Cutting costs? BBC Report "Should councils cash in on art?"

Apologies for my lack of updates recently, I have loads of exciting things to report in the next few weeks however so I promise you'll see me return to updating more regularly as well as explaining my absence!

I saw this news piece on the BBC website today, and I have to say the discussion beneath also makes for interesting reading...

"Should councils cash in on art?
As local councils cut essential services to make ends meet, should they cash in on the paintings in their vaults? Or should public art be saved for future generations?"

In the times of cuts to council funding, what are the ethical consequences of selling work bequeathed to local collections such as Bolton Museum, who are selling 35 works to cover costs after funding has dried up?

In 2006 Bury Council were thrown out of the Museums Association after selling a work by local artist L. S. Lowry, their argument being that it was not central to their collection. The MA said the reasons were at odds with policy and threatened their status as a registered museum. Bury council reports that alternatives to selling the painting included raising council tax and parking fines, and cutting opening hours of libraries and art galleries in the Borough.

According to the MA statement:
"The sale of A Riverbank, by L.S Lowry contravenes the following principle of the Code of Ethics:
6.13 Refuse to undertake disposal principally for financial reasons (either to raise income or decrease expenditure). Apply any money raised as a result of disposal, if this exceptional circumstance arises, solely and directly for the benefit of the museum's collection." 

Riverbank by L. S. Lowry - sold by Bury Council for £1.4m (Image Source)

I think on an individual item by item basis it would be justifiable, taking into account how the piece was obtained and its value to the council. Frank Cohen, an art collector, was quoted on the MA website saying: "I realise that they are under-funded, but people won't want to give things away to museums if they think they might be sold in future. If I give something away, I make it a condition that it is never sold." This seems to be the logical way to go about donating to a museum, and it goes without saying that any museum worthy of a donation would not sell the item if it was under that kind of instruction.

At the end of the day, Bury Council bought the lowry for £175 in 1951, and as Simon Jenkins reported so well at the time: "Nobody running a big London gallery under the munificent gaze of ministers and officials can imagine how grindingly tough it is to run a local one in supposedly rich and art-loving Britain... The Museums Association is not protecting galleries by punishing those whose relationship with their council has collapsed under government force majeure."

Of course art is of great value to local communities, but at the end of the day, if you donate something to the local council, they have so much more to deal with financially than a single museum's collection and arts funding comes low on their priorities, especially since further government cuts. Selling work is clearly not ideal, but what are councils expected to do if they are sitting on valuable art, often not even on display but in storage, yet cannot deliver crucial public services or have to cut the hours of the art gallery in the first place. It is easy for an art collector to criticize this decision but in my opinion the wider public will gain more long term from extended opening hours of the service and staff presence as a whole, than from one artwork in the collection.

It is easy to say that their decision shows a lack of respect for the work but I know local museums which have incredible collections yet they have restricted means to display and conserve such valuable works thanks to completely outdated gallery spaces, which they don't have the money to restore. Until the government is prepared to give adequate funding to local museums and archives, councils are left with little option but to downsize in service provision, staff, and in some cases, the collections in order to make ends meet.

This is obviously a contentious discussion and I am just putting down my own personal opinion. Bigger galleries who get greater funding don't have to make the decision whether they should sell an artwork or have less social workers for example. Local museums and galleries are sadly lower on the priority list, after council funds have provided other vital services. I'm sure that every other possible channel of income would have been fully looked into, before the council decided to sell such an iconic and beautiful Lowry painting, and the same goes for Bolton who are currently in the process of selling their 35 pieces, and the money in the case of Bolton must go on the museum in question, as the BBC report states.

Just something I felt like covering briefly, it's a difficult one but I expect we will see more of the same in coming months, especially since Arts Council England completely cut funding for 206 organisations earlier this year including some local councils. If you're interested in reading more I recommend the Guardian's Culture Cuts blog.