Make cultural institutions accessible so more can benefit

MOST people throughout the world never visit cultural institutions such as museums or the theatre. And yet, very often, these institutions are paid for or are subsidised heavily from the public purse. Which means that everyone is paying for them, but that too few are using them.

Not unnaturally, this is a cause of consternation, especially to politicians who authorise public spending, and who are under increasing pressure to deliver public services effectively and efficiently. Why, one might ask, are cultural institutions funded by all of us, when only a minority of us actually use them?

In the UK, we have seen free public libraries come under great pressure, and many have closed their doors, or have restricted opening hours, or are managed by volunteers rather than by qualified librarians.

This is a situation that calls into question what we might mean by "civilisation". How can a civilised society restrict access to libraries (or museums, or theatres etc)?

So, partially in order to prevent attacks on their (public) funding, partially because most people working in the cultural sector have a belief in the value of what they do, cultural institutions all over the world are trying to behave in ways that make them more useful (that is, more popular) with more people; it is, for some, a question of becoming more popular, more accessible, or of disappearing.

This approach - of becoming more popular in order to forestall reductions in public funding - has been characterised by some as an obsession with "bums on seats" at the expense of artistic integrity. Indeed, this is a complex issue, full of argument and polarised opinions.

For example, some cultural institutions attract mainly tourists. This might make them popular in terms of absolute number of users, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are popular with, or valued by, local people.

ENGAGING THE PUBLIC

So what is happening, worldwide, is that cultural institutions are working hard to connect with people (not just tourists) by working with community and other interest groups, partially because they are under pressure to provide public value (or else), and partially because this is exactly what they wish to do. This means that homeless groups, groups representing people with disabilities, or other marginalised people, are increasingly being incorporated into the work undertaken by cultural institutions, as the latter work to engage with the bulk of society rather than merely with the better-educated, wealthier minorities to whom they have appealed traditionally.

At National Museums Liverpool in the UK, we increased our annual attendances from 710,000 per year in 2001 to 3.5 million per year in 2017 on the same budget. We achieved a massive increase in local participation through schemes such as the House of Memories programme, the essence of which is to link museum collections with those responsible for caring for the increasing number of people who live with dementia. This is an issue that is of growing significance all over the world, and is becoming the single major financial burden to all societies. It makes sense, therefore, for museums to use their collections both to engage with local people at the same time as helping to reduce the social and economic costs of ageing.

This is the accessible museum in action. The House of Memories programme has already been rolled out to other museums in the UK, and is currently under development in the USA.

Also in Liverpool, in 2007, we created the International Slavery Museum; our intention was overt right from the start. The museum's job is to increase awareness of the transatlantic slave trade at the same time as fighting against human rights abuses around the world, whether that be the use of child labour, or the plight of those working in domestic servitude, or racism in its many guises. These are important contemporary issues, and it is necessary for accessible, diverse museums to engage with them, however challenging such work can be.

This is the nature of change in the cultural sector; if anyone wishes to know how cultural institutions can broaden their appeal and their impact (and, therefore, their "value for money"), the answer lies in the willingness of these institutions to become more accessible to the diverse audiences who make up the public. Gone are the days when it was enough to superserve elites - we all have to be accessible nowadays.