UKRG Event: AGM & Loans in - Negotiating loans in

I’ll make an offer you can’t refuse – negotiating loans in. 
Carol Burnier, Exhibitions Registrar, Tate Modern
UKRG AGM & Loans in, Friday 18th October 2019

Carol summarised the world of loans in as “expect the unexpected”. You don’t have complete control as owners and lenders have their own requirements and expectations. Where these differ from what we might be willing or able to accept then the exhibition registrar needs to negotiate solutions. An average exhibition at Tate has about 50 lenders and between 100-200 loan objects.  That’s a lot of negotiating but it is normally successful. It is rare that works must be dropped from exhibition lists because it has not been possible to meet lenders requirements.

Key to success is the involvement of exhibition registrars at least two years ahead of the exhibition opening (longer if it is a tour and Tate are the first venue) Firstly the exhibition registrars review the list of proposed lenders and advise the management team of the likely requirements of known lenders. If one of the Tate registrars hasn’t worked with a specific lender before then they can reach out to the rest of the team including colleagues at Tate Liverpool and Tate St Ives. Often Tate are borrowing from the same pool of lenders, so requirements are familiar, and relationships already established. Of course, there will always be new lenders, and this is where the unknown element comes in. Lenders may have unique requirements around many aspects, such as shipping, display methods, security, couriers or per diems.

It is important to recognise that negotiation styles vary widely across the world. UK registrars are very solution focused and we have the flexibility to make changes, sometimes this flexibility is not an option for other organisations. Some registrars have very strict processes within which they must operate. Carol recalls being asked in one case for a utility bill to prove that Tate existed!

It is important to establish and open, honest and collaborative dialogue. Sometimes asking the lender and open questions such as “how do you think we can move this forward” will elicit a solution. If you see something is going to be a problem try and come up with a solution before discussing it – don’t present problems, present solutions!

It is important to know and understand the GIS guidelines as you will need to be able to confidently explain these to lenders who are unfamiliar with them. Getting lenders to accept indemnity is especially important for national institutions as they need DCMS permission to use commercial insurance. Remember that sometimes confusion can arise with international lenders over immunity and indemnity!

If you have built up a good relationship with the lender during the run up to the exhibition then if things go wrong in the final phase (such as cargo shipments being bumped by horses!) the relationship you have built up will help the lender trust you.

Many situations are not always black and white, there are a lot of grey areas, and this is where you use your experience or reach out to colleagues and the wider UKRG network for support if required.

Carol finished of by summarising the key points “trust your experience, reach out to the expertise around you and expect the unexpected”

Thanks to Carol for sharing her knowledge and to Blackwall Green for the travel bursary.

Jacqui Austin, Lead Registrar: Loans, touring & partnerships, National Galleries of Scotland

UKRG Event: Hands on Registration - Packing crates, old vs new.

Packing crates: A Tale of Old vs New.

The bedrock of loans and exhibitions, the time tested method of transporting objects from A to B and a concept that is centuries old: the packing crate. The UKRG’s Hands on Registration event ended with Constantine’s Mark Hunt who gave a guided tour from the history of the packing crate to the newest in crate innovations.

Mark started by signposting Art in Transit: Handbook for Packing and Transport Paintings as a go to guide for registrars and technicians everywhere. This was the first scientific investigation of its kind into the packing crate providing the first industrial standard. Tate were responsible for the earliest crate specification for the iconic yellow crate which has since been widely adopted.

In order to further investigate the exacting science of the packing crate, Mark headed to two factories to record a behind the scenes glimpse of their very different production methods.

The traditional yellow crate was up first, and Mark started by visiting a workshop in the East end of London where they produce 20-30 crates a day. Working from bespoke paper orders one person goes through the entire manufacturing process, creating the finished product almost entirely by hand. The main components of a traditional crate are plywood, heat-treated timber, glue, paint, nails and staples. Mark highlighted that the main cause of expense in this process is the laborious fitting of screws to the outside of the crate.

The innovative Turtle crate developed by Hizkia Van Kralingen was up next. Mark headed to Airborne in Berkshire to witness how these crates of dutch design are manufactured. Unlike the traditional crate, Turtle crates are all made to a standard size. The main components are also somewhat different. The Turtle is made from fibreglass, two types of foam and neoprene sheets. Crates are shaped using a molding process. It takes an entire day to make one crate as a new mold has to be created each time. The crate is fitted out with insulation panels and soft foam. A black, velcro wrapped board floats in the create which allows it to minimise shock to the art work which is attached to the board with velcro-backed packing blocks.

Accepting that both models were equally fit for purpose, Mark’s comparison of the two crates was based upon the timely issue of sustainability and re-usability. During production there were low levels of waste from both processes. Despite its durability, however, the traditional crate is very difficult to recycle. When not being used for transportation purposes, traditional crates tend to be used as storage but this relies upon collections stores being large enough to accommodate them. The rent-a-crate concept of Turtle means that it is ultimately reusable. A crate has yet to be thrown away attesting to their at least twenty year lifespan. For most institutions, the practicality of the traditional crate means that it still wins out.

In response to Mark’s talk conference delegates aired their concerns over the inability of the Turtle to accommodate 3D as well as 2D objects. There was also an emphasis on the availability of other reusable crates such as Rokbox and a desire for Museums to take a proactive approach to adopt a new more sustainable standard.

Written by Eve Sladdin, Collections Information Assistant Registrar, National Galleries of Scotland

UKRG Event: Hands on Registration - Hanging 101

Hanging 101. Tim Crowley, Collections and Exhibition Technician, Ashmolean Museum

Tim Crowley started to work at the Ashmolean in 2009, when the museum was refurbished and opened a new extension. Tim has worked on numerous projects, including permanent galleries and temporary exhibitions such as Jeff Koons, Andy Warhol and Francis Bacon/Henry Moore.

Tim’s talk focused on the preparation of 2D works before they can go on display or on loan, and covered: the choice of glazing and backing, the best (or worse) display location within an exhibition space and the choice of hanging fittings.

Glazing and backing

Ideally, a work is glazed and backed, especially before going on display. The glazing acts as a physical barrier between a painting and the external environment and protects it against many threats such as dust or visitors’ fingers. It also offers climate regulation and in some cases, UV filtration.

Glazing can be acrylic (Perspex) or glass (often laminated low reflective glass).

It is important to identify the type of glass used on an artwork before packing it for a loan as some types of glazing will require taping while tape will damage others (LLRG for example).

The best way to tell the difference between Perspex and glass is the weight of the glazing. Glass will also be cooler to the touch. Laminated glass generally makes a dull sound when taped.

Perspex is generally used for larger works as it is much lighter. However, low reflective acrylic is generally more expensive than laminated low reflective glass.

Materials for backing can also vary: from soft fabric film, hardboard, twin wall polycarbonate, etc. A rigid baking is recommended as it will protect the work during the handling and reduce the risks of puncture. However, the backing can also add to the weight of the painting. Twin wall polycarbonate is a good option as it is light, transparent, rigid and includes a UV filter, but it is expensive (whereas hardboard is cheap).

Hanging fittings

Ideally, the fittings will be attached to the work before the works goes on loan and the work will be hung to the wall with at least 3 point of contact.

Many different types of fittings are used in museums and galleries to hang 2D works. All of them have their pros and cons and every institution or technician have their preferences.

During his talk, Tim detailed some of the hanging fittings used at the Ashmolean:

Tim insisted that, if the preparation of the artwork itself is key, it is also important to prepare the area where the artwork will be displayed.

Where NOT to hang an artwork.

Artworks should not be hung on external walls, above heat sources, in high traffic areas (risks of degradation), in direct sunlight or under picture lamps, in areas where food is prepared or consumed, on plasterboards thinner than 12mm, near heavy fire doors, lifts or IT services (vibrations) or near non-secured doors or windows for small works (theft).

When installing an artwork, we should also always be attentive to the environmental conditions (stable temperature and relative humidity within an appropriate range is required).

Wall structures

There is often a level of uncertainty in museums and galleries about the appropriate type of wall structures necessary to support an artwork.

The main materials used are plywood, plasterboard and MDF.

If you are not sure about the type of walls you have, a simple test is possible: put masking tape on a drill, drill into the wall up to the masking tape and the residue on the tape should indicate the type of structure: dust/powder = plasterboard; small hardwood fragments = plywood; softwood spirals = MDF; red/orange dust = brick; grey dust = concrete (avoid drilling in concrete walls if possible as it is very hard, dusty and messy and creates vibrations).

A screw should never continue to spin when installed. If this is the case, it shouldn’t be used to hang an artwork.

Screws are generally very strong and the weight capacity/strength should be detailed on the packaging. However, the solidity of the wall should be more of a concern than the solidity of the screws. A wall structure without wood won’t be as solid and it may need to be reinforced (by adding plywood for example) or more hanging fittings may be necessary to secure the work on the wall.

There is not ideal way to securely hang an artwork on a wall: the different options won’t be efficient, secure, aesthetic, easy to use and cheap at the same time. This is why it is important that the different options are discussed collectively with technicians, curators, conservators, registrars and lenders as early as possible in order to assess the risks and the resources and decide on the most appropriate solution.

Delphine Charpentier, Assistant Registrar (Loans), National Galleries of Scotland

UKRG event: hands on registration - Mounting & Display of 3D objects

Mounting & Display of 3D Objects.

Richard Rogers ACR, Founder and Managing Director of Richard Rogers Conservation Ltd

Richard Rogers started out as a silversmith, and since then has carved out a 40-year career in the design and implementation of 3D object mounts. He has worked on some amazing exhibitions over the years, early examples being English Romanesque Art at the Hayward Gallery and Age of Chivalry: Art in Plantagenet England at the Royal Academy in the 1980s. He also worked on the redevelopment of the Imperial War Museum; the first-time round, and again 26 years later when the WWI Gallery was revamped in 2015! More recent exciting projects have included a display of ship figureheads at the Cutty Sark and the Ice Age exhibition at the British Museum.

Key to deciding on a mount is the condition of the object and the fragility of its surfaces. Safety and preservation of an object must come before any aesthetic choices. Weight, strength and the suitability of showcases are important to discuss early. Have all materials been subject to the Oddy Test? Design is also important, and so early conversations between the designer and conservators should be had for a coordinated approach. A coherent display will generally have consistency in its materials, so the presentation of 3D objects should be considered early. Seek advice from a mount maker, who can offer sympathetic recommendations while also prioritizing conservation.

Richard talked us through the basic materials of mounts and brought in some sample materials to look at. He described brass armatures, security mounts with concealed fixings, and the fabrication of metal mounts at the workshop. We looked at ZFMDF, which is not particularly liked by mount makers as it is messy to cut. Forex cuts cleanly, can be used as a showcase inner and can be sprayed to different finishes. Acrylic is a good option for book cradles as it can be contoured to support the spine of a book. It has a range of thicknesses, finishes and comes in a UV grade. Hexlite is light and strong and can be wrapped in fabric and Dibond is a thin, shiny material, which can’t take much weight. Protective materials often used in conjunction with mounts include polyester felt, clear Melinex sheets and clear tape (for securing book pages), aluminium tape, and Dacrylate lacquer.

Richard described how on a project there will often be multiple visits required, first to see the objects and measure up to make a template, then for any tweaking. The take-home message from Richard’s presentation was just how wide a range of practical methods there are for displaying 3D objects creatively. Speaking early on with a mount maker during the design process of an exhibition or display allows time for creative flare and clever solutions.

Written by Lucy Davis, Assistant Exhibitions Manager, Royal Academy of Arts

UKRG Event: hands on registration - Display Cases

Display Cases: Getting into the Subject

Lewis Brooks, Exhibition Technician at the Imperial War Museum gave an introduction to working with display cases. There are a large range of different display cases, but for the purposes of this overview Lewis broke them down into two different types, looking at the advantages and potential limitations of both.

Evolution showcase by Tess Demountable http://www.tessdemountable.co.uk/showcases/evolution/

Purpose built showcases

Fully enclosed units.

Often used for permanent displays.

Can be very expensive so not always a good option for temporary exhibitions.

‘Set work’ display cases

Set work cases are bespoke and can be built into other structures.

They can be fabricated by in house technicians, or by external companies such as Qwerk or Glashause.

They are often cheaper than purpose built cases, but can be problematic if the design or construction is not thought through.

Opening cases

Talk to your technicians! They will have the knowledge and understand any quirks of specific cases. Many purpose built cases will use Abloy keys, which are difficult to copy or replace if lost. They have a code that must be sent to the manufacturer to order replacement keys, which can be costly.

Locking systems can vary and might be concealed from view, so if you can’t see where the case opens look out for keyholes and hinges to give you a clue. Locks might be barrel locks, t bar, pop up locks or cylinder locks. Sometimes the lock pops out a little bit when you unlock the case, and sometimes the entire locking mechanism will come out completely.

Sometimes case doors and lids are hinged so that they simply open outwards or tilt back. In other case types the door may slide across: often these cases have clever mechanisms to stop you sliding the door too far, but not always! Use caution and don’t push the door too far open.

Problems with access

If you are struggling to open a case, start by checking the following:

·         Is the key far enough into the lock?

·         Sometimes the cylinder of the lock can become misaligned. Try turning the key slightly as you push it in.

·         Sometimes case doors can drop over time and put pressure on the lock. Use glass suckers (and an extra pair of hands) to help lift the door while you unlock it.

More about set works

It can be more tricky to get into set works cases, since the fixings will often be hidden in exhibition design or architecture. For example, the case might be a box with a glass or acrylic panel held in with security screws. It is a good idea to cover the screw heads whilst on display.

Acrylic hoods on table tops or vitrines can be heavy and require a lot of hands to open up safely. There will be lots of small and fragile objects underneath and the hood will need to be lifted off and over the table.

Access points could also be through parts of the building you wouldn’t normally need to know about, such as crawl spaces. Bring a head torch and ask for help!

Case opening procedures

Before opening a case, ask:

·         Does it contain hazardous materials?

·         Is the case conditioned? Is the whole gallery conditioned?

·         If you are unsure, take advice from a conservator

Check your organisation’s policies on accessing objects inside display cases.

Case seals

Seals are essential for maintaining the environment in a case. Purpose built museum cases will have good, airtight seals but they can deteriorate through time, come loose or be tampered with by visitors. Check case seals are not misaligned and that there are no visible bumps. Take care opening and closing cases to prolong the life of the seals.

Case materials

Set works can be constructed from a range of different materials. Note that many institutions have stopped using MDF as it is porous and must be sealed. Forex is a better material for cases.

Samples of common case materials

Common pitfalls

Cases are sometimes so effective at their job that they can cause other problems. For example, some are so airtight that the suction created in opening and closing the case can cause lightweight objects to move.

Static is a common problem, which can be minimised by using an anti-static spray.

When planning displays remember to think about the opening/closing mechanism of your case. Check the angle of opening to make sure your objects will fit and avoid any last minute panic when you have couriers and lenders present.

Think about the type of objects and handling requirements when planning case layouts. If the handling instructions for an object state that it needs 3 people to install it, check that you can fit that many people around the case door. Likewise, consider the architecture and wider design of the space.

Written by Rachel Graves, Collection & Exhibitions Manager, The Hepworth Wakefield

UKRG Event: Magical Mystery Store - The Protest Lab

The Protest Lab wants your objects – how to manage an experimental loan agreement

Disrupt? Peterloo and Protest is an exhibition that aims to highlight the relevance of the Peterloo Massacre (1819) to current campaigns for democracy. The People’s History Museum (PHM) is asking members of the public to bring in their own objects to be put on open display alongside original Peterloo artefacts. Sam Jenkins, Collections Officer, told the audience how PHM approached loans management in such an experimental exhibition format.

In recent years, the model for co-curation has been applied by museums working with different communities. By pulling out recent stories of protest PHM is encouraging its audience to consider what everyday acts of protest they engage with. Objects from a march, like placards or badges, will be shown alongside objects like disposable coffee cups or a lipstick. Drop-in days have been organised from March – September 2019 where individuals can bring in their items of protest and discuss their story with a member of staff. This cultural exchange of insight and expertise between museum staff and members of the public contributes to the sector’s move towards better representation of previously unheard narratives.

However, the challenge faced by PHM was how to manage all of these personal items moving in and out of their care. As Lyn Stevens Tweeted during the event, complex situations call for simple loan agreements!

One form was drafted to capture all of the information PHM needed about the object, including a signature agreeing to the clauses listed in the image above. Individuals confirm that they are the legal owner and that they are lending their object at their own risk – a smart decision made by PHM as the items are on open display. Object descriptions and their connected stories of protest are also captured on this loan agreement. Whilst people love the idea of writing the label for their object they aren’t necessarily prepared to write it at the time of depositing the item which can cause a delay in proceedings. To make the loans process clearer, handling tables were introduced at the drop off-events to provide a platform for discussion between potential lenders and PHM staff.

An exciting element of this project is that the exhibition will grow and change as new objects come in throughout the year. PHM will be able to engage with stories of protest that are happening now as, in theory; individuals bring in an object connected to a march that happened last week! The collection is a showcase of democracy so it reflects a variety of stories but it also highlights some gaps. Whilst the collection is largely left-leaning this project has found that the people it is trying to engage with most are probably out protesting when the drop-off days are scheduled. Social media is used to encourage people to bring in their items of protest and as many groups organise protests on spaces like Twitter, this feels like an appropriate platform to advertise PHM’s experimental project.

The Protest Lab project is in the same vein of a paper from earlier in the day entitled ‘But what if we tried?’ at Touchstones, Rochdale Art Gallery. Projects like these are exactly what the sector needs to further encourage a wider range of institutions to be brave enough to take on challenging subjects. PHM provides opportunities for people to be inspired by ‘ideas worth fighting for’ and I think most would agree that broader community engagement and representation in collections is an idea worth fighting for.

Written by Louise Hanwright, Project Reveal Loans Officer, National Trust Scotland

UKRG Event: Magical Mystery Store - How do you document a Victorian anti-garroting collar?

How do you document a Victorian anti-garroting collar? Introducing museum collection management practices to the Metropolitan Police Service Heritage Centre.
The Metropolitan Police Service was founded in 1829 and has two museum collections. The Crime Museum, formerly the Black Museum, was established in 1874 as the repository for criminal evidence. It is housed at New Scotland Yard and is not officially open to the public, although in the 19th century celebrities were able to visit, and it provided the inspiration for Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes novels. The Metropolitan Police Heritage Centre opened more recently, in 2009. As a museum of the police service, it collects and displays items related to the day-to-day business of the police, such as uniforms and equipment. 

Dr. Clare Smith took up the post of Centre Manager in 2018 and was faced with the immediate and huge challenge of cataloguing and classifying thousands of items. Existing documentation was sparse, slightly erratic and below museum standard; often objects had been classified by name of owner rather than type, demonstrating the ingrained police practice of recording everything as evidence with a story to be told. Being forced to re-catalogue the collection has resulted in some nice surprises – for example, the service’s medal collection previously thought to be 300 in size is in fact three times as large.

Knowing that 2019 marked the 100th anniversary of women in the Met police, Clare decided to concentrate on material that could be used in a forthcoming exhibition on female police officers. Thus, giving herself a focus and a deadline to see tangible results.

Clare’s simplified themed displays and policewomen exhibition have proved a great success with the Centre tripling its visitor figures. 

Another major challenge for Clare has been to learn the police language of her superiors (note to reader: SPOC means single point of contact, not the Star Trek character!), to educate them on the importance of museum practices and to generally raise the Heritage Centre’s profile within the Met’s strategic priorities.

Clare’s next cataloguing project will be to tackle the uniform collection. She is also aiming to tell the story of the police without bias or backing away from difficult stories and to give a voice to religions, races and groups who have not previously been represented in the displays. Alongside this, Clare is busy writing policies on loans and acquisitions, establishing networks with other police museums and volunteers, preparing for a move from West London to Woolwich and is already starting to think about how to mark the bicentenary of the Met in 2029. Good luck Clare! You have a big job on your hands and I, for one, can’t wait to see the results.

Written by Hannah Kauffman, Deputy Registrar, V&A Museum

UKRG Event: Magical Mystery Store - Punk 1976-78

Punk 1976-78, a national touring exhibition collaboration between the British Library, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Central Library

The first talk of the day was by Professor Colin Fallows from John Moores University and Polly Mills, Touring Exhibitions Co-ordinator at the British Library on their collaborative Punk exhibition at Liverpool Central Library, November 2018 – January 2019.

This was the third iteration of the Punk exhibition since it opened at the British Library in London in 2016 and toured to Sunderland’s Museum and Winter Gardens in 2017. Each venue re-interpreted the exhibition differently to embed the topic within their local punk culture. 

Over the past 20 years the John Moores University has established a large punk collection and world-class archive of counter culture. Professor Moores is an expert on the subject having curated punk exhibitions in nine different countries over the past 12 years. The exhibition was the result of a long-standing relationship with the British Library who had themselves been actively collecting punk material for a while. The content of the exhibition was a mixture of loans from both institutions alongside some private collections.

The setting of a library – a quiet space for study or contemplation – appears an unusual choice for an exhibition on punk – the anarchic, loud and demonstrative music genre. The curators played on this unusual juxtaposition by displaying large photos in the reading room areas of Liverpool Central Library.

The exhibition covered 1976 – 1978 and focused around five main themes: Before the Storm; Be responsible, demand the impossible; Punk goes overground; Punk rock explosion and; Now form a band. Objects and artefacts were distributed across several spaces in the library including parts of the original historic buildings. Special permission was granted to remove Audubon’s ‘Birds of America’ from the Oak Room and display singles covers and a leather jacket in its place. The beautiful Hornby library was also taken over by the exhibition where material was carefully placed, not scattered, and individually presented in reference to the Edwardian setting. 

Polly Mills spoke about the aims of the British Library’s touring programme, the library network which sparked the collaboration with Liverpool Central Library, and the challenges of staging an exhibition in this environment, such as security not meeting GIS standards, working with AV material and the tight budget meaning some copyright costs were prohibitive.

The benefits clearly outweighed any challenges though; a main one being the opportunity to reach a non-museum audience. Having visited Liverpool Central Library, I have seen first-hand what a well-used and loved resource it is. On a sunny Saturday afternoon, it was filled with people of all ages studying for exams, accessing the internet, reading newspapers, or simply having a cup of tea at the café. Despite experiencing threats to their survival in recent years, libraries still represent the heart of communities.

A legacy of the exhibition is a small permanent display in the main reading room on Eric’s, the Liverpool nightclub which hosted a Sex Pistols gig in 1976, which showcases ephemera - posters, flyers, contracts and tickets – reminding locals and visitors of Liverpool’s musical and cultural heritage beyond the Beatles!

Written by Hannah Kauffman, Deputy Registrar, V&A 

UKRG Event: Magical Mystery Store "But what if we Tried"

But what if we tried? Bryan Beresford (Curatorial & Community Engagement Coordinator, Rochdale Arts and Heritage Service) and Harry Meadley, Artist

Touchstones Rochdale Art Gallery is part of a larger facility managed by Rochdale Boroughwide Cultural Trust (Link4Life). At the UKRG Magical Mystery Store event at Tate Liverpool, artist Harry Meadley talked about the challenge he set the gallery. Namely, to display as much of the collection as possible in a single exhibition. The collection contains 1600 objects and the exhibition space consisted of 3 galleries. The team at Touchstones knew it was an impossible task, but zealously endeavoured to present both normally unseen pieces and processes to the public. A key element of this involved turning the institution inside out. For instance, staff held meetings in the gallery space, T-frames and opened crates were exhibited and conservators and technicians were filmed explaining their roles. The gallery presented the films shot by Harry in the gallery store, a space that isn’t normally open to the public. The films captured staff members discussing the challenges of producing contemporary exhibitions. They also captured frank discussions about the obstacles the gallery has faced during its transition from a regional museum to charitable status.

The exhibition ultimately contained 360 works and purposely failed to present themes and narratives. Pieces were presented according to selections of accession numbers and resulted in a varied and colourful show. The installation shots captured how the eclectic hang afforded visitors the opportunity to appreciate the diversity of works in their civic collection.

Bryan Beresford (Curatorial & Community Engagement Coordinator at Touchstones) explained that the exhibition engaged visitors and their feedback highlighted that they valued the gallery’s effort to not only hang as much as possible but also to make them privy to the process. Harry and Bryan explained that like other councils under austerity measures, Rochdale Council had questioned selling parts of their collection. I don’t think I was alone in thinking how brave it was of Touchstones to embark on a project like this. It was clear from the presentation and video clips that Touchstones and Rochdale Council were under immense financial pressure. It was encouraging to hear that visitors enjoyed the exhibition and that their feedback along with good press (including coverage in national papers) helped the Council keep sight of the fact that the collection is a cultural asset worth conserving and celebrating rather than flogging.

My take away from Harry and Bryan’s talk was that asking unconventional questions of ourselves like, in this case, ‘But what if we tried?’ can lead to innovative displays, enhanced visitor experience and strengthened institutional relationships.

Written by Rebecca Bailey, Assistant Exhibitions Manager, Royal Academy of Arts

UKRG Event: Art Crime; Due Diligence

Presentations on due diligence by Professor Janet Ulph, University of Leicester, and James Ratcliffe, Director of Recoveries & General Counsel at the Art Loss Register, were important reminders of the ongoing due diligence work essential to museums and galleries on legal and ethical grounds.

Due Diligence
Professor Janet Ulph, University of Leicester

Due diligence covers both legal and ethical considerations. The museum sector is subject to its different sector guidelines to the art trade, which has ethical codes of conduct moderated by commercial concerns, so the two sectors engage in differentiated due diligence as a result. An example of ‘good’ legal provenance not being enough for museums is the stolen ‘Tiger Yung’, which was sold last year for £410,000. As the item was stolen in the 19th century, the thief’s descendent could claim good title after 6 years (not possible after the Limitation Act 1980) and was subsequently able to sell it legally. Although the object had good legal title, a museum would reject this type of item on ethical grounds.

Many European countries protect purchasers by enabling those that purchase in good faith to acquire legal title, unless it can be proven that they did not buy in good faith. This is much more difficult than the reverse – under UK law, a purchaser has to prove they did buy the item in good faith.

Museums hold a position of trust in the community that must be upheld, so this is key when undertaking due diligence for new acquisitions. The UNESCO Convention 1970 was an early provision that encouraged the museum sector and art trade around the world to create ethical codes of practices. The Collections Trust due diligence checklist is an excellent example of differentiated due diligence, where we are asked to engage with ethical considerations rather than just “box tick.”

The first money-laundering regulation was introduced in 1993 and the most recent in 2017: ‘Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations.’ From 2020, the 5th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive will extend the 2017 Regulations to cover:

• Sales of art
• By traders and auction houses
• Involving transactions of 10,000 euros or more (irrespective of payment method)

The directive aims to increase transparency by requiring proof of clients’ identities and for traders to act with enhanced scrutiny. HMRC are the supervising authority for this directive and there will be big risks to traders if they do not comply. Many in the art market are concerned that this will slow sales down, particularly at trade fairs, however it is good news for preventing trafficking of cultural property and should hopefully enable easier provenance checks for museums when acquiring from traders and auction houses after 2020.

Due Diligence
James Ratcliffe, Director of Recoveries & General Counsel at the Art Loss Register

The Art Loss Register (ALR) is a private company, founded in 1990, with the goal of recovering stolen and looted art. There are over 500,000 items subject to a claim on their database, including items that have been stolen, looted, are fakes or subject to civil dispute. Over 400,000 items moving through the international art market are checked against the database every year. The team regularly check catalogues for art fairs, auction houses and one off sales against their database and review provenance in detail.

Due diligence checks by The ALR usually involve two key stages; database checks and provenance checks, except for auction catalogues where only the database check is carried out. The ALR works with international organisations to recover cultural property, including Interpol, the US Department of Justice, Carbinieri, Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgurtverluste, the Antiquarian Booksellers Association and lootedart.com.

Museums regularly carry out due diligence on acquisitions, loans between museums or immunity from seizure and after a claim or issue has emerged; however carrying out checks on gifts, legacies, loans from private individuals / the art market and as part of an ongoing process are not seen as often by The ALR. As per Professor Janet Ulph’s presentation, due diligence varies across sectors; there is some presence in the art trade, however currently they are not always carried out as well as it should be.

Current high risk areas include:

• Nazi looted art, particularly decorative arts (porcelain, silver) and artists such as Klimt, Schiele and Liebermann
• Antiquities described with historic place names, e.g. “South Arabian”, “Western Asiatic” and “Bactrian” 
• Ethnographic material from the colonial era. 

Advice for those acquiring cultural property: 

• Insist on provenance – more is always better.
• Agree on a minimum standard and focus on risk areas. 
• Check databases and look for red flags – high risk items, people involved (now and in the past) and the nature of the transaction. 
• Ask vendors questions and record answers for any potential future claims – if you are lied to then the vendor is at fault, but if you do not ask questions then you are at fault! 
• If vendors will not release information, then assess the risk – why is information being withheld? 
• Use the internet to research names - do not accept initials in provenance history, as they cannot be tested. 
• Use LostArt or the Collections Trust website, help to address the gaps in the years 1933-1945. 

It is far better to deal with issues that might arise from provenance checks, than to wrongly acquire an object. If in doubt, do not proceed with the acquisition.

Importantly, due diligence is an ongoing process and should not be a one-off check on acquiring or borrowing an object. Carry out targeted due diligence on risk areas of the collection. Publish provenance research and gaps in provenance online to share any possible concerns. Some museums may be reluctant to do this due to reputational damage and risk, however the reputational impact is usually much greater if provenance issues go unaddressed. If there is concern, then communicating this to possible claimant parties is the best way towards certainty.

Written by Jill McKnight, Exhibitions Officer, Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums

UKRG Art Crime: Crimes against Museums

Crime against Museums: Prevention and detection
A presentation by DC Sophie Hayes and DC Ray Swan

It was fascinating, scary and inspiring in equal measure hearing about the work of the investigating cultural heritage crime. Although the Met Police’s art and antiques unit operate within the London foot print. Their impact and reach is felt far further if a stolen item, forgery or fraud has origins within London.

Collaborative working across not only police forces, museums, galleries, dealers, private
collectors and places that buy and sell antiques is vital in the work that they do.

• Thefts
• Cultural heritage theft
• Forgeries and associated fraud

Some items are more vulnerable to theft and portability of the item is key. The founding of
the unit came about in 1968 due to a high proportion of philatelic collections being
targeted. Stamps are incredibly easy to sell on due to their size and peoples desire to have
rare stamps within collections.

The internet and online market places have enabled stolen items and forgeries to be
passed on more easily.

What can we do to prevent a crime taking place?

It may sound simplistic but keeping up to date records including photographs and film of
item including unique markings and any changes. An item is most vulnerable to theft and
damage when it is being moved between two locations so it important to also document
item movements.

Criminal networks that are involved in heritage theft are often involved in other criminal
activity. These groups are highly organised and may well be involved with forgery and
fraud activity.

Replica items only become illegal when there is an attempt to represent them as original
items. These criminal gangs will then offer the items to private collectors and also to
Museums. This can include planting documents in archives and databases to create a
false provenance for an item and creating realistic documents.

Assume nothing- just because someone looks unassuming and is perfectly charming
doesn’t make them incapable of criminal activity. Believe no one- question everything, if it
doesn’t feel right say no and contact the Police if you suspect criminal activity is taking
place. Check everything and take your time- if you feel pressured to make decision, they
maybe more to it than meets the eye.

Written by Rachel Comnan, Collections Care Officer, Haynes International Motor Museum

UKRG Event: Art Crime; 'Dealing' offences

UKRG Art Crime Conference

Emily Gould, Senior Researcher from the Institute of Art and Law talked about Heritage Crime and the ‘dealing’ offences under UK law during the UKRG Event Stolen Heritage: Art Crime, Restitution and Spoliation on Friday 15th February 2019 at the Museum of London Docklands.

Unfortunately cultural and heritage destruction is an everyday matter; whether it is the looting and destruction of cultural artefacts in the Middle-East, removal of religious statues in India or thieves targeting the local village church in the UK. Luckily some crucial work is being undertaken to prevent these crimes, bring justice to the perpetrators and to encourage the restitution of objects.

Several laws have been enacted since 2002 to protect against illicit traffic in cultural property including the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act in 2003, the Iraq (UN sanctions) Order 2003 and the Export Control (Syria Sanctions) Order 2014 to prevent dealing in cultural property illegally removed from those countries and the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 against the dealing in cultural property unlawfully exported from an occupied territory.

It is not easy to prosecute dealers of stolen properties. When the due diligence is tampered with or incomplete it is difficult to prove the objects origin, also the dealer can only be prosecuted when it can be proven he is fully aware that the object was indeed unlawfully removed and with this knowledge did not hand the object in to the authorities. Under the Dealing in Cultural Objects Act, only one person has been convicted; Chris Cooper was sentenced to a prison sentence following a looting spree in churches in Herefordshire. Later this year he will be charged again and we await the verdict with eager interest in the hope more prosecutions will follow.

Since 2017 the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act has come into force. This Act enables the UK to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and creates a new offence of dealing in cultural property unlawfully exported from an occupied territory. While no immediate result is expected in the form of prosecutions; it is a strong reminder that those dealing in the art trade have a strong responsibility to check the provenance and challenge any doubt. The difficulty with the existing legislation is that it has a legal complexity and it is difficult to prove the source of stolen artefacts; we need to create more awareness and knowledge of the new legislation and perhaps even change the way we use the existing legislative tools.

During the second part, Alex Herman talked about the difficulty surrounding the restitution of colonial artefacts in museums. This discussion was raised after the French president Emmanuel Macron held a speech in 2017 in Burkina Faso stating that he wanted all the conditions for the temporary or permanent restitution of African Heritage to Africa be met in 5 years.

This speech led to the commissioning of the Sarr Savoy Report by Macron in 2018 by Felwine Sarr and Benedicte Savoy and released in November of that year. This report, published in French and (a strange translation of) English was mainly written from a post-colonial view. The criteria they noted for ‘restitutability’ (yes this is not an English word) was firstly a Swift Restitution, which meant the objects had to be taken through military aggression, acquired through military or administrative agents or acquired on ethnographic missions (pre-1960) or loaned from African Museums and never returned.

Secondly, further research is required for items that came to museums after 1960 by gift or donation but reason to believe they were in Africa before that date. If the date is unclear it depends on how strong the interest of the requesting nation is.

And thirdly, items that were to be retained for the French collections were subject to a free, fair and documented transaction, purchased with due diligence on the art market after 1970 UNESCO Convention or gifted by foreign state of head.

But, how does this work in practice and is it legal? According to the French law the inalienability of public collections is safeguarded and items can’t just simply be returned. There are estimated over 90,000 items of African Heritage in French Collections.

Working with difficult heritage laws is an issue for several European countries and a loophole had to be found. An Italian institution had the same problem when returning the Venus of Cyrene to Libya; an international agreement eventually provided for this.

More problems have arisen than are being solved by the report; there is quite often no provenance documentation and a ‘free, fair and documented’ transaction seems difficult to prove. Also the work will be returned to the African states, not the local community or individuals. And for the law to change a broader political scope is needed. But Macron has promised to return the Benin Bronzes and also the Cultural Minister of Senegal is looking for a solution for over 10.000 objects which he wants to request. The French came up with a solution to circumvent their law to give items on a renewable 5 year loan that in theory would be indefinitely.

The French Museums are not pleased with the report but have been quiet due to the sensitivity of the subject. They are concerned about the scope of the report; which could have a serious impact on the French Museums. And how will this impact other nations? Macron only mentioned African Heritage, but what about Oceania’s heritage? There is still a lot to be done and long term solutions to be found.

Written by Wietske McMahon, Assistant Registrar (Exhibitions), National Galleries of Scotland

UKRG Event: Art Crime, Spoliation Advisory Panel (SAP)

Being a new member to UKRG I was excited to be offered a bursary to attend my first conference and even more thrilled that it was on the “seedy” world of Art Crime. I went in envisaging horror stories of shoot-outs in galleries, footage of car chases as criminals fled with a Picasso hanging out the back of their boot and some juicy gossip on auction houses and their dodgy dealings. What I came out with was a much greater understanding of what as Museum professionals we should be looking out for as the first warning signs of objects breaching cultural property laws within our collections and what we as registrars should be doing to ensure our due diligence and provenance procedures are followed effectively when acquiring, loaning and displaying objects.

The work of the Spoliation Advisory Panel (SAP) was mostly new to me and I found the information provided, case studies and work that they do both fascinating and invaluable when applying to the roles and responsibilities I carry out in my position as Loans and Touring Assistant at Glasgow Museums.

The SAP were set up in 2000 by DCMS and are a panel who look to assess the moral strength of a range of differing claims from people who have been victims of spoliation and have as a result lost property during the Nazi era. The history of how the SAP was formed is an interesting timeline and materialises from flaws in the 1943 ‘Inter-Allied declaration against acts of dispossession committed in Territories under Enemy Occupation and Control’ to the 1998 Washington Conference Principles where discussions took place to look at the fairness of spoliation cases and the voluntary return of stolen property to the original owners.

The SAP claims process sets requirements in order to qualify. These include:

• The claimant or claimant’s heir must have lost possession of the property between 1^st January 1933 and end of December 1945.
• The property in question must be in a National Museum within the UK

The claims are judged by the SAP by two terms of reference:

• Legal Title
• Moral Strength

What I found most interesting about the panel was the diversity of the people on it. People of Jewish heritage acting as representatives for their community, museum directors, art dealers, moral theologians and lawyers all make up the broad panel allowing claims to be assessed as fairly as possible and covering all aspects of a claim and its intricacies. There is no established rationale and each claim is reviewed on an individual basis.

Since 2009 the recommendations made by the SAP have all been for restitution to a claimant when there is a strong moral claim and the panel has always recommended restitution when it’s been actively sought by the claimants themselves. This was highlighted through some insightful examples of the SAP in practice and really got to the heart of what the panel does. The successful restitution of the Beneventan Missal from the British Library and Constable’s ‘beaching a boat, Brighton’ from Tate demonstrates the still prevalent impact of spoliation from the Nazi era and how as museums we have a moral obligation to ensure we are as confident as we can be about the provenance and history of an object before it enters our collections. On the contrary it was interesting to learn in greater detail about the claim of Renoir’s ‘The Coast of Cagnes’ at Bristol Museums being rejected due to insufficient moral strength related to the history of the painting and its owners.

At the centre of the SAP’s work lies the moral strength of each individual claim and having learnt more about the processes they carry out I feel enthused to continue to develop my knowledge on spoliation and on how we as an industry work together to combat illicit trade.

Written by Becky Storr, Loans and Touring Assistant at Glasgow Museums.

ERC2018 - Registration in Post-Quake Christchurch

ERC 2018 – We’re in This Together: Registration in Post-Quake Christchurch

 

Discussing emergency planning with colleagues is a difficult, fascinating and an almost impossibly challenging task. Just how do you plan for the scenarios you can’t really visualise and never ever want to take place? Hearing what Gina Irish from Christchurch Art Gallery in New Zealand had to say from the perspective of someone who had actually been through it was one of the easiest choices I made at ERC. However for me it wasn’t just professional interest. I grew up down the coast from Christchurch and I have family and friends who live there and experienced the quake and lived through its aftermath of liquefaction, no power, sewage or water systems, aftershocks and finally the ongoing battles to get insurance payments on damaged homes years after the quake. This one was always going to be personal.

 

It was therefore reassuring to hear Gina speak about the quake not just as a practical challenge, or series of challenges, but also of the personal impact for her, her colleagues and the wider community. While most of us will not face a disaster at work which means we are also worrying about family, friends and our homes, all of us care about the places where we work and the collections we look after. The personal impact of loss of these, or threat of loss, should not be ignored. It can have a real impact on how an institution and the people who work for it deal with a disaster.

 

So what were my takeaways from Gina’s talk?

 

• Disaster plans need broad input and the involvement of more staff. The Christchurch Gallery’s plan failed because it had been written in isolation by one person. They rewrote it together, which Gina noted was cathartic and collaborative, bringing in valuable skills. They looked beyond their own organisation to the emergency services who were willing collaborators.

• The importance of collaboration. Gina spoke about how prior to the quake the people within the organisation were not effective collaborators. The disaster forced this change. There was better communication and more skill sharing.

• You might not have access to your premises and services may not work. Gina talked about how the Gallery was taken over as the Emergency Headquarters and how this actually gave collection staff access and ensured working WiFi. It did come with challenges as they had to move the entire collection in a matter of weeks and then had the task of getting the emergency response staff out of the building at a later date. 

• Stages of response to a disaster. Gina spoke of four stages: Fight or flight response, a honeymoon period where people came together to solve problems, disillusionment when staff are tired and just want things to get back to normal, and finally reconstruction. She credited their director in holding the team together throughout and the importance of leadership It seems worth thinking about and building these stages into emergency planning.

• The importance of the skills and experience that registrars and collection staff hold. Gina spoke about how the registrars led the move of the collection, the need for a clear chain of command and the active participation of all staff working alongside management. The registrars developed professional skills through supervision and mentoring of other staff.

• There can be unexpected benefits to a disaster. It was publicly recognised that the Gallery could not resume business as usual which enabled back of house projects to be completed such as research into old loans and copyright, projects which would not have been possible with normal workloads.

• The importance of the wider community and being visible. The Gallery organised pop-up exhibitions and moved to install artwork across the city. This increased collaborations with library colleagues, artists and new partners and sponsors. Gina spoke about there being no industry framework for a gallery without walls and the need to work in new ways with artists and others. She talked about the wish to offer meaning to the community, to what she described as ‘a broken city’. The Gallery continued to acquire new works despite having no acquisitions budget by crowdfunding. Check out their campaign for Michael Parekowhai’s Chapman’s Homer. Gina spoke about how this has made the public view both the objects and the Gallery differently as they are invested in and feel ownership of them. 

• Gina’s final comments were on the impact on the registrar and collection team with them having a raised profile, feeling valued and engaged and focused on moving forward.

Written by Alison Duke, Collections Manager, The Foundling Museum