The Manchester Hermit, an artistic way to clean out the museum cabinets

Thanks for posting Ann.

Personally I found it outrageous that the museum is doing this.

Here is a quote from the site.

"Over several months I have been exploring the museum stores and collecting my own little cabinet of curiosities. Each day over the next forty days I will choose an object from my collection and offer it up in a spirit of sacrifice. The object will be announced through a variety of media, including this blog. I will then destroy it. This destruction will inevitably take place unless someone cares for the object."

This is an ill-advised stunt. Reducing these artefacts to an online game of survivor is a cheap gimmick for a modern day museum to be playing.

It also runs counter to the argument that repatriating artefacts is a bad thing.  

How can a museum say it's taking good care of Chinese artefacts - when a brick from the Great Wall of China could be "destroyed?"

Frankly if I were the Chinese ambassador, I wouldn't blame hime/her for a second if they made the demand that every Chinese artefact, in this museum's collection, be shipped back immediately.

If you leave someone alone, confined in a tower for awhile, mentally they'll lose it sooner or later. It's a dangerous thing to be doing. I only hope that the museum is taking measures to make sure that no item is in fact "destroyed." 

This is an ill-advised and irresponsible gimmick, although it does raise the question of who should look after the our collectively-owned antiquities, and who has the right to claim stewardship over them. I'm assuming that at least one person will respond in defence of each object to stop it from being destroyed (I'm sure the hermit can arrange that). More worrying, though, is that "Stewardship of the object will then be transferred to the respondent who may decide to return it to the Manchester Museum or some other place."

So basically, anyone can turn up and say "I'll have that", and then just take it home and stick it in that drawer in the kitchen where they keep carrier bags, or shove it in the back of the garage, where, eventually, it will be mistaken for an insignificant brick or trinket and chucked in a skip. Imagine if the British Museum ran a similar free-for-all, and the Greek authorities just sent in a kid's poem about butterflies and won back the Elgin Marbles. I'd like to see that!

Of course, none of that is going to happen, and I strongly suspect that these artefacts are going to end up back in Manchester's archives (which is arguably not much better than keeping them on my mantlepiece, where at least a few people would get to see them), leaving this whole project moot.

Watch this space to see whether I manage to 'win' any priceless artefacts!

I can't agree with what you're writing here, Owen. Obviously, we should not take 'destruction' literally (I'm sure all conservator's hell would break loose if they did) and I do see a benefit in consulting the public in what value they think tkhe artefacts hold.

Only to often, one does not realise what one has until threathened with loss of it? It's - imho, of course - a great way to engage with the public, other curators and the art community. As written above, what might have been 'interesting' two centuries ago, not necessasrily still is today. And what was used to be considered 'insignificant' can now due to better research techniques and more general knowledge become a vessel of knowledge.

Museum basements and cupboards are that full - where the extreme example is probably the Cairo museum, a huge amount of crates shipped directly from the excavations, never even unpacked, or indexed as should - and when going over the collections again, revising what is on display and what just gets 'saved' for future generations, there might arise new insights and new storylines.

One of our museum in Belgium was recently renovated and they did an awesome job. Guess what? They did not put more objects on display, but less. But they hired a storywriter, what is obviously a good graphics agency and got tons of media material to illustrate the objects on display. (Really, a piece of flinth gets so much more interesting when you can see on video how it was used.)

So I really think, if you have the chance and time to revisit your collection, what's on display and how you represent it, you should do so. And engaging artists and the public? Even better, they might have a decent opinion and some brilliant ideas! We're always complaining that museums are to static, that decisions are made on the top by a few - knoweledgable, no doubt - but still 'lonely' curators.

Not just that, but the Manchester Hermit here also proves that regardless how 'futile' the object can be considered, it really has it's own story behind it, and an importance of it's own. (See my statement about the labels in the blogpost above.)

Short summary: in my opinion, this is a great 'outreach' project by the Manchester Museum, and I'm definitely a fan. One of the best 'web 2.0' projects I've seen up to now, and they now come in second in 'best museum 2.0' top list. (The MET is still unbeaten. ;))

(Btw. I suggest you go take a look at the cellars of the BM, and suggest they return everything that is not currently on display to the countries or cultures it was err... borrowed for savegarding from.)

@Rebecca: I suggest to wait until they have some 'Egyptian' artefact on display, we all have a go at it, and if we win, it becomes the official HK mascotte? I can make some room on my desk! (Give the desk lamp to Prad)

Surely you can't take this project seriously; it's so obviously meant a) for the museum's exposure, b) to highlight the neglect so many millions of priceless antiquities find themselves in worldwide, and c) as a vainglorious self-promotion tool for the so-called 'hermit', who if you look at his blog has a lot more to say in the future, I'd ponder, than the peril of ancient relics. It at least does the second part well; no-one can surely believe he's going to smash a brick from the Great Wall (he'll no doubt pretend to in some way-overhyped PR stunt). And it does show well the plight, if you can really call being left in a box so, of many of the world's greatest treasures. The Egyptians are particularly good at this trick - just Monday saw the 'discovery' of a load of new finds stashed away in the vaults of the much-loathed Egyptian Museum. If you want to make a real name for yourself as an archaeologist these days, all you really have to do is sneak into a big old museum at night and nick a few dust-gatherers among its countless uncounted artefacts. I can see it now - 'Indiana Jones and the Cabinet of Dust'. It'd be better than the last one.

I refuse to believe that the museum will actually allow even one object to be destroyed.

In one sesnse, that makes it's a bit of a gimmick, as we know it's not really going to happen. On the other hand, if it's getting people engaging with the museum's objects more and in new ways, maybe (in a roundabout way) it's not such a bad thing... 

Well it's interesting that some of you seem to be so thoroughly exercised about my project. Come and talk to me rather than scoff at me. Thank you Ann for participating with your viewpoint and raising the debate here.

Rebecca T, you seem to think that objects can be 'won' by anyone who turns up. Where did you get that from? I am inviting conversation in which everyone has a chance to share what they feel is important. All any of you has to do is simply and clearly state the reason why you think something is valuable and what you think should happen to it. Your opinion then becomes part of a living conversation. Many people may not speak good English or may think in a different way. They are welcome to draw a picture or sing a song. Should they be excluded from the conversation because they are not like you?

The reason for stewardship to be given to a single respondent is to highlight the place of personal responsibility. We already entrust particular people - curators - to look after our most precious things. I am simply making an opportunity to restate that trust, and to make the process transparent. If you are afraid that someone will be irresponsible all you have to do is add your voice to prevent that person from gaining stewardship. Democracy, no?

Sean Williams, I'm sorry you seem to think this is nothing but a PR stunt. Yes, marketing has a place. I am interested in broadening the conversation beyond a narrow circle. But the substance of what is being marketed should have a worth of its own. I believe it is important for the issues I am raising to be widely understood. And any education starts with me. For instance I had no idea before I started this project, what a holotype is. I now have a new respect for the purpose of museums and I'm interested in communicating that.

Owenjarus you seem to be particular incensed about the Chinese brick. Why don't you speak up for it then? Why be righteously offended on behalf of the Chinese Ambassador? Where do you think it should be? Why don't you just say that? Or is it more fun to be angry?

The subject of repatriation is raised by a number of the objects I have chosen. Are you interested in talking about the issues or just casting aspersions on my sanity? I must say, mentally I feel quite healthy. Thank you for your concern.

Anne, I have'nt talked about 'winning' anywhere on the blog, but if you really believe you are deserving of an Egyptian artefact as an HK mascot please go ahead and try to convince all of us. There's one up there now small enough to fit on your desk. http://manchesterhermit.wordpress.com

See you there.

Best wishes,

Ansuman (the Manchester Hermit)

 Nice to see you here Bodger!

The museum may not allow anything to be destroyed, but the fact is that WE do don't we. Every day. That's ok is it? Would it be better to go through with the destruction in order to make it not a 'gimmick'? If a gimmick is some attention grabbing manouvre then yes, I'm guilty. The attention, however, is not for my own narcissistic pleasure, but for the sake of the small things we destroy every day. But who is more foolish,  the one making the fuss or the one who is too dull to wake up until you jump up and down and wave your arms in front of them?

This is the raison d'etre of a museum! If every single person took it upon themself to safeguard priceless treasures then we'd have no need for museums, same as if everyone helped extinguish house fires or took their waste to landfill/recycling. It shouldn't be the onus of the public to stand up for antiques; we have publicly funded museums and galleries for that. So it's completely fair enough that ordinary people get annoyed that museums don't showcase or look after their collections well, without needing to justify our own actions at all.