Set up after a fifty year campaign, London’s Theatre Museum holds one of the world’s finest collections of material on the performing arts. It is administered as a department of the Victoria and Albert Museum, which for reasons of economy wanted to close it as an independent attraction and to relocate it to a few of its own galleries.
London’s Theatre Museum - Something Worth Saving
The Guardians Team
The Myth of 'Consultation'
When the Victoria and Albert Museum agreed in Spring 2006 to consult with the Royal Opera House about the possibility of a joint initiative to save the Theatre Museum, they put out a 'consultation paper' outlining their intentions and calling for public reaction. The paper was compiled without the assistance of the Theatre Museum's staff, contained no costings for the sweeping plans outlined, (either full closure of the Museum site or a collaboration with the Opera House), and concluded with a set of 'consultation' questions that were at best naïve, at worst completely irrelevant to any real discussion that might include alternatives to the two possibilities discussed in the paper.
There was strong reaction from institutions and individuals. A summary of this can now be found on the Museum's website at http://theatremuseum.org/files/consultation_digest.pdf, although it appears that none of the respondents were told that this had been done. Most received a bland acknowledgement of their submission.
The Covent Garden Rescue Plan
Meanwhile the V&A and the ROH went into their own consultation. The basis of these consultations was not made public, and again the staff of the Theatre Museum itself, who might have been able to help with facts and figures, played little part in these proceedings. Some time into the negotiations, it emerged that the Society of London Theatre had been approached to join in the 'rescue plan', but had not been willing to take part. We can only speculate on the reasons for this decision, but one of them may have been that there was no real place to be found for the theatre managers in an arrangement designed for the benefit of the V&A and the ROH. It certainly does not indicate a lack of support from SOLT, one of the Guardians' supporting bodies, for the Theatre Museum.
After some months of these private 'consultations', it was announced that the 'rescue plan' had fallen through for lack of funding. It emerged that the two parties had been approaching (unnamed) outside donors without success, and the second, only available option, closing the Russell Street site, would therefore be adopted. Again we can only speculate on the 'pitch' made for funds, but one reason for its rejection by donors may have been the lack of full costings for what was on offer. Another may have been an understandably deep mistrust of the V&A's attitude to the Theatre Museum. Major donors have indicated in the past that they would be willing to support the Theatre Museum if it were not associated with the V&A, and a number of gifts have been withheld for the same reason.
The Guardians
When it became clear that the Museum was to close, the Save London's Theatres Campaign (SLTC) and the Society for Theatre Research (STR), both of whom had made long and detailed submissions asking for clarification of the V&A's plans, while strongly defending the work being done in Russell Street, wrote respectively to Mark Jones, V&A Director, and Ian Blatchford, V&A Deputy Director, asking for immediate and urgent consultation on the future of the Theatre Museum, pointing out that jobs were being lost without any attempt to look at alternatives to the closure proposal, and without proper consultation.
The replies to these letters took some six weeks. That to STR claimed that there had already been extensive consultation. Neither letter offered any alternative solution: the museum would close and that was that. At about the same time Mark Jones went on record to a House of Commons committee and the BBC's You and Yours programme to say that the theatre community had not expressed any interest in saving the Museum.
At this point SLTC and STR, realising that nothing would move the V&A to proper consultation, decided to set up the Guardians of the Theatre Museum in a last attempt to make them see sense, while at the same time demonstrating that the theatre community, if asked, would express huge interest in saving the Theatre Museum. The vast majority of influential theatre bodies, including the trade unions and professional associations, joined immediately. So much for 'lack of interest'.
The Future
Such public consultation as there has been is recorded on the Theatre Museum's website. The detailed summary of reactions to the 'consultation paper' shows an almost unanimous rejection of the plan to close the Museum, by theatre bodies and the general public alike. In addition you can inspect the Theatre Museum's own web forum discussing the closure, which is at http://theatremuseum.org/news_and_views/forum.php. Again, practically every single contribution opposes closure. Many put forward positive ideas for its improvement. The V&A has made absolutely no attempt to respond to or refute these reactions.
If 'consultation' means 'Do you want the Theatre Museum to close?', the V&A has received a totally clear answer - and ignored it. If 'consultation' means 'Can we afford to keep it open?' 'How can we improve it?' or 'Who will help us do so?', these questions have not been properly explored, at least in public. They have certainly not been properly discussed with the Theatre Museum staff, nor with those bodies who have put forward clear and positive ideas answers to all of them. In a situation where the V&A's actions are characterised by secrecy and a refusal to enter into public debate, it is perhaps hardly surprising that no one has yet come forward with offers of financial support. The only scenario the V&A are now presenting is closure of the Russell Street site - who would come forward with money to support such an unacceptable proposal?
The Guardians of the Theatre Museum demand proper, two-way consultation before the ill-thought decision to close Russell Street makes alternative action difficult, if not impossible.
[ Back to top ]