Memorandum submitted by the Society for
Theatre Research
The Society has viewed with mounting anxiety
the activities of the Board of Trustees of the Victoria and Albert
Museum (the V&A) in relation to their proposed collaboration
with the Royal Opera House to reposition the role of the building
in Russell Street which is at present the display facility of
the Theatre Museum, as well as the focal point for its education
and outreach activities.
There is mounting evidence to suggest that the
V&A and the Opera House have acted without public consultation
(and indeed without keeping the Theatre Museum's own staff informed)
to produce a result which may be financially beneficial to those
interested parties, but would be extremely damaging to the Theatre
Museum.
With regard to your first point, funding: we
understand the constraints on all museums in the present climate,
but would suggest that the Theatre Museum has been deliberately
under-funded from its inception, due to lack of sympathetic interest
from its parent body. It has also been hampered in its own independent
fundraising efforts by this connection. Looking ahead, a Covent
Garden site dedicated to public celebration of the area's greatest
asset, theatre, would seem a natural candidate for substantial
funding in connection with the 2012 Olympics' cultural programme.
On acquisition: many of the materials in the
Theatre Museum were given to it on the understanding that they
would be part of an independent Theatre Museum, for which this
Society among other bodies conducted a long and ultimately successful
campaign. Any attempt to draw back these materials into the V&A
would probably be in contravention of the various deeds under
which they were acquired. Nor has the funding made available to
the Theatre Museum during its brief life taken account of the
considerable amount of acquisitions it has achieved in these difficult
circumstances.
Remit and effectiveness: If supervision of what
amounts to a 20 year campaign of "dirty tricks" on the
part of the V&A in its handling of its subsidiary comes under
the remit of DCMS, then we would suggest that it has been ineffective.
Our fervent wish is that some other, more pro-active supervising
body be given responsibility for the Theatre Museum and its archive
collections, if it is not considered big enough to stand on its
own feet. The British Library, with its play script collection
and National Sound Archive, might be a candidate.
Addendum (16 October 2006):
Since this submission was made, as you know,
the Victoria and Albert Museum has announced the permanent closure
of the Theatre Museum's Russell Street site. Their director, Mark
Jones, has also said in an interview with The Stage newspaper
on 28 September that the V&A would be prepared to consider
letting some other body run the Theatre Museum.
My Society finds these two statements somewhat
incompatible, and would strongly urge that the V&A be prevented
by any available means from what appears to be a hasty and ill-thought
decision to close the Russell Street site before satisfactory
alternatives have been thoroughly examined. This may not be within
your Committee's remit, but we would welcome any support you can
give towards ensuring a proper examination of the Theatre Museum's
future. Its collection is in serious need of proper care.
21 September 2006
| 
