Tweet
This is an interesting discussion and my real life experience may shed some light on the questions posed re museums.
For more than 20 years I have been a museum professional. I work for one of the world’s larger museums with some 40 million objects in our collection and 1.2 million square feet of facility on a 5 acre campus. This isn’t meant to impress but rather to convey I am privileged to be both senior in the industry AND at a really big place. The end result is that I get to “see” more of the industry than many people. I also attend trade conferences and regularly meet with colleagues worldwide.
There are LOTS of things about museums that most people find confusing and contrary to their belief about museums. Much of this has to do with the word itself and the fact that museums are among the most trusted organizations in Western society. Much like a library; they are seen as keepers of “truth” and purveyors of neat stuff. But, this isn’t really all a museum is . . . there’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes that helps differentiate between collections of stuff, historic sites, and full-on educational/research institutions with a heck of a show room (aka big museums).
The biggest hurdle is where on the spectrum a museum lies. For example, within the United States and Canada there are something like 35,000 "museums" or historic sites/houses. That’s an incredible number and many are very small. The vast majority of museums are 1 to 3 person affairs. Many exist within a building originally owned or gifted by the founder of the museum. Most of the motorcycle museums we run into are like this – they are collections that grew into something else.
The big cut involves accreditation. Only 1,100 museums in the US and Canada are accredited by the American Association of Museums (AAM). To attain professional accreditation, you go through a massive external review every 10 years. My colleagues and I just completed our 10 year renewal in May 2020 – and it took us a year to go through.
To put this in perspective, AAM reviewed 71 museums in 2020 and only 45 received accreditation (and my own organization was one of those 45). There are lots of reasons museums are not accredited or receive another categorization. So, it doesn’t mean anything is wrong. Another way to think of this is the difference between a chiropractor and an orthopedic surgeon specializing in back surgery. Both work on your back, both are doctors, but one is more strictly licensed/trained and is trusted to conduct surgery/prescribe drugs. You access both as needed, but one you REALLY trust to get it right.
At present, about 4 percent of the 1,100 accredited museums in US/Canada are specialty museums (military, transportation, etc.).
The differences really start coming in when you get to management philosophy. An accredited museum has much more stringent collections policies. These policies dictate what may come into the collection, the process for deaccessioning, and a strict prohibition against conducting appraisals, employee trading/profiting, etc. Various positions within museums also have professional bodies that set ethics standards, etc. Similarly, most transportation museums grew out of a private collection someone didn’t want to sell but did want a tax break against when settling an estate or creating a trust. As such, they are collections – but not necessarily true museums. A great example is the Volo Auto Museum in Volo, Illinois. It is incorporated as a museum for a small collection of custom TV/Movie cars . . . the remainder of the “collection” is for sale and it’s really a big collector car dealership with an antique mall. But, it is a museum in the strictest legal sense. Confusing for sure.
Now that I’ve gone on too long; let’s shed some light on the statements/questions posted here about collections, insurance and fire.
There may or may not be an insurance payout equal to the value of the collection. Most professional museums for fiscal audit purposes value their collection at $1 and the collection is NOT insured item by item but rather in a general sense. Insurance is for different reasons in the industry. The most common object by object is for offsite presentation (ie art traveling to another museum for an exhibition). Some of those policies are downright interesting and VERY high dollar. There's a reason the Golden Funerary Mask of King Tut did not travel North American in 2007 . . . and most of it was the insurance value. Most collections of stuff labeled as a museum DO value each object. This is common for private military museums, aviation, and a lot of auto museums. So, it really comes down to how the management operated the facility and this is true of almost all North American and European countries.
This is way more common with motorcycle museums than people realize due to the easy nature in which large numbers of valuable bikes can be concentrated under one roof and the huge number of combustibles each presents. Even drained of fluids, old paint and tyres are amazing pyrotechnic displays at full fire temperatures. The biggest loss of motorbikes to fire in recent years was the National Motorcycle Museum fire in 2003 just outside Birmingham, England. About 300 bikes were lost. Whilst some burnt; more than ½ were damaged by the water used to suppress the fire. More on that in a moment.
Most professional museums have strict collecting policies. These policies make it difficult to accession (formally accept) objects and even harder to de-accession (sell) objects from the collection. The later part is what makes insuring vehicles different/difficult. Not impossible; difficult. Most collections of stuff do not have these types of policies and freely trade/sell items as they see fit. This is especially true for transportation museums which often insure their vehicles to take to demonstrations/rallies/etc. As such, the collection is seen as more “transient” and often under insured compared to true market value for replacement. Hence when they do burn down . . . they usually max their payout pretty fast.
Most professional museums employ professional curators and collections managers specifically trained in those items/types of items. As such, they evaluate and consider all these aspects. Most collections managers are charged with presenting plans to safeguard collections that include storage space grading and fire suppression. This same level of professionalism is VERY difficult for transportation museums as it is hard to set a qualification bar and meet salaries for true professionals. For example, I am a graduate of University Birmingham with specialization in the archaeology of transportation and heritage management (the UK version of Museum Studies). I had three classmates. You read that right – three. Total. Before the programme went T.U. a few years ago due to low enrollment; it averaged 3 graduates a year. In it’s roughly 30 year history – that is less than 100 qualified graduates. Leicester had a similar program of similar size and the US has only one Industrial Archaeology program which touches on transport. So, right there, finding qualified curators for a transportation museum means you’re likely hiring historians or folks with a keen interest in vehicles. Whether they are trained professionals in that discipline or in museum studies is a whole different matter. Not to mention, most transportation museums barely earn a profit and cannot afford top professionals. None of this means the folks running these museums are poor at their jobs. Again, like the Chiropractor or the Surgeon . . .these are not poorly educated people nor indifferent.
All of this means many motorcycle and car museums reflect a single collector and often don’t have the resources or training to care for the collection/facility/programming in the same way as really big professional museums. The end result is that protocols and systems to prevent catastrophic loss are limited in smaller transportation museums and the destruction tends to be total.
However, don’t think big museums are exempt from burning to the ground. Most major museums are in HUGE historic buildings that have limited or no fire suppression. If a fire starts – it is devastating. One of the biggest recent losses was Brazil’s National Museum, which burnt to the walls in autumn 2018. And, most museums are two paychecks away from financial straights instead of one pay check like smaller places. So, recovery is very difficult even with insurance. Add in the disruption of COVID and it's a perfect storm.
With regards to fire suppression -- museum professional love and loathe fire suppression. In most cases buildings constructed prior to modern fire codes are exempt from retrofit with active, wet suppression or sprinklers. I have been involved with a retrofit as well as a full dry system install and it is eye-poppingly expensive. If the museum is on the ball; they also redesign their storage systems at the same time so that if the sprinklers do activate there is a buffer to protect as much as possible. This is where it gets more fun as there are only a couple of makers of museum grade storage cabinetry in the world . . . so now you're both paying and ordering long in advance. It's a lot of moving parts and our management meetings can be quite interesting (well, if you're a geeky museum person wondering how to preserve things for centuries).
The honest truth is that wet suppression more or less destroys the items under preservation -- and often causes as much destruction as the fire. Once the sprinklers kick in; the damage is done and the organization is in recovery mode. Even with full insurance and a good team it is difficult to recover from the loss of permanent collections.
For more than 20 years I have been a museum professional. I work for one of the world’s larger museums with some 40 million objects in our collection and 1.2 million square feet of facility on a 5 acre campus. This isn’t meant to impress but rather to convey I am privileged to be both senior in the industry AND at a really big place. The end result is that I get to “see” more of the industry than many people. I also attend trade conferences and regularly meet with colleagues worldwide.
There are LOTS of things about museums that most people find confusing and contrary to their belief about museums. Much of this has to do with the word itself and the fact that museums are among the most trusted organizations in Western society. Much like a library; they are seen as keepers of “truth” and purveyors of neat stuff. But, this isn’t really all a museum is . . . there’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes that helps differentiate between collections of stuff, historic sites, and full-on educational/research institutions with a heck of a show room (aka big museums).
The biggest hurdle is where on the spectrum a museum lies. For example, within the United States and Canada there are something like 35,000 "museums" or historic sites/houses. That’s an incredible number and many are very small. The vast majority of museums are 1 to 3 person affairs. Many exist within a building originally owned or gifted by the founder of the museum. Most of the motorcycle museums we run into are like this – they are collections that grew into something else.
The big cut involves accreditation. Only 1,100 museums in the US and Canada are accredited by the American Association of Museums (AAM). To attain professional accreditation, you go through a massive external review every 10 years. My colleagues and I just completed our 10 year renewal in May 2020 – and it took us a year to go through.
To put this in perspective, AAM reviewed 71 museums in 2020 and only 45 received accreditation (and my own organization was one of those 45). There are lots of reasons museums are not accredited or receive another categorization. So, it doesn’t mean anything is wrong. Another way to think of this is the difference between a chiropractor and an orthopedic surgeon specializing in back surgery. Both work on your back, both are doctors, but one is more strictly licensed/trained and is trusted to conduct surgery/prescribe drugs. You access both as needed, but one you REALLY trust to get it right.
At present, about 4 percent of the 1,100 accredited museums in US/Canada are specialty museums (military, transportation, etc.).
The differences really start coming in when you get to management philosophy. An accredited museum has much more stringent collections policies. These policies dictate what may come into the collection, the process for deaccessioning, and a strict prohibition against conducting appraisals, employee trading/profiting, etc. Various positions within museums also have professional bodies that set ethics standards, etc. Similarly, most transportation museums grew out of a private collection someone didn’t want to sell but did want a tax break against when settling an estate or creating a trust. As such, they are collections – but not necessarily true museums. A great example is the Volo Auto Museum in Volo, Illinois. It is incorporated as a museum for a small collection of custom TV/Movie cars . . . the remainder of the “collection” is for sale and it’s really a big collector car dealership with an antique mall. But, it is a museum in the strictest legal sense. Confusing for sure.
Now that I’ve gone on too long; let’s shed some light on the statements/questions posted here about collections, insurance and fire.
There may or may not be an insurance payout equal to the value of the collection. Most professional museums for fiscal audit purposes value their collection at $1 and the collection is NOT insured item by item but rather in a general sense. Insurance is for different reasons in the industry. The most common object by object is for offsite presentation (ie art traveling to another museum for an exhibition). Some of those policies are downright interesting and VERY high dollar. There's a reason the Golden Funerary Mask of King Tut did not travel North American in 2007 . . . and most of it was the insurance value. Most collections of stuff labeled as a museum DO value each object. This is common for private military museums, aviation, and a lot of auto museums. So, it really comes down to how the management operated the facility and this is true of almost all North American and European countries.
This is way more common with motorcycle museums than people realize due to the easy nature in which large numbers of valuable bikes can be concentrated under one roof and the huge number of combustibles each presents. Even drained of fluids, old paint and tyres are amazing pyrotechnic displays at full fire temperatures. The biggest loss of motorbikes to fire in recent years was the National Motorcycle Museum fire in 2003 just outside Birmingham, England. About 300 bikes were lost. Whilst some burnt; more than ½ were damaged by the water used to suppress the fire. More on that in a moment.
Most professional museums have strict collecting policies. These policies make it difficult to accession (formally accept) objects and even harder to de-accession (sell) objects from the collection. The later part is what makes insuring vehicles different/difficult. Not impossible; difficult. Most collections of stuff do not have these types of policies and freely trade/sell items as they see fit. This is especially true for transportation museums which often insure their vehicles to take to demonstrations/rallies/etc. As such, the collection is seen as more “transient” and often under insured compared to true market value for replacement. Hence when they do burn down . . . they usually max their payout pretty fast.
Most professional museums employ professional curators and collections managers specifically trained in those items/types of items. As such, they evaluate and consider all these aspects. Most collections managers are charged with presenting plans to safeguard collections that include storage space grading and fire suppression. This same level of professionalism is VERY difficult for transportation museums as it is hard to set a qualification bar and meet salaries for true professionals. For example, I am a graduate of University Birmingham with specialization in the archaeology of transportation and heritage management (the UK version of Museum Studies). I had three classmates. You read that right – three. Total. Before the programme went T.U. a few years ago due to low enrollment; it averaged 3 graduates a year. In it’s roughly 30 year history – that is less than 100 qualified graduates. Leicester had a similar program of similar size and the US has only one Industrial Archaeology program which touches on transport. So, right there, finding qualified curators for a transportation museum means you’re likely hiring historians or folks with a keen interest in vehicles. Whether they are trained professionals in that discipline or in museum studies is a whole different matter. Not to mention, most transportation museums barely earn a profit and cannot afford top professionals. None of this means the folks running these museums are poor at their jobs. Again, like the Chiropractor or the Surgeon . . .these are not poorly educated people nor indifferent.
All of this means many motorcycle and car museums reflect a single collector and often don’t have the resources or training to care for the collection/facility/programming in the same way as really big professional museums. The end result is that protocols and systems to prevent catastrophic loss are limited in smaller transportation museums and the destruction tends to be total.
However, don’t think big museums are exempt from burning to the ground. Most major museums are in HUGE historic buildings that have limited or no fire suppression. If a fire starts – it is devastating. One of the biggest recent losses was Brazil’s National Museum, which burnt to the walls in autumn 2018. And, most museums are two paychecks away from financial straights instead of one pay check like smaller places. So, recovery is very difficult even with insurance. Add in the disruption of COVID and it's a perfect storm.
With regards to fire suppression -- museum professional love and loathe fire suppression. In most cases buildings constructed prior to modern fire codes are exempt from retrofit with active, wet suppression or sprinklers. I have been involved with a retrofit as well as a full dry system install and it is eye-poppingly expensive. If the museum is on the ball; they also redesign their storage systems at the same time so that if the sprinklers do activate there is a buffer to protect as much as possible. This is where it gets more fun as there are only a couple of makers of museum grade storage cabinetry in the world . . . so now you're both paying and ordering long in advance. It's a lot of moving parts and our management meetings can be quite interesting (well, if you're a geeky museum person wondering how to preserve things for centuries).
The honest truth is that wet suppression more or less destroys the items under preservation -- and often causes as much destruction as the fire. Once the sprinklers kick in; the damage is done and the organization is in recovery mode. Even with full insurance and a good team it is difficult to recover from the loss of permanent collections.
Comment