|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles
|
What? Move the Theatre Museum out of the West End?Dateline: 12th March, 2006 The story we carry this week about the possible closure of the Theatre Museum in Covent Garden is very worrying. The idea that it might be closed and its contents just merged with the rest of the V&A content rings alarm bells throughout the theatre community who are leaping to its defence. In his article in Theatre Record, which we mention in the story, Ian Herbert makes a very important point:
He points out that there has been tension between the mother body and its offspring ever since the Theatre Mseum was founded, even in the thirteen years that it existed as part of the South Kensington site before the Covent Garden building opened.
The outcry has been massive. On the discussion forum of the Theatre Museum's own website, a German contributor wrote:
And an American theatre scholar in New York, who has been advocating a similar museum there, added, "London has a rich tradition in both theatre and museum culture - the theatre museum represents the best of both. Closing it would be a betrayal and a waste of potential." It is possible, however, that all this may be premature. In a letter to Scottish actor and musician Alan Tall, who wrote to the Theatre Museum after the news broke, its deputy director Ian Blatchford wrote, "The press coverage is misleading, because the Trustees of the V&A have not yet made a decision. "One option is to close the building, but others would include a different mix of activities in the building." If we are misled, then it is the V&A's own fault. They chose to inform their own staff by email and then somehow the story was leaked, we are told, to Sunday Times columnist Richard Brooks who proceeded to write a couple of rather dismissive paragraphs which included the condescending "Inside the subterranean space, the exhibits and memorabilia from thespian life — such as the Michael Redgrave collection — are a little underwhelming." Ian Blatchford's letter to Alan Tall goes on:
They should be doing 4, 5, and 6 anyway! And, although some visitors do combine a visit to the Theatre Museum with their theatregoing, many more would do so if they knew about it. A little more money spent on good marketing would make a lot of difference. It was only in 1997 that I first visited - and wrote an article about my visit - because, up till then, I had done what many theatrelovers do, put it off till the next visit. That article began: "I'm ashamed to confess that it was only a couple of weeks ago I first visited the Theatre Museum, the National Museum of the Performing Arts, in Russell Street, Covent Garden. But since then I've talked to a lot of friends who are theatre fanatics and/or professionally involved in theatre, and more than half of them haven't been either, so that did make me feel a bit better! At least I've been, albeit late." I have been since, but not, I have to confess, often, for which I should be ashamed. (Incidentally, it is worth noting that in one point that article is now out of date: entrance to the museum is now free.) It is not the most welcoming of buildings, being mainly underneath the Transport Museum and almost totally lacking in natural light, so it can have a somewhat oppressive air, but it has so much to offer that it would be a tragedy to lose it. And let's face it: it will get more visitors in Covent Garden, because that is where theatregoing tourists congregate, than if they had to trek out to South Kensington. A move to the V&A may, indeed, be better for scholars, with the proximity of the new Reading Room at Blythe House (see our story of 28th February), but museums are not just for scholars: they are a resource (and an entertainment, no matter how much the purist might regret the fact) for the general public. In the penultimate paragraph of his reply to Alan Tall, Ian Blatchford says, "It is worth remembering that the displays at Covent Garden represent a very tiny fraction of the collections. The core study collection moved in 2005 to Blythe House (our storage and research centre in West London) where it was united with the reserve collection - This move has been very successful and the study room there provides much better access." So what? The V&A must also consider the public at large and not just scholars (important to theatre though their work undoubtedly is). A large part of any museum's remit must be to provide easy access for the general public and it makes perfect sense to have theatre's museum in the heart of theatreland. There will almost certainly be little or no change in the number of what one might call scholarly visits if the move to South Ken goes ahead, but the number of visits from ordinary members of the public will probably fall drastically. Theatregoing visitors might travel east as far as Sloane Square, south to the National, the Globe of the Old (and Young when it is open) Vic, north to the Barbican and east to the Almeida, but otherwise they tend to haunt the West End. That's where the market is and if you want to sell your product, you take it to the market: you don't expect the market to come to you. To expect a visitor to come out of a matinee, hop on the Tube to the Cromwell Road, visit the V&A, hop back onto the Tube in time to get a pre-show meal and then head off for an evening performance, which may well be a matter of a hundred or so yards- or less! - from where they saw the matinee, is ridiculous. Surely the Trustees must realise this? If they don't, we are forced to consider very seriously their fitness to be Trustees of the nation's theatrical treasures.
|
|
|
|