The three points of discussion below, and the background discussions in the paper more generally, have evolved out of several years of investigation focused upon 'musingplaces' –museums & art galleries: cultural, scientific & historic plus heritage buildings and sites – and their Communities of Ownership & Interest (COI).
While Tasmania has been a focus, and the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery a case study, even so the investigation is ongoing and its mindful of the diversity of museums, art galleries, heritage buildings and sites sprinkled around the State. Tasmania is in so many ways an ideal place to do research.
The research here is rather more concerned with the paradigm shifts appearing in international discourses and their 'trickle down impacts'. Musingplaces have changed and are changing.
Nonetheless, local concerns and issues might well be imagined as a fraction that might well represent the whole.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR TASMANIA
1. In a 21st Century context Tasmania has both an incentive to, and the potential to, network its musingplaces :
A. In regard to incentive, the State is seeking employment opportunities and is looking to tourism – cultural tourism potentially – to provide at least some of those potential jobs and enterprise opportunities. Employment in museums, art galleries, heritage buildings, etc. – musingplaces – and the development of the venues' infrastructure and operational models has advantages beyond the venues themselves – out into hospitality sector and well beyond that.
B. Networking musingplaces grows their potential to deliver more extensive dividends – tangible & intangible – to the local communities they are a part of.
i. From a cultural development perspective opportunities could be expected to grow exponentially through new intrastate, interstate and international connection and relationships;
ii. From an economic perspective it could be expected that opportunities to develop new enterprises that interface with musingplaces thus increasing or securing employment, plus expanding educational and social benefits;
iii. From a research perspective – cultural, scientific, historic, etc. – such networking has the potential to interface with interstate and international networks thus raising Tasmania's profile and opportunities in the relative fields of research.
2. Given the substantial investments communities, individuals and the corporate sector have in public musingplaces – via rates & taxes, donations, sponsorships & volunteered skills plus time – the case for the formal regularisation and accreditation of musingplaces in Tasmania in line with the Associations Incorporation Act, Tasmanian Museums Act, Collections Australia's standards and the International Council of Museums' protocols is becoming increasingly compelling.
A. From the perspective of musingplaces' COIs formal accreditation would offer the assurance of: appropriate and best practice governance; credible policy and planning determination processes; sustainable management structures; and better access to conditional funding via various Govt. funding agencies, the corporate sector and philanthropic sources.
B. From the perspective of State and Local Govt. rate and tax payers, formal accreditation would offer the assurance of appropriate, functional and enforceable accountability commensurate with funding commitments.
C. From the perspective of sponsors and donors, formal accreditation would offer improved assurances that their gift/investment – cash, objects, in-kind support – has been applied to the purposes they intended for – short and long term.
3. Given the the increasing need for funding to facilitate changing/growing expectations, and the competition for funding, there is increasingly a compelling case for musingplaces – State funded & Local Govt. funded particularly – to explore new operational models in line with 21st C needs and aspirations.
A. From the perspective of major institutions holding public collections that might generally understood as being a part of the 'National Cultural Estate' operating in the new museology paradigm a sustainable entrepreneurial operational model would open up new opportunities for these institutions.
B. From the perspective of institutions holding public collections, proactively pursuing an sustainable entrepreneurial operational model would open the institution up to new programming opportunities and the ability to secure, and earn, research funding. The flow on being enhanced development, employment and income opportunities.
C. From the perspective of institutions holding public collections pursuing 'satellite' for-profit enterprises in order to develop more sustainable and/or more risky programming and research in line their purpose for being.
Note: Altogether this Community Cultural Enterprise operational model paradigm offers some relief from potentially unchecked rates and taxes being levied. Moreover, it is more likely than its 'cost centre' alternative to deliver direct and indirect employment and income opportunities in the wider community.
iii. From a research perspective – cultural, scientific, historic, etc. – such networking has the potential to interface with interstate and international networks thus raising Tasmania's profile and opportunities in the relative fields of research.
2. Given the substantial investments communities, individuals and the corporate sector have in public musingplaces – via rates & taxes, donations, sponsorships & volunteered skills plus time – the case for the formal regularisation and accreditation of musingplaces in Tasmania in line with the Associations Incorporation Act, Tasmanian Museums Act, Collections Australia's standards and the International Council of Museums' protocols is becoming increasingly compelling.
A. From the perspective of musingplaces' COIs formal accreditation would offer the assurance of: appropriate and best practice governance; credible policy and planning determination processes; sustainable management structures; and better access to conditional funding via various Govt. funding agencies, the corporate sector and philanthropic sources.
B. From the perspective of State and Local Govt. rate and tax payers, formal accreditation would offer the assurance of appropriate, functional and enforceable accountability commensurate with funding commitments.
C. From the perspective of sponsors and donors, formal accreditation would offer improved assurances that their gift/investment – cash, objects, in-kind support – has been applied to the purposes they intended for – short and long term.
3. Given the the increasing need for funding to facilitate changing/growing expectations, and the competition for funding, there is increasingly a compelling case for musingplaces – State funded & Local Govt. funded particularly – to explore new operational models in line with 21st C needs and aspirations.
A. From the perspective of major institutions holding public collections that might generally understood as being a part of the 'National Cultural Estate' operating in the new museology paradigm a sustainable entrepreneurial operational model would open up new opportunities for these institutions.
B. From the perspective of institutions holding public collections, proactively pursuing an sustainable entrepreneurial operational model would open the institution up to new programming opportunities and the ability to secure, and earn, research funding. The flow on being enhanced development, employment and income opportunities.
C. From the perspective of institutions holding public collections pursuing 'satellite' for-profit enterprises in order to develop more sustainable and/or more risky programming and research in line their purpose for being.
Note: Altogether this Community Cultural Enterprise operational model paradigm offers some relief from potentially unchecked rates and taxes being levied. Moreover, it is more likely than its 'cost centre' alternative to deliver direct and indirect employment and income opportunities in the wider community.
Timeframe: Given that in many instances what is being proposed here would represent a major change for some institutions they are here in the context that if implemented, it would only be practicle to do so within a staged timeframe over time – say three to five years.
Furthermore, the change would need to be implemented in collaboration and cooperation with individual and networked institutions Communities of Ownership & Interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment