Everything is up with the theme of the International Museum Day 2018, observed worldwide on Friday, May 18, 2018, and staked by the International Council of Museums (ICOM), ‘Hyperconnected museums: New approaches, new publics’.
This year’s focus, according to ICOM, was inspired by “Hyperconnectivity’, a term that meant “in 2001 to design the multiple means of communication” in the 21st century. Highlighted then were medium such as “face-to-face contact, email, instant messaging, telephone or the Internet.”
ICOM noted in its 2018 message how new communication methods can improve visits. “Thanks to technology, museums can now reach way beyond their core audience and find new publics when approaching their collections in a different way: it can be the digitalisation of their collections, adding multimedia elements to the exhibition or something as simple as a hashtag that allows visitors to share their experience in social media”.
If this theme is to be examined in the light of the most glaring issue with Nigeria where museum-going culture has declined in the last two to three decades, perhaps the 2018 theme of International Museum Day comes as a wake-up call to review the relevant government agency’s approach towards better relationship with the public. It was all about the need to keep pace with the changing world of communication, considering the expediency of the recent times.
ICOM established International Museum Day in 1977 to increase public awareness of the role of museums in the development of society, and it has been steadily gaining momentum ever since. Last year, ICOM said the International Museum Day had “record-breaking participation with more than 36,000 museums hosting events in some 156 countries”.
This brings to mind the question by Dadiba Pundole, owner of the Pundole art gallery in Mumbai, one of India’s oldest galleries: “Can anybody enlighten me about the government’s role in promoting art, and I hasten to add culture,?” His response: “They have failed miserably and it is only the private players that have kept the scene alive.”
Looking at the government’s role in the art management, Marion Maneker, art analyst, speaking on the Indian art market and the China Cultural Revolution, says one of the crucial issues in the growth of the Indian art market–or slower pace of that growth–has been the absence of government support. “In China, there was a recognition that without the government, the devastation of the Cultural Revolution would be too long-lasting.
However, Chinese efforts to promote art resulted more in an overseas response. In India, growth has been autochthonous if one also includes Non-Resident Indians as part of the buying equation. One could argue that this will make Indian art stronger and broader in the long run. Of course Pundole’s opinion is the position.
Looking at the state of the national museums in Nigeria and how they could be managed, the rule is usually justified on the ground that works in museum collections are held ‘in trust’ for the public and therefore cannot be sold. The problem with this argument is that museums in other climes sell work all the time. Remember: some rules clearly permit the sale of artworks so long as the proceeds are used to buy more artworks.
Some analysts are of the view that since artworks are ‘held in trust for the public’, the sales between institutions should then reasonably be allowed by the management of different museums, provided proper records are being kept.
But they are not. If the works in the collections managed by National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM), Nigeria’s 50 state-owned museum facilities having nearly the same number of functioning galleries spread across the country’s six geo-political zones, are held in trust for the public, what is wrong with a sale from one to the other? The transferred works continue to be held in the (same) public trust, just a few zones away.
Funding for the museums come solely from the Federal Government, a recurring spending that is part of the country’s huge non-revenue yearly civil service burden on the nation’s increasing deficit infrastructure. The argument about the public trust therefore raises an unforeseen issue.
If museums are a public trust for future generations, why are they allowed to duplicate missions and compete for works? After all, as we have seen in other places, there is wasteful competition for donor funding, duplication of infrastructure and the failure of museum managements all over to live up to their responsibilities. If art is held in trust, museums should be rationalised for the best access of the public.
Then of course there is the question of who is the best custodian for a work of art– an individual or an institution–and what are the best mechanisms for transferring custody of the works–the art market or institutional authority. Do we really believe the public, in the form of the government, is best at deciding what is meaningful and lasting art?
In recent times, private collectors have done more to advance our understanding and appreciation of art than any government institution. What about large private institutions? What is their track record on innovation? And if that record is good, why should they be hampered by rules about the ‘public trust?’
Obviously there is no single answer here. But without a meaningful debate on those issues, we are left with shrieking and moralising that does little to bolster the public trust.
As national cultural institutions, museums may not necessarily be a profit-making entity. But they should be self- funding as it happens in other climes. Going to Europe, the U.S or other developed countries to cite examples of museums that do not rely on government funding might not exactly fit analysing Nigeria’s challenge of managing cultural institutions of public interest.
In Africa, precisely the North African country, the Ministry of Antiquities’ affiliated museums were last year reported to have made a total revenues of $45million with 974,400 visitors for 2016. The report added that the museums achieved the highest revenues in December, recording EGP 6.8million with 117,000 visitors, while the lowest revenue reached was $1.7million in June with 21,800 visitors.
Nigeria’s apex, National Museum, Onikan, Lagos, would come as a benchmark to evaluate others in the country. The Onikan museum, according to News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), recorded 17, 656 visitors in first quarter of 2018. NAN, two weeks ago, quoted Education Department Head, Emmanuel Omotosho, that the patronage was 403 visitors higher than the 17, 253 recorded in the first quarter of 2017.
What categories of visitors recorded? 15,142 students, 2,310 Nigerian adults and 204 foreigners visited the Lagos museum during the period under review. However, records of visits in the last three years suggest both an increase and decline. Omotosho recalled how the museum had 42,724 in 2015; 46,359 for 2016; and 41,826 in 2017.
Regarding the improvement of the state of Onikan Museum to attract more visitors, governments – past and current – appear not to have done enough. While a Federal Government of Nigeria-Ford Foundation project aimed at remodelling the museum with $2 million was suspended by the foreign donor due to the inability of the government to provide N500 million counterpart funding, in 2010, nothing seems to have changed with the new regime. Over two years ago, the Federal Ministry of Information and Culture and Lagos State Government announced a joint effort to remodel the museum.
In the proposed plan, Governor Akinwunmi Ambode of Lagos State promised that his government would build a new complex to house some of the museum’s collections. In fact, the design of the proposed new complex was released. But it seems nothing has happened till date as there was no sign of any new facility being erected within the Onikan Museum premises. Like the FG-Ford Foundation botched project, which included a conservatory laboratory, the Lagos State intervention may just be another promise unfulfilled.
Comments are closed.