who endorsed such a document.’
“The highly paid directors of visitor experience, of culture and engagement, of welcome and well-being, and of course of marketing, would rather be rid of the troublesome experts who actually know about the history and character of what the visitors wish to see.”
Sir Nicholas also says that ‘the ‘vision’ seems to have been written by someone with a prejudice against the curators currently employed by the trust. There is a strong emphasis on the desirability of partnerships but no mention of the research already being undertaken by curators together with schools and universities. It is stated, without any evidence, that the number of visitors to country houses, and the volunteers helping to keep them open, ‘will dwindle.’’
He expresses concern that the plans seem to envisage the National Trust having no specialist curators to look after its world-class collections of furniture and Old Master paintings. ‘It seems more likely that the highly paid directors of visitor experience, of culture and engagement, of welcome and well-being, and of course of marketing, would rather be rid of the troublesome experts who actually know about the history and character of what the visitors wish to see and are keen to study. Plans to stifle and marginalise such experts are not new but Covid-19 has provided the perfect cover to get rid of them.’
Dr Bendor Grosvenor
The art historian Dr Bendor Grosvenor writing in the Art Newspaper comments that ‘how the National Trust expects to increase accessibility to its houses with fewer objects on display and fewer curators is not made clear.’
“Many staff feel senior management are using the crisis as an excuse to finally transform the National Trust from an organisation whose primary purpose is preservation to one that prefers to deal in entertainment and experiences.”
Recent staff reductions confirm the trust’s ambition, however, as it is explicitly set out in the ‘Ten Year Vision’, to ‘dial down’ its role as a ‘major national cultural institution.’ Given the depth of the Trust’s collections across the regions (the Trust manages some 144 accredited museums) it is hard not to see these cuts as one of the most damaging assaults ever seen on the UK’s art historical expertise.’
He thinks it is ‘heartless’ to sack staff and make conservation professionals compete for fewer positions and points out that the amount of money saved by these redundancies will be very small compared to the losses suffered by the Trust as a result of the pandemic. The consultation is meaningless, he argues, as only one proposal has been put forward for discussion.
Dr Grosvenor says that ‘many staff feel senior management are using the crisis as an excuse to finally transform the National Trust from an organisation whose primary purpose is preservation to one that prefers to deal in entertainment and experiences.’