As lockdown restrictions were lifted in spring 2021, were there any variations in reopening between accredited and unaccredited museums, or between museums of different sizes?
Briefly, accredited museums were more likely to reopen after lockdown than unaccredited museums, and larger museums were more likely to reopen than smaller museums. Read on to find out more about our results and analysis.
Accreditation
Between March and November 2021, museum websites increasingly mentioned that they were open: a trend that reflects the relaxation of lockdown restrictions. This pattern can be seen in the chart below.
For accredited museums (orange line), mentions of being open rose by 10% (from 49% to 59%). Most of that change took place between April and June 2021, which was around the time that museums could reopen after lockdown. By contrast, mentions of being open rose by just 6% for unaccredited museums (from 40% to 46%). The greater change for accredited museums suggests that they were more likely to reopen than those that are unaccredited.
We can check the data on opening by comparing it with that on closing and, indeed, over this same period museum websites were less likely to mention that they were closed.
The chart above shows the percentage of websites mentioning current closure between March and November 2021. For accredited museums, this declined by 19% (from 77%, to 58% by November 2021). Again, a large part of that change took place between April and June 2021, although the situation was still changing noticeably until September. By contrast, for unaccredited museums mentions of closure on websites declined by just 10% (from 58% to 48%). That smaller decline in mentions of closure again suggests that accredited museums were more likely to reopen than those that are unaccredited.
As described in our previous blog on the relationship between governance and reopening, we also manually checked samples of the text we found on museum websites for statements of closure due to the pandemic. In April 2021 we found that 456 accredited museums explicitly stated that they were closed due to Covid, compared to 268 unaccredited museums.
By September 2021, four months after restrictions had been relaxed, we found that just 64 accredited museum websites still stated they were closed due to the pandemic, a reduction of 86% from April. By comparison, 76 unaccredited museums still stated this, a smaller reduction of 72%. So this analysis further confirms that accredited museums were more likely to have reopened, while unaccredited museums show a lower rate of reopening.
Size
The Mapping Museums database categorises the size of museums according to the number of annual visitors. Huge museums usually receive more than a million visitors a year, large museums between fifty thousand and a million, medium museums between ten thousand and fifty thousand, and small museums less than ten thousand. (read more on how we categorised museum sizes).
As seen in the chart below, museum websites increasingly mentioned that they were open between March and November 2021, and this change differs between museum sizes.
The larger a museum is, the more likely its website was to mention being open as this period progressed. For huge museums (orange line), there was an increase of 25% between March and September 2021 (from 67% to 92%), although this dipped to 83% in November. The sharp fluctuations observed in this group are to be expected when analysing the relatively small sample of twelve museums.
For large museums (blue line), websites using the language of opening had increased by 14% by November 2021 (from 56% to 70%, although it had almost reached that point by June). Medium museums (green line) showed a smaller increase of 10% (from 49% to 59%), and small museums (red line) showed an even smaller increase of 6% (from 39% to 45%).
As for accreditation, we can check the data on opening by comparing it with that on closing. Over the same period, as museums reopened mentions of closure on their websites decreased.
Huge museums showed the biggest reduction in the language of closure (from 100% in March 2021 to 67% by September). One of them, the National Portrait Gallery, closed in 2020 for refurbishment.
The smaller a museum is, the smaller the decline in the language of closure. Large museums declined by 21% (from 83%, to 62% by November 2021), while medium museums declined by 20% (from 76% to 56% by September 2021). Meanwhile small museums showed just an 11% decline (from 60% to 49% by November 2021). That change is about half of that for medium and large museums. This suggests that smaller museums were much less likely reopen than medium, large and huge museums.
To complement these summary analyses, we followed the same process outlined for accreditation by also manually checking samples of website text. In April 2021 we found just one huge museum that explicitly stated that it was closed due to Covid: this was Kelvingrove in Glasgow. There were 133 large museums making a similar statement, 230 medium museums, and 337 small museums.
By September 2021, we found that just 13 large museum websites still stated they were closed due to the pandemic, a reduction of 90% from April. The reduction for medium museums was slightly less at 86%, with 32 still making similar statements. The reduction for small museums was even less at 74%, with 87 still advertising closure. So this analysis of website text also confirms that the smaller a museum is, the less likely it was to have reopened.
Which museums re-opened after lockdown restrictions were lifted in spring 2021, and did it vary by governance? In this blog we present our findings about the three largest groups of museums in our dataset: those run by local authorities, independents run on a not-for-profit basis, and private museums.
As seen in the chart below, museum websites increasingly mentioned that they were open between March and November 2021. That trend reflects the relaxation of lockdown restrictions. In April 2021, outdoor attractions began to reopen and museums in Scotland were able to reopen towards the end of the month. Museums in the rest of the UK were able to reopen in May 2021.
% of museum websites mentioning current opening
Local authority museum websites (orange line) show the largest increase (from 44% in March 2021 to 56% in November 2021), which suggests that they are more likely to have reopened than the other two groups. The increase can be seen as early as April, which may reflect websites updating in anticipation of full reopening in May 2021. The change in April may also reflect the reopening of outdoor facilities across the UK that month, prior to full reopening in May. Independent not for profit museum websites (green line) show a smaller change (from 41%, to 49% by August 2021), and private museums (blue line) changed by a similar amount (from 36%, to 45% by November 2021).
Over the same period, museum websites decreasingly mentioned that they were closed.
% of museum websites mentioning current closure
The chart above shows the percentage of websites mentioning current closure between March and November 2021. The biggest drop is for local authority museums (from 77%, to 59% by August 2021), which again suggests that they are more likely to have reopened. That decline was slightly less on websites of independent not for profit museums (from 65% to 49% by September 2021). Private museums show the smallest change (from 49% to 44% by September 2021). This could suggest that private museums are least likely of the three groups to have reopened, but the chart of reopening above suggests that they were similar in this respect to not-for-profits.
Whether considering mentions of opening or closure, our summary website data suggests that local authority museums were the most likely to have reopened of these three groups of museums.
That finding is borne out by manually checking samples of the text we found on museum websites. In April 2021 – before lockdown was lifted – we found that 231 local authority museums explicitly stated that they were closed due to Covid, compared to 318 independent not for profit museums and 45 private museums.
By September 2021, four months after restrictions had been relaxed, we found that just 38 local authority museum websites still stated they were closed due to the pandemic, a reduction of 84% from April. By comparison, 72 not for profit independent museums still stated this, a smaller reduction of 77%. For private museums, 10 websites still stated they were closed due to the pandemic, a reduction of 78%. So this analysis also suggests that local authority museums were more likely to have reopened, while private museums and not-for-profits show lower rates of reopening.
These figures must be seen as approximate, given that not all museum websites are updated regularly and our search tools are far from perfect. But both types of analysis suggest that local authority museums were more likely to reopen after lockdown than the largest groups of independent museums.
When we set out to collect data on museums during the pandemic, we were eager to explore how long they remained closed and if they had reopened. The results were not what we expected and finding out why proved a more complicated process than we had anticipated.
To recall, we have built a web-scraping tool to identify words that indicate open/closed on museum websites. Monthly website snapshots allowed us to see how these indicators changed over time and the graph below plots the period between March and November 2021. As you can see, and as we might expect, the references to closure (the blue line) drop and the references to opening increase (the red line).
Thus, the data confirmed our general sense of what happened in this period, namely that museums re-opened after lockdown restrictions eased. However, we were surprised that these indicators stabilized from September onwards. Around half of UK museums websites continued to use language that indicated ‘closed’. Conversations with museum sector staff confirmed that many museums had decided to remain closed in 2021, but we still felt our findings were somewhat high.
We needed to know if the data was correct or if our software was malfunctioning, so we began to check results from individual websites. The result was reassuring in that our web-scraper had correctly identified ‘open’ and ‘closed’ terms. The problem was that the same language was used to describe a wide range of events or instances. For instance, websites announced that they were ‘closed for Christmas’ or that certain part of the museum complex, such as the café or galleries were closed. ‘Open’ was used in a similar way, such as in the case of online exhibitions.
We needed to distinguish between usages of ‘closed’, and so Andrea Ballatore, our resident software expert, designed a new piece of kit. This allowed us to search and analyze specific terms in their linguistic context. We looked at a sample of 1200 museum websites as they stood in September 2021, and in 167 instances the term indicated the site was closed specifically due to the pandemic (‘The museum remains closed due to Covid-19’) and in a further 212 instances, the museum was closed for an unspecified reason although the majority of these are also likely to be due to the pandemic (‘The museum continues to be closed’; ‘We have taken the decision to remain closed during 2021’). There were 42 museums closed for refurbishment and a further 12 references to seasonal closure.
Extrapolating from our sample, we can conservatively estimate that some 550 museums remained completely closed as of September 2021 for reasons connected to the pandemic, although it is likely that the number is likely to be higher. Beyond this, the other usages of closure we found referred to specific parts of a site (e.g. café, galleries), provided general information on opening and closing times, or less often, references to a museum’s history. That information is itself significant because it indicates that in addition to those museums that were entirely closed, many more museums were still experiencing some degree of closure. Large numbers of museums did not resume ordinary service.
In our future blogs we will be examining how those patterns of closure and re-opening varied according to museum governance and size, and presenting current data.
How have museums fared during the pandemic? What can we learn from their websites? And could we rapidly collect crucial information from museum websites to assess the state of the UK sector? These are the questions that have driven our research since the start of the project in January last year. We are delighted that we now have some answers to share.
Over the past few months we have been studying museum websites to find phrases that might indicate whether museums are at risk of closure. We collected these phrases together and created 6 key indicators. These are whether a museum is open currently or closed currently, has applied for or received funding, pursues online engagement, has staff working, or intends to reopen.
Our computer science team developed a tool to scan museum websites for references to these key phrases. We were able to scan websites for 3,300 museums of the 3,345 in our database. The graph below shows how these indicators changed from March to November 2021.
Each line in the graph shows a different indicator, and the higher a line is, the more museums were found with that indicator. The points on each line refer to a date when we collected data from websites.
So what does the data tell us?
The data suggests that a large proportion of UK museums made efforts to engage with audiences online, and their engagement remained relatively consistent across the period for which we have collected data. At this point in the pandemic, it is likely that museums who want to engage audiences in this way have developed the means and resources to do so. This tells us that over 80% of UK museums continued to function in some form in this period.
Another key point is that the indicator for closed currently begins to decline and open currently begins to increase from April 2021. These are generalized trends, but they appear to reflect a gradual reopening of museums. This is earlier than the 17th May reopening date for indoor museums. This early move of indicators is perhaps due to museums modifying their websites to indicate forthcoming reopening and also that museums in Scotland and museums with outdoor attractions were able to reopen earlier, such as English Heritage and National Trust properties. Similarly, the indicator for reopening intent peaks between April and May 2021, as museum websites likely reflected their forthcoming reopening plans.
Following the May reopening, an unexpected trend is that reopening intent doesn’t decrease significantly. This may be explained by the fact that although museums could reopen from 17th May, a number chose to remain closed beyond this point for a range of different reasons.
A final point of interest relates to funding. The graph indicates that less than a third of museum websites made any reference to funding, and this decreases after May 2021. As we noted in a previous blog, the emergency funding situation for museums was complex. A preliminary reading of this data may be that it shows a segment of museums appealing for funding or announcing successful applications. We may speculate that these are most likely independent not for profit museums, given that government museums may have been likely to furlough staff and not as reliant on covering additional outgoings. This will be explored further as we examine the data in greater detail in the forthcoming weeks.
Looking ahead
This graph is a snapshot of what the data can tell us. The six indicators can be analyzed across a range of museum characteristics (e.g. size, governance, location) allowing us to understand variance across the sector. In future blogs, we will present more detailed analyses of this data from museum websites. We continue to collect data, and this will enable us to present longer trends as we incorporate new data into our analysis.
As with any exercise that involves automated data collection from a large number of websites, the data is not perfect as we cannot be fully confident that we have accurately identified every museum website. Also, the six indicators are broad categories that span a very varied use of language on websites. Nonetheless we believe that this analysis shows a broadly representative picture of what is going on in the sector.
We have also designed new software that allows us to drill down into individual websites, which will allow us to fine tune our account, and we have gathered data from museum social media accounts (on Facebook and Twitter). We were able to collect that data over a much longer period, from 2019 until 2021, and that will likely reveal a more nuanced picture of the rush to online engagement at the outset of the pandemic and the first lockdown in March 2020. As 2022 progresses, we will present our findings in further blogs.
When we began the Museums in the
Pandemic project, we anticipated that some museums might be forced to close
permanently as a result of pandemic restrictions. What we didn’t anticipate is
that so many new museums would open during this period. As far as we know, fourteen
museums have opened between March 2020 and September 2021. Five opened in 2020
and nine new museums have opened so far this year. Two are run by local
authorities, while the rest are independent. Most of the museums were at least
at the planning stage before the pandemic began, although in some cases we have
not been able to determine when their development initially began.
After the pandemic was officially declared, the first new museum to open was forced to close just a few days later with the announcement of the initial nationwide lockdown in the UK. This was the Malton and Norton Heritage Centre in North Yorkshire, which displays the Woodhams Stone Collection. The collection is an amalgamation of two separate collections acquired by Sid Woodhams, a former curator at Beck Isle Museum in Pickering, and John Stone, former Mayor of Norton, who are long-term friends. Work began on refurbishing a bookmakers’ shop to provide accommodation for the heritage centre in Autumn 2019, and it opened briefly in March 2020 before having to shut its doors.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many of the
planned openings were delayed by lockdowns. The first museum to be affected was
The River Tweed Salmon Fishing Museum. It was due to open in May 2020, but the
pandemic put paid to those plans and it eventually opened four months later. Based
in Kelso, Scotland, the museum was in development for three years by a group of
volunteers and tells the story of the fishing techniques that developed in the
area and their influence on the development of the Eastern Borders. The
displays combine items from several private collections.
Radlett and District Museum. Photo courtesy of the museum.
The last museum to open in 2020 was
also delayed by the pandemic. The Radlett and District
Museum in
Hertfordshire is run by the Radlett Archives Group, a Charitable Incorporated
Organisation. They initially kept their archives in the local library, but now
have permanent, purpose-built premises at the rear of the village institute.
The building was constructed in January 2020 but fitting out the museum was held
up by the first lockdown. Work resumed in the summer and the museum opened in
October 2020. In common with other museums, they were forced to close for the
second and third lockdowns but are now open two days a week.
No fewer than three museums opened in May 2021 and all of them had been some years in development. In London’s Covent Garden, Bow Street Police Museum occupies part of the former Bow Street Police Station, which closed in 1992. The adjacent magistrate’s court closed in 2006 and a hotel developer purchased the empty building in 2017. As a condition of granting planning permission for the hotel, Westminster City Council stipulated that a museum be created on the site. An independent curator was commissioned in 2019 and the museum, run by a charity, opened less than two years later.
A cell display at Bow Street Police Museum. Photo by Matt Brown
Also in London, Southwark Council redisplayed some of the collection formerly on show in the Cuming Museum, which closed in 2013 after a fire, in the new Southwark Heritage Centre & Walworth Library. Objects are displayed in cases throughout the library, but there is also a separate gallery dedicated to the borough’s heritage. Originally intended to be completed in December 2020, the opening was postponed by five months although it is unclear whether the delay was due to the pandemic.
The third museum to open in May was
The Great British Car
Journey in
Derbyshire. The brainchild of Richard Usher, the collection of cars designed
and made in Britain began with an offer of a single car and over the course of
four years grew to almost 150 vehicles. The cars are displayed chronologically
and around thirty-two are available for visitors to drive. The museum was
originally scheduled to open in 2020, but two of the founders faced health
problems and the pandemic also contributed to the delay.
The following month, a small local authority museum opened in at the town hall in Leigh, Greater Manchester. The town hall houses the archives of Wigan Borough Council and has undergone a major refurbishment. Originally due to be completed in April 2020, the project was significantly delayed by the pandemic and the town hall eventually reopened in June 2021. Objects from the archives are displayed in a new purpose-built exhibition space that illustrates the history and culture of the borough.
Leigh Town Hall Archives Exhibition. Photo by Mark Liebenrood
A major new museum in the Scottish Borders also opened in June 2021, after years of planning. The Great Tapestry of Scotland, in Galashiels, displays a 160-panel tapestry that tells a people’s story of Scotland. A thousand stitchers contributed to the project, which was originally the idea of author Alexander McCall Smith. The tapestry itself first went on show in 2013 and toured a number of venues in Scotland. Plans for a permanent home were in development from 2014 and Galashiels was chosen as the site in 2016. The museum is part of plans to regenerate the town and received capital funding from various bodies including the Scottish Government.
Three museums focused on railway heritage opened in August and September, and all of them were in development well before the pandemic began. A new museum inside Glasgow Central railway station opened in August, having been planned since at least 2019. Developed in collaboration with students from the Glasgow School of Art, the museum tells the story of the station from 1879 with a wide range of objects. Unlike the other museums mentioned here, which are all directly open to the public, this one is only accessible during guided tours of the station.
Glasgow Central Station Museum. Photo courtesy of Network Rail
Along similar lines is the Doncaster Rail Heritage Centre,
which opened in September after years of planning by Heritage Doncaster. The
Centre is housed in the Danum complex that includes a library and two other
museums, and the core of the collection comes from Doncaster Grammar School’s
Railway Society, which began collecting in 1948. The National Railway Museum
has loaned two locomotives, both built in Doncaster, to complement the other
exhibits.
The most recent of these railway museums to open is in Bishop’s Castle, Shropshire. The Weighbridge Museum is the result of years of work by the Bishop’s Castle Railway Heritage Society. The project began in 2017 with a derelict weighbridge building, and after sustained effort from a group of volunteers and some professional builders, the museum opened in September 2021. It records the history of the Bishop’s Castle Railway, opened in 1865, that joined the town to Craven Arms, ten miles away.
There are a few museums that opened in this period where we know much less about how long they were in development before opening. One was the first new museum to open after the initial UK lockdown was lifted. It is dedicated to the footballer Duncan Edwards, and opened in Dudley in the West Midlands in August 2020. Situated above a shop and run by a charitable foundation that was founded two years earlier, the museum tells the story of Edwards, who played for Manchester United. He was amongst the team members in the 1958 Munich air crash and died in hospital fifteen days later at the age of twenty-one. The museum includes a display on the Munich disaster and period rooms focussed on Edwards’ life.
Also opened in August 2020 was a
new museum devoted to Cockney Heritage. It was founded by George Major, the
Pearly King of Peckham. It isn’t clear how long George had been planning the museum
for, but he began collecting cockney heritage sixty years ago after becoming
concerned about that heritage being lost. The museum features a mock-up of a
nineteenth-century street and a display of pearly king and queen suits adorned
with mother-of-pearl buttons. Traditionally a cockney is anyone born within the
sound of London’s Bow Bells, but the Original Cockney
Museum is in
Epsom, Surrey, a site chosen for its much lower running costs than central
London.
The National Film and Science Fiction Museum in Milton Keynes. Photo courtesy of the museum.
Lastly, Milton Keynes gained a new independent museum in August 2021 with the opening of the National Film and Sci-Fi Museum. Building work was underway in December 2020, but we don’t know how long the museum was in development before that. The collection includes costumes, props, and images from film and television productions including Star Wars, James Bond, and Harry Potter. Run by a charity, the museum is also connected to a company that runs events for film and comics fans.
The pandemic has doubtless presented numerous challenges to museums, but it has not prevented many new museum projects from coming to fruition. Some of them had been in development for years, with the collection now on show at the Malton and Norton Heritage Centre being formally established a decade earlier and the Great Tapestry of Scotland first going on show in 2013. Other projects have had shorter timescales, but many of them have been delayed by lockdowns. We began our research into this period expecting it to be marked by permanent closures, so it has been a welcome surprise to see so many museums opening.
The Mapping Museums Team in a Microsoft Teams meeting. Clockwise from top left: Fiona Candlin, Val Katerinchuk, Jamie Larkin, Mark Liebenrood (inset), Alexandra Poulovassilis, Andrea Ballatore.
(Header image: The Mapping Museums team in an online meeting. Clockwise from top left: Fiona Candlin, Val Katerinchuk, Jamie Larkin, Mark Liebenrood (inset), Alexandra Poulovassilis, Andrea Ballatore)
Today marks the official end of the Mapping Museums research project. There were certainly times when I thought that we’d never finish. The process of collecting information on museums open in the UK since 1960 sometimes felt interminable, and I began to regret museums opening almost as much as them closing because it means we had to enter them into the database. Writing the report on data, a statistical analysis of changes within the UK museum sector, seemed to take years, as did my attempts to work out local authority hierarchies across the UK. I could have happily skipped those learning curves. And I think my colleagues felt similarly as they collected and checked museum details, created visualisations of data, discovered and fixed bugs in the system, and coded hundreds of thousands of words of interview transcripts.
It has been a huge and at times trying enterprise. Yet the moments of complaint were utterly outweighed by the pleasures of the research. I’ve learned a lot and seen how quantitative and qualitative research can be mutually informative and how interdisciplinarity can push research in new directions. In developing data and data visualisations, I’ve been forced to think more precisely than before about how museums are defined and classified, and the ethics of doing so. My sense of the UK museum sector has changed. I stopped thinking of it as a relatively bounded and stable territory and started seeing it as a mass of overlapping entities that chopped and churned. I’d never really thought about museums closing before, whereas now they seem to be much more fragile entities. And the interview-based work made me rethink the whole notion of a museum founder: not only the notion of the individual founder beloved of conventional institutional narratives, but the DIY curator that features in popular journalism and grass roots histories.
I am also enormously proud of what we have collectively achieved. If you haven’t already, do please have a look at the website, which provides access to a searchable database of over 4000 museums, the project report, articles, and many other resources including transcripts of interviews at around fifty small museums. The final monograph, provisionally titled ‘The People’s Museums’ is finished pending peer reviews and, fingers crossed, will be published sometime next year.
That work has depended heavily on the interest, input, and forbearance of too many people to name, although I would like to thank three groups and one individual who have been particularly important: the Museum Development Officers who questioned, checked, and contributed to our data; the hundreds of museum volunteers and staff members who explained how and why they set up their own museums; the Advisory Board who helped us negotiate the museum sector; and Phil Gregg made sure the systems were maintained and that we didn’t lose our data. We are very grateful to all of them. And at the risk of lapsing into an Oscars-style speech, I’d also like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues in the research team: Andrea Ballatore, Toby Butler, Val Katerinchuk, Jamie Larkin, Nick Larsson, Mark Liebenrood, Jake Watts, and especially the Co-Investigator Alexandra Poulovassilis. It really has been a pleasure to work with such an expert and committed group of people. For me, the project has been more than the sum of its parts: something that only happens when there is genuine collaboration.
Mapping Museums is dead but Mapping Museums lives on. We are working to keep the database up to date for as long as possible. It has been widely used and we want to keep it operational. Doing so depends in part on the ongoing contribution of others, so please carry on sending us updates and edits (contact us here). Several of us are also continuing to work together on the new ‘Museums in the Pandemic’ research project. That will conclude in the summer of 2022 with a report that leads on from the Mapping Museums research. We hope to launch the publication with a seminar and party to make up for the one that we missed in March 2020. You are all invited.
The Museum of North Craven Life covered in scaffolding.
How have small, independent museums coped
during the pandemic? To find out more I talked to the staff at five museums,
all of which are led by volunteers. Their experiences were very varied but it
was striking that none of them had struggled financially, indeed one had
flourished beyond all expectation, and that the main challenges concerned their
volunteers.
Brynmawr and District Museum in the South Wales Valleys is a local history museum with a strong focus on furniture made as part of the Brynmawr Experiment, a Quaker scheme aimed at providing employment in the area during the 1920s and 30s. They took the most lo-fi approach to the pandemic of the museums that we visited in that they simply shut the building and remained closed until June 2021. Like other museums in Wales they were automatically awarded a business rates grant and this covered their gas and electricity bills, which were lower than previous years. Volunteers checked the building on a twice-weekly basis and took advantage of closure to repair some faulty lighting, replace the blinds on the windows, and have the carpet deep cleaned. Otherwise they waited for when they could re-open. The museum has a core group of around ninety supporters who pay an annual subscription and meet for coffee every Thursday morning. Vivienne Williams, one of the original founders and the museum secretary said that everyone had missed the museum. ‘It’s a hub, a social hub’, she explained, ‘they just love the place’. Despite being in her eighties, Viv had no concerns about returning to the museum and said that her fellow volunteers felt likewise: when we spoke, Covid rates were low in the area and the group had all been double vaccinated.
Workers at the Brynmawr Factory 1939, People’s Collection Wales
When I asked Viv if they had developed the museums online activity during the pandemic, she replied ‘No, no, no, nothing like that, we’re all too old for that, Fiona’. Paul Cowan, one of the co-founders and chair of the Pewsey Heritage Centre in Wiltshire made exactly the same remark. Like Brynmawr Museum, they had more or less mothballed throughout the pandemic with two Local Restrictions Support grants from Wiltshire council enabling them to cover costs. These grants went to business-rate payers to help alleviate loss of income during the pandemic.
Pewsey Heritage Centre
When we spoke in May 2021, Paul was worried
about having enough volunteers to re-open on a regular basis. The museum, which
is housed in a Victorian foundry and concentrates on the local history of the
area, usually opens six days a week and they need between 35 and 40 people to
keep running. There are two stewards on duty at any time, while other
volunteers clean the building, or organise and run events that help generate an
income. Most of the volunteers are elderly. Four died during the pandemic
(although not from Covid) and many of the others were uneasy about coming back.
However, five new volunteers from a different demographic had joined the team. One
woman had commuted to London on a daily basis and during the pandemic had
started working from home. She suddenly had four extra hours a day at her
disposal. Another new volunteer worked at a nearby laboratory and had felt it
was time to put something back into the community. In Pewsey restrictions on
movement led to residents having greater available time and on focusing their
attention on their immediate area, and this resulted in younger volunteers
coming forwards. Even so, the museum group still needs more help.
Ingrow Loco
There were no such problems with volunteers returning to Ingrow Loco, a railway museum in Keighley, North Yorkshire. The rolling stock is regularly hired out for use by heritage railways or for special events and so it has to meet modern safety standards and is subject to ongoing testing and maintenance. The museum chairman, Keith Whitmore, explained that ‘a lot of our volunteers are of an age, but nevertheless the engineers were very keen to come back and do some workshop tasks’. The volunteers argued that maintaining the rolling stock was essential work and was therefore permitted under pandemic regulations. The trustees did a risk assessment, took advice from one of their trustees who was also a medic, and then agreed that volunteers could return to work if they socially distanced. Keith said ‘you’ve also got to take wellbeing into account: not just the Covid virus but mental health as well’. For the volunteers, working at the museum was sufficiently important that it overrode their other concerns.
Ingrow Loco
Unlike any of the other museums we visited, Ingrow
Loco re-opened in the summer and autumn of 2020. The museum is on the Keighley
and Worth Valley Heritage Railway and in normal circumstances the steam
locomotives stop outside, dropping off potential visitors. However, during the
pandemic, the railway decided to run a non-stopping service as having groups of
people getting on and off made it difficult to manage social distancing. As a
result, potential museum visitors just went steaming past. To make matters
worse, the railway normally subsidised a vintage bus tour that enabled visitors
to take the train one way and then return by road, stopping off at villages
along the way. This had benefits for Ingrow Loco in that it brought more
visitors to the door. Under financial pressure, the railway withdrew those
funds and the bus service ceased, further reducing the number of museum
visitors.
The furlough scheme and business grants helped Ingrow Loco manage its costs when closed. Once they opened they were eligible for a Local Restrictions Support Grant (open) that mitigated reduced income and they successfully applied for National Lottery Heritage Emergency Funds. These helped subsidise the vintage bus tour and thereby increase footfall to both the museum and the railway. It also enabled them to install contactless payment and to promote the 45596 Bahamas locomotive. Careful marketing generated interest in the south of England and for the first time since the 1960s the Bahamas ran on a number of rail tours that departed from London, generating income to help cover the costs of maintaining the engine. This year the museum re-opened in July and had a busy August, with visitors returning in greater numbers, although they are still below the numbers required to break even.
Metheringham Airfield Visitor Centre
Metheringham Airfield Visitor Centre was unable to re-open, but used the period of closure to their advantage. Samantha Parker differs from the other volunteer staff we talked to by dint of her youth. Having been a trainee at Norfolk Museums Service, she became a volunteer collections manager and trustee at Metheringham Airfield Visitor Centre, and was made vice-chair of trustees this summer. She is also looking for paid employment. She explained that when lockdown started their first concern was for their volunteers. As Sam said ‘we didn’t want them to think they’d been abandoned’ and they duly set up a WhatsApp group and arranged Saturday zoom lunchtimes for when volunteers would usually be on-site. As at Pewsey Heritage Centre, many of the volunteers were vulnerable and were shielding, and others were uneasy about returning. The ensuing lack of stewards meant that the visitor centre was unable to re-open during summer 2020. Others, particularly those involved in maintaining the exhibitions, were keen to come back and in spring 2021, they redecorated the building. The site was originally a World War 2 airbase and the buildings are badly insulated, cold, and expensive to heat, and so are usually kept closed over the winter and for the rest of the year they are open to the public, which makes the timing of any major maintenance work difficult. On this occasion, volunteers could repaint the walls in a socially distanced way and in relative warmth.
Metheringham Airfield Visitor Centre
Metheringham Airfield Visitor Centre was
eligible for business grants that covered their basic outgoing, and they got a
North Kesteven District Council restart grant that allowed them to redevelop
the kitchen and run a café. With the centre’s costs in hand, the trustees started
to meet on a weekly basis to plan in the long term. They had been intending to
apply for Community Interest Status, and being closed to the public gave them
the time to do so. It also prompted them to look more closely at the
organisation and they considered each trustee role in detail, how to diversify
their trustees, volunteer recruitment, governance, and their other activities.
These meetings culminated in a ten-year strategic plan and in recruiting a new
trustee who promptly led on a successful bid for Cultural Recovery Funding.
This enabled them to purchase PPE, to employ a freelancer to improve their
digital presence, and to open an online shop. They re-opened over the summer of
2021. The café has been a hit and they are already planning for next year.
Museum of North Craven Life
Ingrow Loco and Metheringham Airfield Visitor centre both successfully fund raised during the pandemic. The Museum of North Craven Life in Settle, North Yorkshire took that to a different level. The museum occupies a seventeenth-century Grade 1 listed historic house that has variously been a farmhouse, a bakery, warehouse, furniture shop, fish and chip shop, bank, and salvage business. In 2019 Anne Read who had co-founded the museum in 1977 stepped down as its Honorary Curator. The new incumbent Heather Lane, who had previously managed the redevelopment of the Museum of Zoology at the University of Cambridge, took up the post in autumn of that year, intending it to be a project for her semi-retirement. One of Heather’s first moves was to have the building surveyed by Historic England and unfortunately they found that the building was in worse condition than anyone had previously realised. The roof was leaking badly, some of the timbers were rotten, floors were sagging, there was no insulation, and the windows needed replacing. There were also other problems. The museum café was at the opposite end of the building to the kitchen and catering staff had to walk back and forth through the reception area, tea-trays in hand.
The Museum of North Craven Life covered in scaffolding.
They were also short of volunteers. There
were particular conditions at the Museum of North Craven Life that underpinned
this problem. In 2018 a new heritage development officer had introduced a more
professional approach to curating and while this raised standards it also
marginalised some of the volunteers. As Heather explained, the volunteers previously
had total responsibility for exhibitions. Now, feeling that someone else could
do the work they stepped back. The sense that they had to step up or no-one
else would had been a strong motivating force for the group, and that was now
lost. The change in process loosely coincided with Anne stepping down. Recognising
that it was the end of an era several other long-term volunteers decided to do
likewise. Heather wanted to go back to the original model and for the
volunteers to be ‘completely engaged in the research so they feel like there’s
something really worthwhile in coming in and working. There might need to be a
bit of steering, but we’re not there to say this is how you do an exhibition’.
And then the pandemic started. Heather
started applying for funding and was awarded substantial grants from the
National Lottery Heritage Emergency Fund and both rounds of Cultural Recovery
Funding, as well as smaller grants from the East Riding council and the
Victoria and Albert Museum. She also recruited a recently retired chartered
accountant, Richard Greenhalgh as trustee and treasurer. Like Heather he was slightly
taken aback by the magnitude of the task in hand, commenting that ‘I didn’t
expect to be running a small company with hundreds of thousands pounds worth of
grants going through it. I thought it was going to be a “on the back of an
envelope” type of post’.
The accrued funding covered the refurbishment
of the building in line with heritage standards. Window frames and timbers were
replaced, and the building was replastered using traditional techniques that
allow the structure to breathe. The wood ash and horse hair required for lime
mortar and plaster was supplied by local residents who left it in large bins
outside the museum. An old garage immediately next to the café was converted
into a convenient and good-sized kitchen, and the previous kitchen was
transformed into an archive, providing space for a recently acquired collection
of around one thousand glass negatives and numerous prints. The pictures were taken
by the Horners, a local photography firm run by three generations of the same
family between 1860 and 1960 and depict Settle and its residents, often showing
the same people over a number of decades.
The funding also paid for new IT systems and for two heritage development officers to be appointed. Kirsty Mitchell was hired for six months and she overhauled recruitment for the volunteers and trustees, surveyed the volunteers and worked on ways to keep them involved during the pandemic. She set up a Tuesday tea break with mini-lectures on what was happening behind the scenes at the museum. Caitlin Greenwood re-organised the museum shop and commissioned a new website, working closely with the designers to put existing exhibitions online. She also began planning and co-curating new exhibitions with volunteers and a group of local historians. A freelancer was hired to develop online resources for schoolchildren at Key Stages 2 and 3, and a new group of dedicated volunteers are digitising the Horner collection. As Heather said, ‘it’s been really extraordinary to have a pause and to put the museum back on its feet. The museum had to be made sound, we needed to have good infrastructure, to rebuild our relationship with volunteers, and do some business planning. Those were the essentials and with the grant funding we’ve been able to do pretty much all of that’.
The Folly, home to the Museum of North Craven Life, in June 2021
Then, in May 2021, just as the museum was
preparing to re-open to the public, a huge crack appeared in the tower housing
the central staircase. While it is free to go into the downstairs spaces, there
is an admissions charge for the main exhibitions, which are housed upstairs.
The crack meant that the upper floors could not be re-opened, which had serious
implications for their income, as Heather said, ‘We’re looking at a black hole
in our revenue’. Fortunately the café had did extremely well over the summer,
generating just enough income to tide the museum through a few more months, and
Heather is now in the process of applying for further grants, both to have
structural work done on the tower, and to cover the ongoing shortfall in
income.
Benefits and difficulties
During the pandemic, small independent
museums had the advantage of being able to easily close. Their running costs
are generally quite low and the Local Restrictions Support Grant was sufficient
to pay their immediate bills. Ingrow Loco and the Museum of North Craven Life furloughed
their paid cleaning, catering, front of house and project staff, but in both
cases the senior management roles are held by volunteers who were able to carry
on working during lockdown. Thus, the strategic work necessary for re-development
and re-opening could continue without incurring cost, as was also the case at
Metheringham Airfield Visitor Centre.
Ingrow Loco struggled the most because they
re-opened and actively worked to attract an audience, which proved difficult
due to circumstances beyond their control. For both Metheringham Airfield
Visitor Centre and the Museum of North Craven Life, the pandemic gave the staff
time to recalibrate, to rethink their organisation, and to apply for grants.
Although it was personally demanding for many of those involved, on a whole
range of levels, the closure of the museums proved an opportunity rather than a
disaster.
Volunteers and trustees
For me, the most consistent theme to emerge across
the five conversations was that of the volunteers. It was clear that the
museums often played a central role in the lives of the volunteers,
particularly at Brynmawr Museum and Ingrow Loco, and that during lockdown they
had felt the loss of the social interaction and practical activity that it usually
offered. It was also noticeable that participation differed considerably
depending on the volunteers’ roles. At Metheringham Airfield Visitor Centre,
the people who usually stewarded the exhibitions did not generally participate
in the zoom lunchtimes and were reluctant to return to the museum whereas those
who had a curatorial role were ‘champing at the bit’ to return to work. A
similar situation obtained at Pewsey Heritage Centre. They also struggled to
find enough people to supervise the museum during opening hours, but
simultaneously had new volunteers coming forwards to take on the more
complicated tasks of accessioning the collections. It may be that the more
committed and enthusiastic volunteers are those that have the more complex roles.
Alternatively, having a challenge and responsibility may create and reinforce
commitment. All the people we spoke to are themselves examples of highly
committed volunteers undertaking complex and responsible work, particularly Sam
and Heather.
Almost all the museums wanted or needed to
recruit new and younger volunteers. This was particularly urgent in Settle
where a core group of long-standing volunteers had all simultaneously retired. Again
one of the issues here was that they had less responsibility than previously
and were feeling a little disenfranchised. But it was also noticeable that a
combination of strategic recruiting and the effects of the pandemic meant that
museums were able to attract new people and a wider range of people than previously.
And finally, it was clear that the trustees, who are also volunteers, and
especially new trustees with particular specialisms were key to improving the
museums’ capacities and offer during the pandemic.
When the pandemic first broke, commentators forecasted large-scale
closures in the UK museum sector. In
fact, as we discussed in our previous blog, there have
been very few permanent closures.
Emergency funding has had a direct bearing on how museums have weathered the past year. Given that our project ‘Museums in the Pandemic’ examines risk, closure, and resilience in the UK museum sector during the COVID crisis, it is important for us to understand what emergency funding was on offer and to whom. In particular, we wanted to know whether there had been any gaps in the funding – if certain types of museums had been ineligible for funding – and so we duly embarked on compiling a list of the funding streams available to museums. We noted the source of funding, who administered it, the aims of each funding stream, total money allocated, the maximum and minimum amounts on offer to each institution, and the eligibility criteria. The list grew and grew.
In this blog we make our spreadsheet available for general use. Please let us know if you can fill in any of the blanks or if you can add to, clarify, or correct the information we present here.
Download the data (Excel file in xlsx format; last updated 16 July 2021)
Initial Observations
In order to help us make sense of our expanding list we spoke to
people who had been involved in organising or allocating the funding. Here we
make some brief, preliminary observations on funding during the pandemic. This
is work in progress so, again, we welcome any comments.
In total, over fifty new funding streams were open to museums.
Some organisations re-allocated existing funding, and new funds were made
available, principally through the Cultural Recovery Fund.
Large numbers of organisations were involved in allocating and administering funding to museums. These include: Arts Council England; Arts Council Northern Ireland; Art Fund; Business Wales; CADW; Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy; Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; Federation of Museums and Galleries in Wales; Garfield Weston Foundation; HM Revenue and Customs; Historic England; Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government; Museums Archives, Libraries Division Wales; Museums Development Network; Museums Galleries Scotland; National Lottery Heritage Fund; Northern Ireland Museums Council; HM Treasury; Visit Wales; and around 400 local authorities. Some of these organisations administered several funding streams and some organisations collaborated on providing grants. In some cases one organisation provided the funding and another oversaw its allocation, for example National Lottery Heritage Funds provided bulk of the funding for the Emergency Recovery Funds, but it was administered by Arts Council England.
Some funding was available to museums across the UK, other streams
were particular to England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or combinations
thereof. The grants had different criteria including governance, accreditation
status, and the museums’ financial position.
The Emergency and Cultural Recovery Funds were open to museums at
risk. In the first instance, this meant that they had less than three months
operating costs. However, there was a lack of clarity about the status
of financial reserves that had been earmarked for specific projects. Arts
Council England report that they were strict about insisting on the use of
reserves, apart from when they were legally restricted to a designated use, whereas
the National Lottery Heritage Fund took a more lenient view.
Museums were also been eligible for a number of grants and other
support schemes that were aimed at businesses more generally. These included
the job retention scheme, Statutory Sick Pay rebates, VAT deferral, various
government-backed loans, and rate relief. As was the case for the targeted
grants, this business support has been administered by a range of different
bodies.
The number of funding streams and the variety of their remits
makes it extremely difficult to establish whether particular types of museums
fell through the gaps. However, there do seem to have been some pinch points:
Small museums often only required small amounts of funding, for
instance for PPE or to help staff work from home. The first major grant, the Emergency
Response fund had a minimum of £35,000. Thus in the first instance, there was
no available funding for small museums.
England used the same £35,000 threshold for the Cultural Recovery
Fund funding stream. Other national bodies had a much lower threshold for
grants. In Wales there was no minimum. The Treasury discouraged Arts Council
England from offering lower grants because of the amount of administration involved,
and as things stood, they processed more than 6,000 applications in the first six
months of the pandemic.
Accredited museums were directed to apply for funding to ACE, MALD
and Museums Galleries Scotland, and the Northern Ireland Museums Council as
appropriate, with non-accredited museums being directed to the National Lottery
Heritage Fund. As the National Lottery Heritage Fund had a minimum threshold of
£3,000, non-accredited museums could usefully access smaller grants whereas accredited
museums could not. In practice, however, there was a degree of blur between the
two schemes with some accredited museums also gaining funding from the National
Lottery Heritage Fund. Small grants with no minimum threshold were later made
available across the UK by the Museums Development Network and Art Fund.
The National Lottery Heritage Fund specified that applicants had
to already be in receipt of public money. That is, they had already received
funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund or an arms-length body. Museums
that had never received funding were ineligible to apply.
Local Authority museums have to go through internal council
procedures in order to gain permission to apply for external funding. In these
cases, much depended on the responsiveness, capacity and flexibility of the
individual council. Similar conditions apply to many University museums.
Plotting the different funding streams and their remits is a
challenge and in a few cases it has not been clear to us whether museums were
eligible. We were unsurprised to hear that some museums also struggled to
negotiate this complex terrain and that staff from the Museums Development
Network had to act as translators and guides for some of the smaller museums.
Yet, despite the complexity of emergency funding, the lack of closures indicates
that the schemes were collectively successful in helping museums through this
difficult period.
Over the next few months, we will be reporting in more detail on
how the different types of museums have fared during the pandemic, and the
specific challenges they have managed and continue to face.
When museums first closed to visitors in March 2020 as a result of the national lockdown, their prospects seemed poor. Andrew Lovett, Chair of the Association of Independent Museums thought that the impact of the pandemic made it inevitable some museums would ‘just run out of cash and go to the wall’, with collections potentially being lost. Likewise, the director of Arts Council England was concerned that major arts organisations would be put in real jeopardy by the crisis and that some might not survive, and other commentators similarly forecasted mass closures. In fact, only nine museums in the UK have permanently closed over the past year, significantly less than in previous years (there were 26 permanent closures in 2017 and 16 in 2018), and only one of those closures can be linked to the COVID crisis. In this blog we briefly review the reasons why they closed their doors.
Pembrokeshire Candle Centre
In two cases the museum closed when the owner retired. In September 2020, Inger John, who had run the Pembrokeshire Candle Makers Centre in Wales, announced that she had used up her remaining wax, was stopping production, and that she would be closing the associated museum. The museum exhibits were offered for sale. A military museum at Fort Paull, a Napoleonic fortress in Yorkshire, announced that it was closing in early 2020. At the age of eighty, the owner and director had decided to sell the site and retire. He was keen to find a buyer who would preserve the attraction, and a group of enthusiasts formed a company with a view to bidding for the property, but they were unable to raise sufficient funds. The contents of the museum were sold at auction in early 2021.
Fort Paull
Four museums closed due to the loss of their premises, although why this happened varies. The Commando Museum opened in 1993 at the Spean Bridge Hotel near Fort William. The property later changed hands and with redevelopment pending, the volunteers started looking for alternative accommodation. When that proved unsuccessful, they put the exhibits into storage until such time that a new venue could be found. Staff at the Maritime Museum in Walton-on-the-Naze in Essex found themselves in a similar situation. The museum was housed in a historic lifeboat house owned by Tendring council who in 2015 announced a rent hike, to be introduced in steps. The volunteers were keen to relocate since the building was cold, damp and situated at the end of a cul-de-sac, so footfall was low, but two attempts at relocation fell through, and the museum had to close. The collections are in storage.
The Commando Museum
Walton-on-the-Naze Maritime Museum
The Metropolitan Police Service Museum Heritage Centre also found itself out of a home, in this case, when the building changed use. Run by the police, and part of that service, the building was moved to secure level operational status, making it off limits to the general public, and the Heritage Centre was duly closed. It is being relocated to a new space in Woolwich, which will open later this year, but it does not have a dedicated exhibition area. Although the Heritage Centre will continue to function as an archive and repository, and although it has objects on loan to other museums, it is no longer a museum in its own right. And the Bruntingthorpe Aircraft Museum in Leicestershire closed in the summer of 2020 when the site was sold. According to an enthusiasts’ forum the land was owned by the Walton family and while David Walton had supported the museum over many years, other family members had opted to sell the land for redevelopment as a massive carpark. The owners of the aircraft were given until the October of that year to vacate the site.
Bruntinghthorpe Aircraft Museum
Ashworth Barracks
Elsewhere,
finances were an issue. The Victoria Cross Trust opened the Ashworth Barracks
Museum in Doncaster in 2014 to house their collection of military artefacts. In
2020 they announced its closure, commenting that running a museum had never
been among its core objectives, rather they had been established to maintain
war graves. No reasons for the closure were given but the lease on the premises
was due to expire in June 2020 and the trust had been struggling to generate
enough income to cover the museum’s overheads. Parts of their collection were
loaned to Sheffield with other exhibits going into storage.
All the museums we have mentioned
so far were small, unaccredited, and with the exception of the Metropolitan
Police Heritage Centre, run by private owners or voluntary groups. The Falconer
Museum in Forres on the North East coast of Scotland was an accredited local
authority museum, and indeed the only museum in the Moray area that was funded
by the local council, two others having been closed in the previous six years.
Faced with budget cuts of around £10m, in 2019, the council decided to close
the museum service with estimated savings of around £87,000 per year. The
museum was established in 1871 and exhibited artefacts belonging to the
Victorian geologist and botanist Hugh Falconer and his brother Alexander, as
well as social history, archaeology and world heritage collections of national
and international significance. Attempts to find a third party to run the
museum were unsuccessful, not least because the building is in need of repair,
and the museum remains mothballed.
The Falconer Museum
The closure of these museums was a subject of regret for the volunteers who had run them, and the groups and local residents who campaigned for their survival. The exception is the Jack the Ripper Museum in London, where news of its imminent closure was met with some delight. The museum was controversial because its founder originally applied for and was granted planning permission for a Museum that focused on women’s history, whereas it actually concentrated on the murder of five East End women. In September the feminist historian Dr Louse Raw discovered that the company had declared insolvency. In their blog ‘F Yeah History’, Natasha Tidd and Helen Antrobus pointed out that the museum suffered from a lack of local trust, that it had responded to controversy by closing down communication, which would have an impact on its public profile, and that with poorly executed exhibits there was little enticement for visitors to return, factors that may have had an impact on its closure. Given that it was a commercial venue reliant on ticket sales, and (so far as we know) did not receive any emergency funding, it is also likely that its insolvency was linked to the pandemic and the consequent lack of income. The building failed to sell at auction in May 2021.
It is likely
that the impact of COVID may have been the final nail in the coffin of the Jack
the Ripper Museum. Otherwise, what is striking about these closures is that
they have little relation to the pandemic and instead are due to other more
usual factors such as retirement, the loss of a site, the difficulty of finding
new accommodation or changed accommodation, lack of income, and government cuts
to local authority budgets, often in combination. As we will discuss in our
next blog the availability of emergency funding has made it possible for most
museums to survive the past year, although often with considerable human cost
since there have been significant cuts to the workforce. The question is
whether and how the situation will change over the next year or more. The
research team will be monitoring the UK museum sector until 2022 and so do subscribe
to our blogs if you would like to receive regular updates.
We would like to thank the Museums Development Network; Museums Galleries Scotland; and Museums and Archives Division, Wales for their help in compiling this information. All our data can be consulted on the Mapping Museums website. Please get in touch if you know of any other museums in the UK that have permanently closed over the past year.
Clockwise from top left: Museum of Transology Object Number: MOT/122. Photo by Katy Davies, courtesy of Fashion Space Gallery, London College of Fashion; Museum of Homelessness street museum installation, London 2020, photograph by Daniela Sbrisny; Matt and Jess Turtle; E-J Scott, photograph courtesy of Sharon Kilgannon @Alonglines Photography.
Please join us for an online event featuring the founders of two new activist museums.
How do museums respond to the changing world around them? Featuring the founders of two of these new museums, the Museum of Transology and the Museum of Homelessness, this panel explores the current flowering of museums which focus on social issues. New museums do not always follow established forms and may instead stage temporary exhibitions or pop-up street displays. Listen to a discussion of these new museums and tell us more about your thoughts and ideas on these innovative practices.
Museum of Homelessness is a social justice museum. They carry out events, exhibitions and research that tackle homelessness and housing inequality. They also campaign and carry out direct practical actions. Jess and Matt Turtle founded Museum of Homelessness in 2015.
The Museum of Transology is the UK’s most significant collection of material culture surrounding trans, non-binary and intersex lives. It aims to halt the erasure of trans lives from history by enabling trans people to curate their own stories. The MoT was awarded an Activist Museum Award for 2020–21.
Image: (clockwise from top left) Museum of Transology Object Number: MOT/122. Photo by Katy Davies, courtesy of Fashion Space Gallery, London College of Fashion; Museum of Homelessness street museum installation, London 2020, photograph by Daniela Sbrisny; Matt and Jess Turtle; E-J Scott, photograph courtesy of Sharon Kilgannon @Alonglines Photography.
