The Conference was opened by Alf Hatton, Acting Director of the Hunterian Museum & Art Gallery, and delegates were welcomed to the University by Professor Malcolm McLeod, in his capacity both as Vice-Principal (External Relations & Marketing) and as Chairman of the Scottish Museums Council.
46 delegates had registered, and they hailed from Italy, Denmark, Australia, Israel, United States of America, Norway, and of course, Scotland, England, Ireland and New South Wales.
Regrettably, two speakers, and one keynote speaker were unable to attend, through illness, petrol shortages, and double-booking. Nevertheless, a series of excellent papers were presented, either as oral or as poster presentations. It is hoped that these will be produced in Conference Proceedings format in due course.
In brief, Professor McLeod's opening address was challenging, if not outright provocative, suggesting that museums should be allowed to die (or at any rate, that the traditional idea of a museum should be). That served to excite the audience (is excite the correct word? agitate?), and was a good lead in to Di Yerbury's keynote address, offering a "View from the Other Side".
There followed the first of the themed sessions (this eponymous one chaired by Alf Hatton, Acting Director of the Hunterian), with a paper delivered by Peter Stott, from the Falkirk Council museum service; his contribution was extremely well-received, coming as it did from a sector with which many of us are striving to collaborate, as a means of avoiding death! Thereafter, a vigorous question and answer session followed.
In the afternoon, Ian Carradice took over responsibilities for chairing, and we heard Jenny Horder's paper on "Titillating, Tempting and Tracking an Audience", within the theme "Are Museums a Resource or a Liability?" As her presentation demonstrated, they clearly have a role as a resource, but realising that potential must be pursued imaginatively, before others see them as merely a liability.
That session was followed by the poster session, on display panels placed at the rear of the Kelvin Gallery. Though fewer in number than hoped, or indeed invited, they attracted interest from Conference attendees, and the quality of presentation was high. This may be an area that future organisers would wish to examine closely, but certainly the venue and the number of papers originally presented suggested that there is a procedure here worth pursuing. The poster presenters are to be congratulated on the time spent preparing their posters, in staffing the bays, and in discussing the issues raised with attendees.
There then followed optional tours, of the University of Glasgow campus, the Zoology Museum, and the Digital Imaging Studio. All of these were exceedingly well-received by participants, but in fact only around half of the numbers registered opted for a tour at all. The campus tour was preferred by architects amongst the delegates, the Zoology Museum (predictably) by representatives from natural history collections, and the Digital Imaging Studio proved the most popular venue of all who would have expected so many "tech-ies" at a wake for museums?
Next was the Reception in the Hunterian Museum, prior to the Conference Dinner. The Reception was, of course, open to all, whether attending the dinner or not, and an excellent atmosphere was generated, and persisted throughout dinner also. Finally, some time spent in the College Club bar, before finally finally, some conference attendees determined to partake of the delights on offer in the Byres Road hostelries, and only then to bed.
The first session on 15 September was on the theme "Can Society Afford Museums", and first to argue the case was Peter Tirrell from Oklahoma University, with another first class paper, drawing on personal experience, and entitled "Is a Brush with Death needed to Save our Museums?" In his experience at any rate, it did no harm, and the pictures of his new Museum were a strong encouragement to us all to take the risks, but with care and discretion characteristics not unfamiliar to curators.
There next followed the theme "Does IT remove the need to visit museums or galleries?" Intriguingly, IT had been touched upon throughout the Conference, whether as a threat to traditional museums and their visitor expectations, or as a part-solution to difficulties encountered by the profession and the sector. Jim Devine (Head of Education and Digital Media Resources at the Hunterian and it was gratifying how many participants commented on the initiative in linking the pedagogical and technical roles to their mutual advantage), made his presentation on "Cultural Heritage Presentation in Interactive Digital Media", before Fausto Pugnaloni, of Ancona University, presented a paper on "Lazaretto renaissance: il musei dei musei in Ancona". Here were two visions of a very healthy after-life.
On the theme "Education or Entertainment", we had Graham Durant, Director of Science, at the soon-to-be-opened Glasgow Science Centre, with a paper entitled "All Work and No Play", which concluded that all play and no work would be equally detrimental to sustained growth in visitor numbers, followed by Stuart Macdonald, Director of the Lighthouse, with a presentation on "Museums Without Collections".
Fittingly, the formal sessions concluded with presentations around the theme "Potential Models for Future Links". It started with a paper presented by Frank Ward from the Pathology Museums Group, offering a model for self-help and collaboration at the micro-level. Next, came Peter Stanbury, from Macquarie University, who is well known to us all for his pursuit of collaboration with macro-level initiatives. (I believe we owe Peter Stanbury our particular appreciation, both for his help to UMiS, and for his enthusiasm and dedication in promoting the interests of all university museums and galleries. I would recommend that UMiS find a tangible way of expressing our appreciation, perhaps at the next meeting of the Committee.)
Closing Session:-
By the end, we had gone full circle - from Malcolm McLeod's challenge, Di Yerbury's and Peter Stott's contributions on where we are now (healthier than many of us might have thought), and Jenny Horder's and Peter Tirrell's views on getting new and repeat audiences within a relatively traditional but dazzlingly effective format, through the new opportunities presented by IT and the challenges of collaborative partnerships with partners in play but without collections, before concluding with micro- and macro-level models for mutual assistance to face the challenges we undoubtedly face.
Conference Evaluation Delegates were invited to assess various aspects of the Conference on a scale ranging from 1 (unacceptable) to 6 (excellent). Their assessment was as follows:-
Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Average Venue 2 8 5 5.2 Catering 4 5 6 5.1 Admin 1 1 8 6 5.2 Format 1 1 10 3 4.9 Content 1 2 6 6 5.1 Overall 1 2 10 37 26 5.1
Though this level of analysis is necessarily crude, the results are hugely encouraging.