For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed,
    we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven,
    not built by human hands.
            2 Corinthians 5 (New International Version)

The quotation above is from Paul the Apostle's Second Epistle to the Corinthians. It currently has a special resonance given the makeshift anti-capitalist protest camp that has appeared outside St Paul's Cathedral in the City of London. The continuing presence of these tents has today led to the resignation of the dean of St Paul's, the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles. He stepped down from his post on the grounds that "criticism of the cathedral has mounted in the press, media and in public opinion" to such an extent that his position was "becoming untenable."(1) The dean's departure follows the resignation last week of the canon chancellor, Giles Fraser.

Toby Young has argued that it was Fraser who prevented the Metropolitan Police from dispersing the "Occupy London" protesters who gathered outside the cathedral following their abortive attempt to target the London Stock Exchange. Young condemned Fraser for actions that had forced St Paul’s cathedral "to shut its doors to the public, resulting in losses of £20,000 a day."(2)

Whether accurate or not, Young's reference to lost income underlines the fact that St Paul's Cathedral is a heritage enterprise. Should you happen to be a doubting Thomas when it comes to the heritagisation of the cathedral, then I suggest you pay a visit to its online shop (3).

In happier circumstances, visitors to the cathedral are able to hire a touchscreen multimedia device before climbing the dome or exploring the crypt. They can then "travel back in time in an immersive film experience" before quenching their thirst with a nice cup of tea. After all, "[t]here's probably nothing more uniquely British than afternoon tea" (to quote "The Restaurant at St Paul’s", which inevitably has its own dedicated website).(4).

All this comes at a cost, of course. A six year old child would need to find £5.50 to enter this house of God (this includes the multimedia guide but not a cup of tea). Adults have to part with £14.50.(5)

Those with a little less cash might decide to visit the National Gallery where they can genuflect for free in front of all manner of altar panels ripped from various churches.

Alternatively, frustrated visitors to St Paul's might seek shelter in the tents clustered around its grand entrance. They'd probably be more likely to learn about the teaching of Christ in a protest camp than at the ticket desk of the cathedral.

The church authorities should consider downloading and digesting the words of the Rev Billy. In so doing they will be "delighted to discover the difference" between "consumerism" and "freedom". Because those protesters who "disturb the customers" from shopping at St Paul's Cathedral just might be loving their neighbour. After all, these "ordinary citizen[s]" holding onto that "patch of public commons... are the New World." (6) And that New World is taking shape at the gates to St Paul's Cathedral, much to the Church of England's annoyance.

The cash tills of St Paul’s Cathedral are silent. Only once each and every "earthly tent" is cleared away will they be able to open their coffers once more.

Hallelujah for the Church of England!

____
Notes

(1) "Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral announces intention to resign", 31/10/2011, accessed 31/10/2011 at, http://www.stpauls.co.uk/News-Press/Latest-News/Dean-of-St-Pauls-Cathedral-announces-intention-to-resign-31-October-2011.
(2) Toby Young, "Canon Giles Fraser resigns from St Paul's Cathedral on Twitter, having single-handedly cost the Cathedral hundreds of thousands in lost revenue", 27/10/2011, accessed 31/10/2011 at, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100113964/canon-giles-fraser-resigns-from-st-pauls-cathedral-on-twitter-having-single-handedly-cost-the-cathedral-hundreds-of-thousands-in-lost-revenue/
(3) Shop at St Paul's Cathedral, http://www.stpaulsshop.org.uk.
(4) The Restaurant at St Paul's, http://www.restaurantatstpauls.co.uk/afternoon-tea.
(5) "Sightseeing Times & Prices", accessed 31/10/2011 at, http://www.stpauls.co.uk/Visits-Events/Sightseeing-Times-Prices.
(6) Talen, Bill (2008) "Beatitudes of Buylessness", The Shopocalypse, stopshopping music (see my "Life without products" posting, 23/08/2011).

In the summer of last year archaeologists revealed the discovery of a new Neolithic henge. This word – henge – has become used "to describe any circular ritual site in Britain dating from the late Neolithic or copper age (3,000 - 2,000BC)" (Pitts 2010). The most recently unearthed example is not far from what is perhaps the world's most famous henge: Stonehenge in Wiltshire.

These "circular monuments" were places of great ceremonial and ritual significance that raise far more questions than answers (BBC 2010).

Perhaps future generations will be just as puzzled and intrigued by a modern-day "circular monument"? This was a phrase used by BBC journalist Mark Easton when reporting on the M25 – the orbital motorway that rings the British capital. He described it as "a circular monument to the urgent, constant and apparently endless nature of 24/7 metropolitan living" (Easton 2011).

Easton's words came to mind late last night as I arched my way around the M25. My drive took place on the eve of the road's twenty-fifth anniversary. For on this day exactly a quarter of a century ago the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher inaugurated this contemporary henge. She remarked in characteristic fashion:

    Now some people are saying that the road is too small, even that it's a disaster.
    I must say I can't stand those who carp and criticise when they ought to be
    congratulating Britain on a magnificent achievement and beating the drum for
    Britain all over the world (Thatcher 1986).

Motorists were indeed worshipping in such "enormous amounts" that, even as she declared the road complete, Mrs Thatcher announced plans to enlarge it. Included in this expansion was "the construction of a new bridge at Dartford" (Thatcher 1986).

This gave my late night pilgrimage around London and over the River Thames a doubly commemorative significance. Because tomorrow the Dartford Crossing will mark its twentieth anniversary: on 30th October 1991, the British monarch cut the ribbon on the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge.

Planes, trains and automobiles are utilitarian objects. Yet even a simple journey in an aeroplane can take place in a flying memorial. So, whilst motorways and bridges are functional things, they also have great heritage potential.

And who knows, perhaps this heritagisation will come full circle? Archaeologists thousands of years from now might uncover a huge 117-mile henge running around what appears to have been the site of a great metropolis. Was this a ritual site? A circular monument to some lost religion? If so, what sort of people came to worship there? In short, they will ask, how significant is the 'new henge'? (cf. Pitts 2010).

_________
References

BBC (2010) "Archaeologists unearth Neolithic henge at Stonehenge", BBC News, 22/07,
    accessed 29/10/2011 at, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10718522
Easton, Mark (2011) "Happy birthday M25", BBC News, 28/10,
    accessed 29/10/2011 at, http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9626000/9626188.stm
Pitts, Mike (2010) "How significant is the 'new henge'?", BBC News, 22/07,
    accessed 29/10/2011 at, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10726307
Thatcher, Margaret (1986) "Speech opening final section of M25", 29/10,
    accessed 29/10/2011 at, http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106506

__________
Supplemental
01/11/2011

Some unfortunate motorists have today had the opportunity to admire Britain's "magnificent achievement" for rather longer than anticipated. An accident early this morning has led to queues stretching for an estimated 19 miles...

Dr Liam Fox was until recently Great Britain's Secretary of State for Defence. He resigned on 14th October. The reason for this decision was set out in a terse letter he sent to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron:

"I mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred. The consequences of this have become clearer in recent days. I am very sorry for this."(1)

Following the media investigations into this affair it is evident that this "blurring" of the personal and professional is nothing new. Moreover, the tenacity with which Dr Fox attempted to hold on to his job would suggest that he saw nothing wrong with using his elected position to further the ideological beliefs of his closest associates.

Many might consider this affair to be little more than a petty political squabble that pales into insignificance in comparison to the deaths of Lance Corporal Jonathan McKinlay and Marine David Fairbrother, both of whom were killed last month whilst on active duty in Afghanistan. Dr Fox referred to these two men whilst addressing parliament on 10th October. He deserves credit for honouring these soldiers. He also merits praise for recognising the importance of the political maelstrom which raged around him. "Serious issues have been raised here", declared Dr Fox to his fellow politicians.(2)

These "serious issues" are all to do with ethics. In his foreword to the Ministerial Code, David Cameron declared it was his government's "historic responsibility" to renew public confidence in politics and politicians. One way of achieving this was for his colleagues to abide by section 7.1 of the Ministerial Code:

        "Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise,
        between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise."(3)

Dr Fox fell well short of this edict due to his longstanding association with his pseudo advisor (sic) Adam Werritty and their links with the erstwhile "charity" Atlantic Bridge.

But what does any of this have to do with museums? Well, the Fox affair has placed a renewed spotlight on "The Seven Principles of Public Life". These are: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.(4) These principles feature as an annex not only to the Ministerial Code but also to the Code of Ethics for Museums. The latter sets out the "ethical principles for all who work for or govern museums in the UK".

Compare what we know about Dr Fox's behaviour with the following from the Code of Ethics for Museums:

    2.6 Avoid any private activity or pursuit of a personal interest that may conflict
    or be perceived to conflict with the public interest.
    2.17 Avoid being seen as representing the museum if speaking personally or
    on behalf of outside organisations whose practices and purposes conflict with
    that of the museum.

Now imagine if Dr Fox had been a museum director instead of a Secretary of State for Defence. Consider that a friend of the director had handed out business cards giving the impression that he was representing him and the museum. Then reflect on the implications of unidentified outside interests influencing the museum's collecting policy, exhibition programme or special events. And what if it transpired that associates of the director had links to the art and antiquities market – buying and selling items related to those shown at the museum.

Now ask yourself: would this individual be a fit person to run a museum?

____
Notes

(1) Cited in "Defence Secretary Liam Fox quits", BBC News, accessed 16/10/2011 at, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15311615.
(2) Hansard, 10th October 2011, Column 28, accessed 16/10/2011 at, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0001.htm.
(3) Ministerial Code, May 2010, accessed 16/10/2011 at,  http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/ministerial-code-may-2010.pdf.
(4) This stems from Standards in Public Life: the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (1995). See: www.public-standards.org.uk.

___________
Supplemental
(19/10/2011)

Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell's official report has concluded that "Dr Fox's actions clearly constitute a breach of the Ministerial Code"  (see links below). For his part, Dr Fox acknowledged his shortcomings but sought to portray the "media frenzy" that had surrounded him as something that "should worry all of us." (1) Perhaps Dr Fox would still be in government without this so-called "frenzy"? Be that as it may, his attempt to castigate the media should not distract attention from those issues that remain. The principal unanswered question has been identified by the shadow leader of the House, Angela Eagle: "Why was the defence secretary allowed to treat the ministerial code as if it were an optional extra?" (2)

 ____
 Notes
(1) Anon (2011) "Liam Fox attacks 'vindictiveness, even hatred' of media", BBC News, 19/10,
accessed 19/10/2011 at, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15360827
(2) Ibid.

____________
Documentation
Source: Cabinet Office

In July I posted a comment about the exhibition Art for the Nation: Sir Charles Eastlake at the National Gallery (Burch 2011a). I have since had a chance to visit the museum and am now in a position to develop some of the ideas mentioned in my early blog posting.

Although the show in question fills only one small room, the ethical issues it raises are momentous. However, as with the concurrent exhibition Devotion by Design: Italian Altarpieces before 1500, the museum authorities have ensured that any contentious matters are only mentioned in the associated publication and not in the gallery (cf. Burch 2011b). The focus of the curators' acclaim rests instead on Eastlake as a pioneer whose influence is still felt to this day:

"His professional approach to the study and management of the Gallery's collection was ground-breaking and set an example that has been followed ever since."(1)


This is undoubtedly true in terms of the museum's collections. But can the same be said when it comes to its attitudes towards visitors?

        "The pictures were Eastlake's first priority in everything he did at the National Gallery.
        As a result the desire to accommodate visitors and their needs had second place and
        definite limits" (Avery-Quash & Sheldon 2011: 174).

This, alas, seems to tally with the curatorial treatment of Eastlake. The "modest, scholarly and determined man" that emerges from the exhibition contrasts with the "wily" operator in Avery-Quash and Sheldon's associated biography (2011: 155). Yet even they are careful to avoid any real criticism. They note that Eastlake had collected privately since 1812, but conclude that:

        "It was probably the case that Eastlake limited his own purchases to paintings which he
        considered ineligible for the Gallery on grounds of size, state of preservation, or status of
        the artist in question. Such an honourable demarcation would have been characteristic
        of the man" (Avery-Quash & Sheldon 2011: 162).

This entirely positive stance allows the authors to bypass any awkward questions. Take, for example, Pollaiuolo's The Martyrdom of Saint Sebastian (1475, oil on poplar, 291.5 x 202.6 cm, inventory no. NG292). Eastlake's contemporary, John Morris Moore (1812-85) argued that the methods used to acquire it had violated Tuscan law. Avery-Quash and Sheldon mention this claim and Moore's belief that it has been "smuggled out, using bribery and corruption" before adding: "Moore's aspersions did not have any lasting consequence" (Avery-Quash & Sheldon 2011: 177). But were the accusations true?

Art for the Nation: Sir Charles Eastlake at the National Gallery was a missed opportunity to provide some much-needed historical context to one of the most pressing issues facing museums today: the question of deaccessioning. Changes to the Code of Ethics for Museums now allow for "financially motivated disposal in exceptional circumstances" (2). This, not surprisingly, has given rise to many complex, ethical arguments. There is an urgent need for an informed debate that draws on past practice. A case in point concerns the National Gallery's decision in 1857 to sell thirty-seven paintings from the former Krüger collection. Avery-Quash and Sheldon (2011: 160) remark that "[t]his act is considered unfortunate today, given that important works from this history of German art were irreparably broken up." Why was this affair ignored in the Eastlake exhibition? And why was there no mention of the 1856 "Act to extend the Powers of the Trustees and Director of the National Gallery, and to authorize the Sale of Works of Art belonging to the Public"? This legislation was enacted in response to sellers who only agreed to part with an entire collection of artworks rather than just the specific painting that Eastlake was so eager to acquire. Hence the National Gallery's decision to sell works at Christie's auction house on 14 February 1857. How many current museum professionals are aware of this precedent?

One positive thing about the Eastlake exhibition is that it does occasionally touch upon that most un-museum of subjects: money. We learn, for instance, that Eastlake's most expensive acquisition was the £13,650 spent on Paolo Veronese's The Family of Darius before Alexander (1565-7, oil on canvas, 236.2 x 474.9 cm, inventory no. NG294). Of course, the museum does not see fit to include this figure among the "key facts" about the painting (3). And, whilst visitors to the Eastlake exhibition are given the National Gallery's acquisition budget for 1855 (£10,000), they are not told what the figure is today. Why were the two sums not set side-by-side, thus enabling visitors to compare today's situation with that of 156 years ago?

The answer is because, then as now, "visitors and their needs" take "second place" within very "definite limits". Sir Charles Eastlake can therefore rest easy: his legacy at the National Gallery is indeed secure.

____
Notes

(1) Cited from the interpretation panel "Eastlake's legacy at the National Gallery".
(2) See "Sale of collections", accessed 09/10/2011 at, http://www.museumsassociation.org/collections/sale-of-collections.
(3) "Key facts", accessed 09/10/2011 at, http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/paolo-veronese-the-family-of-darius-before-alexander/*/key-facts.

_________
References

Avery-Quash, Susanna & Julie Sheldon (2011) Art for the Nation: The Eastlakes and the Victorian Art World
    (London: National Gallery Company)
Burch, Stuart (2011a) "Museum ethics – then and now", 24/07, accessed 09/10/2011 at,
    http://www.stuartburch.com/1/post/2011/07/museum-ethics-then-and-now.html
Burch, Stuart (2011b) "Deception by Design", 17/09, accessed 09/10/2011 at,
    http://www.stuartburch.com/1/post/2011/09/deception-by-design.html

Our museums and history books are full of emblems of struggle. Take the Liberty Bell, for example. It is not a terribly attractive thing. And it is poorly manufactured too. A large crack has long rendered it useless as a functioning object. Yet this does not stop millions of people taking the pilgrimage to Philadelphia to see it. Thanks to its spurious connections with the Declaration of Independence of 1776, this faulty relic has become "one of the most prominent and widely recognized symbols of America" (Callahan 1999: 57). As the ultimate sign of struggle it merits preservation as a cherished icon of national heritage.

In the light of such a precedent, one might have thought that another "emblem of... struggle" would deserve similar protection, even if it "holds no special architectural or historic interest".

The artefact in question is a steel, wood and rubber gateway leading to Dale Farm near Basildon in the English county of Essex. It has been constructed by travellers who have lived on the site for many years. Their presence has led to a long-running legal battle. Now, with the prospect of being forcibly evicted, the travellers' leaders approached English Heritage and asked them to grant listed status to the gateway leading to their homes. This portal has become both a protective barrier and a backdrop for protest banners advertising their cause. As such it has become an "emblem of a struggle for traveller rights" (cited in BBC 2011).

The travellers' application was nevertheless rejected by the current Heritage Minister, John Penrose. After taking advice from English Heritage, he concluded:

        "Although clearly a structure which is significant for the travellers at Dale Farm, the tubular steel,
        wood and rubber construction holds no special architectural or historic interest and does not
        therefore meet the criteria for listing" (cited in Milne 2011).

The traveller community lacks the wherewithal to turn "their heritage" into "national heritage". Because be in no doubt: heritage is never truly universal. The National Trust might now have four million members, but its definition of heritage is no more national than it is natural or neutral.

This can be illustrated by the case of Birmingham Central Library. How many card-carrying National Trust members believe that John Madin's "raw concrete" Brutalist building from 1974 constitutes "heritage"? John Penrose's predecessor in government certainly didn't think so. In 2009, Margaret Hodge - the then Minister for Culture and Tourism - went against the advice of English Heritage by rejecting a bid that would have seen it listed (Waite 2009). It is therefore at just as high a risk of demolition as Dale Farm's gateway. Neither are heritage. Why? Because the likes of Penrose and Hodge say so.

The residents of Dale Farm are unlikely to attract many architectural historians to their cause. Birmingham Central Library fares rather better. It has drawn the support of the World Monuments Fund (WMF). The library, together with Preston bus station (Ingham, Wilson & Stazicker, 1968-9), has been included on WMF's "mounments at risk" list under the mantra "British Brutalism" (WMF 2012). These two secular icons have some unlikely sacred bedfellows in the shape of Newstead Abbey in Nottinghamshire; the ruins of the former cathedral church of St Michael in Coventry; and Quarr Abbey on the Isle of Wight.

What will future generations say if the Dale Farm gateway and British Brutalism are destroyed? The brutal truth is that no one knows (Williams 2008: 7).

We should instead focus on the here-and-now. If a cracked old bell can attract millions of worshippers, then there is absolutely nothing to stop any old bit of concrete or steel becoming heritage. The trick is to convince enough people of something's worth - and then transform that minority interest into "our" heritage: a precious resource that simply must be protected in perpetuity.

This isn't some innocent pastime: "preservation is an act of making future generations understand what we want them to know about the past" (Williams 2008: 7). Thus to refuse to safeguard something by denying it the status of "heritage" is to attempt a double erasure: firstly from the landscape of the present and, secondly, from the annals of future history.

_________
References

BBC (2011) "Dale Farm gateway listing bid rejected", BBC News, 28/09, accessed 07/10/2011 at,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15087217
Callahan, Robey (1999) "The Liberty Bell: From Commodity to Sacred Object", Journal of Material Culture,
    Vol. 4, Iss. 1, pp. 57-78
Milne, Roger (2011) "Dale Farm listing bid fails", Planning Portal, 29/09, accessed 07/10/2011 at,
    http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2011/sep11/290911/290911_3
Waite, Richard (2009) "Hodge refuses to list Birmingham Central Library", The Architects' Journal, 23/11,
    accessed 07/10/2011 at,
    http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/hodge-refuses-to-list-birmingham-central-library/5211195.article
Williams, Paul (2008) "Going Critical: On the Historic Preservation of the World's First Nuclear Reactor",
    Future Anterior, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 1-18
WMF (2012) "2012 World Monuments Watch", accessed 07/10/2011 at,
    http://cdn.wmf.org/downloads/2012-Watch-List.pdf


___________
Supplemental
19/10/2011

The clearing of Dale Farm began today. This prompts further reflection on the decision not to list the barriers around the site. English Heritage couched its response as follows:

    The barricades at Dale Farm do not begin to have the high architectural
    interest essential to meet the criteria for listing on architectural grounds. 
    In historic terms, the current case is just too recent for historic importance 
    to be a relevant factor.(1)

Aesthetics and temporal factors are thus decisive. Is this always the case? Well, consider the twisted, disfigured steel rods jutting out from the ruins of the World Trade Center on 11th September 2001. Were they of "high architectural interest"? Did judgement have to be deferred to some future date before society could ascertain their "historic importance"? Of course not.

Whatever one's view on the legality of the Dale Farm settlement, don't be fooled by English Heritage's confident dismissal. The gateway to the site did have heritage potential. Only time will tell if future generations will mourn its loss...

____
Note

(1) English Heritage (2011) "Dale Farm - Application to list the scaffolding gateway", 29/09, accessed 19/10/2011 at, http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/about/news/dale-farm/

An occasional series documenting the first thing one
sees in your visitor-friendly museum: the "Do Not..." sign

Do Not (Neglect)... Lady Lever
Lady Lever Art Gallery, Port Sunlight

On a recent visit to the Walker Art Gallery I came across a book for sale entitled, An Illustrated Everyday History of Liverpool and Merseyside. It is based largely on a series of directories that began to be published in the 1700s. A compendium of short paragraphs are arranged chronologically, each providing little snippets of information. We learn, for example, that an elephant called Rajah (apparently worth £1,000) killed its keeper at the Zoological Gardens some time during the early summer of 1848. On 17th June of that year it was shot dead.

Whilst the Everyday History of Liverpool and Merseyside gives us the name of a mid-19th century elephant, it does not reveal the identity of its unfortunate keeper. Despite this omission, the introduction claims that this is "the real history of… what happened to the people" (Spiegl 1996: 5).

This got me thinking about all the different sorts of history on offer. Alongside its "everyday" variant there is public history, people's history and social history. Are there any differences between these types of "history from below"?

History also has its subsets (e.g. military history) and disciplinary offshoots (such as art history or design history). Each modifier points to an omission or exclusion, hence women's history and black history.

The Everyday History of Liverpool and Merseyside claims to recount events to which "[p]eople of any age can relate: after all, they still walk the same streets, see the same buildings and landscapes, hear the same voices – and often bear the same names" (Spiegl 1996: 5). So this compendium of happenings is both a local history and a form of collective, family history.

We are told that each entry in this Everyday History "makes the past of the City spring to life" (Spiegl 1996: 7). This "living history" is therefore, properly speaking, heritage: "history today", the past in the present.

But where does this leave plain old History (with a capital "H")? Is History in truth esoteric, elitist and exclusionary? Perhaps. Because if it's not "everyday" then it must be "extraordinary" or at the very least "special". History is from above not below. Male not female. Dead not alive. Universal not local. History tries to convince us that it tells the tales of "somebody people", not "nobody people" (Bowie 1972).

All this leaves me with a troubling realisation: History isn't going to be interested in a nobody person like me. Even everyday history is more interested in elephants than their keepers.

_________
References

Bowie, David (1972) "Five Years", The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, RCA Records
Spiegl, Fritz (1996) An Illustrated Everyday History of Liverpool and Merseyside, Scouse Press, Liverpool