In a recent edition of Apollo, there was an article about how the system of public service examinations had beggared curatorial and art historical positions at some of Italy’s national museums, with the nation’s cultural affairs bureaucracy making it nearly impossible to deliver the right arts professional in a timely manner to the right cultural institution.
Although given Apollo’s connoisseurial bent, I would prefer to respond in appropriate prolixity, but believe in this instance I can sum up my reply in a single word in the vernacular- crap.
The plain fact of the matter is, positions cannot be filled because the cultural sphere internationally has no money to pay qualified staff. Sadly, museum visitor totals, indeed the attendance at any number of cultural sites have the uniform appearance when viewed on a bar graph that can also be communicated in a single word, well, two, with an intensifying morpheme- rapidly shrinking.
And with this shrinkage, not lost on politicians, the presumption is that those shrinking numbers represent a smaller constituency upon whom no beneficence needs be extended- read, no money needs be spent. And I suppose, looked at from the point of view of political expediency, they’re right.
Not long ago I was told by an erstwhile colleague who sought to apologize for not reciprocating my acquaintance that we should put our friendship, his words, ‘on ice.’ I didn’t know that friendship worked that way, as indeed, heritage doesn’t, either. Both must be valued and nurtured to have the chance to survive. It can’t be put in cold storage, delaying decomposition because decomposition will ineluctably occur. Mind, I am, mercifully, not at a loss for friends, so the chap who sought to put ours ‘on ice’ will be at most a footnote in my memoirs. Cultural heritage however, once it’s gone, it’s gone for good. It can’t be put on ice with the hope that, in the fulness of time, the pendulum will re-swing and it will again be worthy of note, worthy of politicians’ consideration, and consequently, in receipt of the funding it requires.
In the meantime, however, all those who might be keepers of the flame are left with difficult choices. Consider four years of a first degree in art history, then two years to achieve a master’s in a particular specialization, say Renaissance Italian art, and highly likely followed by a PhD in the same subject. So now, with some eight years of university training, one is prepared to enter the workforce, and the choices are- let me see, shall I work for the- you name the London or New York or Paris or Rome- museum, or shall I get a job as a checker at Tesco, where I can get benefits and enough pay to allow me to rent a flat?
This is not something I have made up or exaggerated to make a point. Within the last couple of weeks, I was in contact with one of the scholarly societies about some research materials when the fellow who runs the place told me to spread the word amongst my colleagues about a half time editorial position requiring someone with training at PhD level. Pay, wait for it, £20 an hour, and on contract, so no benefits. Don’t spend it all at once and it will seem like more.
The upshot was, I was a day or so later mentioning this to a collegial friend who lives in Buckinghamshire. She put it neatly in context, saying the job wouldn’t pay her return train ticket to make her way into London. Before we the two of us began to just guffaw, another colleague, younger and with whom we were not on so intimate terms, sidled up, heard the rate of pay and said that sounded like something she was interested in pursuing.
Well, what more can I say? Heritage is ill regarded so ill requited and those whose mission it might be to safeguard the world’s treasures are not able to earn a living safeguarding the world’s treasures. The senior curator at the British Museum solved that problem, ostensibly, anyhow, making off with items from the museum’s collection over the course of 20 or so years. His thefts, given the context of his employment, while not anything anyone could sanction, becomes, however, a little more understandable. One does have creatural needs, like buying groceries.
Again, theft is hardly anything any of us can sanction, but what of the functional theft of our heritage, the result of public and consequent political disinterest? Of course, the pendulum of public interest will indeed swing back, but the open question is, what will be left to humanity once it does?