KEEP YOUR HAIR ON, DEAR
The press: Paul Johnson
examines media coverage of the V&A bust-up
ANGER is the enemy of persuasion. If you want to intervene effectively in a public controversy, it is well to keep your tone moderate and, in particular, to refrain from personal abuse. A letter to the Independent from Sir John Pope- Hennessy, on Mrs Esteve-Coll and the Victoria and Albert Museum Row, ignored this prudent rule. Its opening words, 'I have so far refrained from intervening in the controversy ventilated in your col- umns,' were almost as off-putting as the notorious 'It has been drawn to my atten- tion'. This condescending note continued throughout the letter, envenomed by academic bitchiness. 'I deplore', intoned Sir John, `the vulgar popularism of the lady who enjoys the title of director.' He felt obliged to 'record the view' that her decisions were 'asinine' and that she was `ignorant of the principles of museology'. She had 'exposed' the V&A to 'ridicule'. Sir John could not refrain from taking swipes at the chairman who appointed 'the lady', Lord Carrington, who 'has since retreated to a fur-lined nest in the commer- cial art world', and the present chairman, Lord Armstrong, who was 'associated in the public mind with the phrase "econo- mical with the truth" '. After reading this mean little missive my heart warmed to Mrs Coll.
The impression was strengthened by another extravagant attack on her in the Daily Mail, by its Arts Correspondent, Robin Simon. The article was so one-sided as to forfeit much credence, and reflected the unpleasant snobbery which has marked the response of the museum establishment to Mrs Coll's reforms. Simon persisted in referring to her as `a former librarian', as opposed to a `distinguished academic'. She was merely the holder of `a part-time degree as a mature student' and `the rest of her qualifications don't amount to a row of beans'. She had been — horrors — at a polytechnic and then 'at Surrey Universi- ty'. Afterwards, 'She was, for 18 months, librarian at the V&A. Er . . . that's it'. I have worked in the V&A's National Art Library, and it is excellent; running it, I imagine, requires considerable knowledge and specialist skills. So why all this sneer- ing at librarians? According to a profile in the Sunday Times, Mrs Coll is 'a highly cultivated academic with a first-class de- gree in the history of art'. The complaint about her by `the cosy intellectual museum elite' is that she lacks 'a background of public schools, Oxbridge and ancient museums' and, equally important, is 'not a member of the Courtauld Institute-trained coterie that binds art historians and museum curators'.
One thing she does seem to have learned, however: good manners. She has maintained a dignified silence in response to many personal attacks made on her recently. Are 'art experts' really quite so unpleasant as their remarks suggest? One of the curators Mrs Coll has forced out, John Mallet, Keeper of Ceramics and Glass, unwisely published his letter of resignation written, as he put it, `in sin- cerest contempt'. He denounced Mrs Coll's 'judgment and good faith' and said she had made the museum 'ridiculous'. It had fallen 'into the hands of trustees entirely appointed by the Government and prepared to accept any humiliation'. 'The Government', he added, 'may reward such cringing behaviour with medals'. He him- self was sticking to 'true honour' and `values' (and was taking the redundancy money). Mallet's tone was typical of many other contributions from arts and museum people, national and international, which have been printed. But, as any student of debate knows, self-righteousness com- bined with the attribution of the worst possible motives to opponents is not the 'Over the moon – 124. Sick as parrots –121.' formula to persuade the uncommitted. Ian Hay Davison, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph written on behalf of the trustees, did what is always wise in such a con- troversy. He eschewed emotional lan- guage, refrained from personal abuse and insinuations, and simply tried to set down the facts. He did not point out, as he might have done, that the V&A, under the regime of 'honour' and `values', was facing an appalling crisis until the present reforms were set on foot. Much of the trouble is no one's fault. The museum is under-funded and it has an enormous and notoriously leaky roof. It employs more staff than it can afford. According to the Sunday Times, 83 per cent of its running costs this year will go in wages, `and by 1991 the entire grant will be swallowed up by pay'. In a letter to the Times, the Director of the American Museum in Britain, writing in support of the ousted curators, praised the `superb' way in which its collections are `available and presented'. But another expert correspondent, this time in the Observer, was very critical of one collec- tion: `The exhibits were badly — even wrongly — described, photos were missing in the display areas. No catalogue specific to furniture was available. . . •' As one who visits the V&A regularly, and loves it, I have been aware for a long time that something was fundamentally wrong. I can believe, as critics of the old system claim, that curators ran their departments like independent baronies and that there was no clear policy for the museum as a whole. There seems to have been a lot of bad feeling among senior staff, to put it mildly.
What the immense media coverage the V&A row has received was unable to tell us was whether Mrs Coll's reforms will work. I don't at all blame her for cutting down 'research'. It is, to be blunt, over- rated. My cynical old mentor on the New Statesman, Aylmer Valiance, used to say: `If you can't decide how to end a leader, just put: "More research into this problem is imperative." ' I have to read a good deal of academic art scholarship, much of it by museum people, and about half, possibly more, is research for the sake of research. Perhaps it ought to be conducted at institu- tions specifically created for the purpose, where it can be properly evaluated and monitored, rather than in universities and museums, where everyone does their own thing, and self-promoting 'scholarship' proceeds at the expense of the primary purposes of teaching and displaying. The most useful comment on the Coll reforms came from Noel Malcolm, who has done a bit of research himself. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, he reported that the Coll reforms were derived not, as their critics claim, from commerce, but from other museums, notably the Science Museum and the National Maritime Museum. Both are now in excellent shape, as anyone can see. Now why weren't we told this before?
Previous page
