Helping those that help themselves

Should we help those that help themselves or rescue those who are struggling? You can make an argument for either course, no doubt depending on the situation, but let us consider two cases.

A funding body, let us call it Lottery, only likes to pay for a proportion of a project: let us say 50%. They also have a rule that 'work done so far cannot be counted as match-funding in your bid'. This is understandable otherwise all those in possession of a picture by Leonardo da Vinci would never have to provide any match funding since the 'value' of the work done so far would be so transcendent.

What are the consequences of this rule?

An enthusiast finds a box of pictures in his attic and settles down to catalogue these, working many hours as a volunteer. At the end of the project, it appears that the collection is unique and there would be benefit in the collection and the catalogue being more widely available. He approaches Lottery for financial support to get them on line. But Lottery's rules kick in and it asks for match-funding which our enthusiast cannot afford. All his meticulous cataloguing work does not count. The project cannot go ahead.

In the attic next door is a canny individual who discovers another box of pictures. He opens the box, casts an eye over them, judges them to be worthy of publication and applies, immediately, to Lottery for financial support both to catalogue the pictures and to put them on line. 'Fine in principle', says Lottery, 'where is the match-funding?' 'Oh', says Canny, 'I shall catalogue them myself and that is the match funding.' 'OK' says Lottery, 'we will pay for them to be put on line.' The project goes ahead.

Which, as the prophet might ask, is the better case? Should Lottery be supporting those who have already shown effort and contributed volunteer effort, or should it be encouraging a dependency culture where no one does anything without putting in a bid?

It is galling for those of us who have shown effort and contributed voluntary time to be seeing neighbours who haven't, being fully funded for similar work. Talk about rewarding historic failure. They may need help but it does not do much for our morale or encourage us to put in more voluntary effort.

'Popular Northern museums must stay open'

The Director of the Science Museum has suggested that, if budget cuts continue, he may be faced with the very real possibility of having to close one or more of his museum's outside London as he will be unable to continue with the commitment to allowing free entry. While this is a useful public negotiating tactic to avoid his budget being cut, it has predictably caused a storm of protest. The following letter appeared in the Times of 15 June.

Sir, We are former directors of the national museums currently under threat of possible closure because of budget problems within the parent organisation - the Science Museum Group. we believe there are powerful reasons why the National Media Museum (Bradford), National Railway Museum (York and Shildon) and the Museum of Science and Industry (Manchester) must stay open.

First, all are success stories. They hold collections of genuine international significance, have expertise which is respected worldwide, and are immensely popular - with more than two million visitors a year.

Secondly, they are vital in their host cities, providing cultural, educational and economic benefit across the regions. All three are crucial components of their local and regional economies, attracting tourists and prestige, and supporting jobs.

Third, and most importantly, they are examples of an important egalitarian principle - that the benefits of tax revenue gathered nationally should be spread nationally. Everyone from Islington to Inverness and from Camden to Camborne pays taxes and it is morally and politically right that the benefits of that tax revenue should be spread as far as possible around the country. The BBC has demonstrated this by the excellent move of a large part of its operation from London to Salford, spreading more of its economic impact outside the M25. Surely, at least some of our national museums should operate on the same principle?

Although the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) describes the issue as merely an operational matter for the Science Museum Trustees, the Government cannot shirk its responsibility. Party manifestos spoke of the right of free access to our national heritage but it is an empty right if the museum concerned has closed. To insist on further deep budget cuts and to maintain a policy of free entry, even though free entry might be a good idea in principle, feels like an untenable position.

Moreover, the Secretary of State has responsibility for tourism. What organisation charged with enhancing our national income from tourists can regard the closure of one of the North of England's greater visitors attractions as a sensible way out of recession?

We urge the trustees of the Science Museum Group and DCMS to consider the track record and value of museums in the North of England and to ensure that a solution is found to enable them all to stay open.

Signed by Colin Ford, Patrick Greene, Colin Philpott, Andrew Scott

But for some lingering doubt about the level of tax paid by the residents of Camborne, well said!

Saying it as it is

Just occasionally we trip over someone saying just what we are feeling. This time it was Selina Scott who launched into the Heritage Lottery Fund at a reception in Yorkshire: What the Dickens! Selina Scott in novel row.

It was good to see such an articulate speaker highlighting the insulting and unhelpful adult-child mindset at the core of that organisation. Did anyone consider the heritage instead of whether the bid had been 'impressive' or not? 

Oh to have been a fly on the wall.

PS: we have been a bit quiet recently: not through lack of ideas, simply lack of time. More follows soon. 

Counting what counts II

... a little PS to our last posting is inspired by a recent ten page questionnaire from Arts Council England - there are 24 pages of notes on how to fill it in.

This questions about the ethnicity of any permanent or freelance staff split by 'specialist staff', 'managers' and 'others'; and they want their ages too.

It then asks us for a whole range of turnover figures which could be picked up from our published accounts if they bothered to read them. But what is this we see ... ah yes, they want those figures presented in a different way. 

It might have been good if they had warned us in advance that they might want to know this. We don't collect the ages of freelance staff and such things.

Among a whole range of questions which are irrelevant for a museum -such 'how much of your work is 'touring activity' and 'attendance at film screening days' - is a real gem: 'Please indicate the hours worked by volunteers at your organisation in the last financial year. Round your answer up to the nearest hour.'

It is the last bit we really love. Anyone who has worked with volunteers knows that they do not keep regular hours and, although we do ask them to sign in and sign out, we do not waste our time totaling the hours actually worked 'to the nearest hour'. We know how many shifts they work; will that do?

Looked at another way, rounding up the time to the nearest hour gives an accuracy of about 0.005% or better than one part in 20,000. No, we have not made a mistake. What on earth are they thinking of, asking for that level of accuracy? What are they going to do with the answer? Why have they not asked how many hours our staff work which might at least have provided a useful comparison or ratio.

It is the same mindset that tells us that visitor numbers are 5.14% up. So nice to know that the figure is accurate to one left leg. 

The questionnaire could only have been put together by someone with no concept of basic statistics or mathematics, or who has ever been involved in the real world.

It is that time of year and another questionnaire is waiting in the wings ... oh joy!   

Counting what counts

A recent report entitled Counting What Counts by Anthony Lilley and Prof Paul Moore encourages us to use what they call Big Data. We don't say that we follow every step of their argument which seems to confuse use of data in decision-making  with data drawn from web usage but we were struck by some of their general comments which echo our views on the use of data generally. Here are some paragraphs from their report.

They start with that brilliant quotation from Einstein: Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. Essays should be written on this.

Their two main themes are language ... The sector exists in a context of narrative of subsidy and market failure which means that measurement is too often seen as a burden placed on defensively-minded organisations as a form of accountability and the use of data ... Data and information are most often used in arts and cultural settings somewhat passively, mainly to satisfy the needs of accountability.

Too often the gathering and reporting of data is seen as a burden and a requirement of funding or governance rather than an asset to be used to the benefit of the [organisation]. This point of view ... arises partly from the philosophy of dependence, subsidy and market failure which underpins much of the cultural sector.

The subsidy model tends to trap many cultural organisations in a survivalist, financial mindset and that, in turn, makes it difficult to adopt an expansive, entrepreneurial perspective when under regular implied threat by accountability.

Without the pull of a more enlightened approach to data from funders and regulators, the likelihood of widespread adoption of a more modern approach to data at the level of organisations is low.

A shift in mindset ... is a requirement. Such a shift would match much of the rhetoric of 'investment' which is used in the sector, particularly by policy and turning bodies. ... this rhetoric has largely been just that: a new term to replace the loaded word 'subsidy' rather than a genuine change.

The Arts Council England's recent ten-year strategy, Achieving Great Art for Everyone uses the term 'investment' itself no less that twenty-one times. However, there is considerable mismatch between this use of terminology and the reality of how commercial investment actually works. Too often 'investment' is used as a synonym for 'subsidy' and this linguistic sleight of hand is, in fact, sometimes harmful.

'Subsidy'. ... is a loaded term which indicates an in-built power relationship. 'Subsidy' is given to something which is weak. Conversely 'investment' is something from which we expect returns and which is thus imbued with potential. Framing public investment in culture as 'subsidy' positions it as a weak, dependent activity. When in harmony, investor and investee should be committed to achieving the same ends.

Being data-rational is a skill and not something that can imposed or encouraged by the dull demand for 'metrics' so beloved by funders. You first need to collect the right data - data which is relevant and representative - then to turn this into useful information for decision-making. 

Not understanding the difference between good and bad data, or the way figures can tell a coherent story, our funders frequently ask the wrong questions and seem satisfied with any numbers. 

I suppose you would not expect 'artists' to understand something as rational as 'numbers' which come from the other side of the great arts-science divide. Their use of the word 'investment' is probably the same: a desperate attempt to adopt the language of a business world they so little understand.  

Teaching us to lie

Can I borrow £2?
Thanks ... come to think of it, I don't need that much. Here is £1 back.
When do I get back my £1 back?
What £1? I have just paid you £1.

In a telephone call to a potential business partner in Germany, this form of economics was described as milkmaid economics after a story by La Fontaine. We are not sure there is a direct parallel but the title has a certain charm, even if if politically milkmaidist.

It is much the same sort of economics as that required by (both British and European) grant-making organisations. These fine, upstanding organisations have a clear view of best practice and priority when dealing with public money, and encourage good behaviour in funded bodies on all occasions. But, with the year-end approaching, what is my moral position on the following?

We bid let us say £10k on the basis that we would contribute match-funding of 4 days of staff time. In totalling the staff time involved I find we did it in 2 days. Do we:

1. 'Find' another 2 days in our diaries so that we can show that we contributed what we said we would?
2. Spin the work out to 4 days - a few bows and ribbons on top perhaps - so that we can honestly say that we provided the full match-funding?
3. Confess all and tell the funder that they should only be paying us half the cash sum as we did not provide the match-funding we promised?

We could of course get a life and do what everyone else does: adopt option 1.

But imagine the implications of the other two approaches. One would encourage inefficiency as we spent our time cutting out paper doilies to adorn our already-completed project. The other would produce a reaction like a Bateman cartoon The organisation that said it did not need the money that had been promised. 

How would they ever cope with an efficient and honest organisation? Are we the milkmaids or are they? 

Putting a brave face on it

Ed Vaizey is putting a brave face on things. The Museum's Association reports a speech last week to the Local Government Association Conference, in which he described the government’s support for the sector as a self-evident truth and said it was rubbish to suggest the arts are in crisis. It is regrettable to observe some of the scaremongering suggesting our arts and cultural sector is somehow at risk. 

He went on to highlight the cities which had bid to be 'cities of culture', saying they are the ones that get it. It’s only a shame that more don’t. He went on to cite Chester Council's plans to improve the city's cultural offer as yet another example of the arts in the UK waving, not drowning.

The MA reports that 'leading figures from across the arts sector, including the Arts Council's new chairman Peter Bazalgette, have expressed serious concern about the loss of local government investment in culture. Recent figures show that local authority funding for museums dropped by £23m in 2011-12, while a report by the Department for Communities and Local Government, also found that cultural spend by local authorities in England fell 7.8% in that period.'

Mark Taylor, director of the Museums Association, said: I am sure the news that we are not in crisis will come as a surprise to most of the museums in the UK - to the 400 professionals who have been made redundant in the national museums in the last year and to the 30% of museums who responded to our 2012 survey saying they had had their budgets cut by 35% in the last two years.

Well said Mark. Ed Vaizey must have been talking to his London museum friends (generously funded by him) again.

There is a bonus point for guessing where he made this speech. Yes, in Chester. Funny that.

Experts

Describing the management mindset at his (very major, national) museum, a friend said:

Current management is totally insane - totally risk adverse, incapable of making decisions without resorting to data collection, feasibilities, testing etc - all encouraging 'experts' in relevant fields to promote their own importance and agenda, and totally incompatible with other views and agendas - resulting in incomprehensible, unrealistic and unachieveable briefs and objectives.

Where is leadership, creativity and innovation?  

And where is coherence? External people always seem to 'know better' than the people in the business and pedal their own patent nostrums at the expense of coherence. Over-worked, brow-beaten and sometimes simply weak management give in and apply the solutions so that they can report that 'advice has been taken' - aka my bum is protected. 

The real pain is that the advice will have cost many times what it would have cost to have someone internal do the work or to have been allowed to form a view after taking advice. How much it costs in the long term is anyone's guess. We recently paid  for a charming marketing consultant to produce a marketing review and strategy for us. For much the same cost we could have employed a marketing person full time for four months. Value for money: I think not; but the money needed to be spent by a deadline (why, is a different story).

As to patent nostrums, over the last two months two different consultants have separately told us that the home page of our website should have 'the on-line shop' and 'the fund-raising message' in the most prominent position. And there I was thinking we had something to do with being a museum: making an offer, telling people what there was to say and persuading them to visit (and pay).

Consultants recommend consultants and contractors as the answer to an organisation's problems and a whole archipelago is growing up 'providing services' where we managers would much rather have dedicated teams that have watches and can tell the time themselves.

I suppose we should be reassured that things are no better at the top of the slag heap as they are at the bottom.  

Tactful or what?

Why do we feel that this picture, which was the main picture in an e-newsletter, was not the most tactful choice for an article on Touch in Museums in the week in which a baby had his hand savaged by an urban fox?



They changed the image on their website.

Ah, those heady days

Trying to work out what we needed to do for a museum exhibition, recently I recalled the heady days when we used our nous. I made the mistake of asking a former colleague what he recommended. Here is his reply:

Surely today these imponderables would be resolved by commissioning a formative evaluation study, identifying audience needs, behavior, attitude, learning styles and preferences, through questionnaire and observational research, testing of conceptual and intellectual options with focus groups, followed by summative evaluation, using similar techniques on temporary/intermediate solutions and capable of being modified for the final interpretative offer. All actions would require a Project Execution Plan and, of course, Business Plan, with weekly management reports and a clear audit trail.

I would also recommend that this evaluation should not be done in isolation but as part of a wider study evaluating the effectiveness of all interpretative media available, either individually or as part of a mixed media platform. The study should also be perhaps wider to include the financial implications of required expenditure and anticipated income and meeting Brand objectives.

Oh joy.

Getting in a Pickle

How refreshing ... we have a new minister joining the fray: Eric Pickles has issued a list of 50 ways to save. This has the potential to be insulting, foolhardy or both.

One bright idea suggests that councils should lease works of art not on display. Many councils own art galleries and museums and have extensive collections which never see the light of day, but merely gather dust in storage.

The museums industry has responded that the suggestion is ill informed - don't you just love understatement: such an English form of criticism - and that there is no market for leasing art in this way.

We wonder who Pickles thought would be rushing forward to pay to borrow pictures from museum stores and how he thought they were going to solve the problem of insurance, handling and proper care. Insurers and curators are very protective of works of art. Would lessees be trained in picture conservation and care and then issued with white gloves?

The next headline might be 'Leased Pickle picture damaged by bread roll ... Shock!'

Heaven help them

It is difficult to know how one should feel when reading a press release which says that, in deciding not to fund seven non-national museums, the DCMS is 'confident that despite the current economic climate alternative bodies will be keen to take on the sponsorship (aka funding) of these museums.'

Should one feel sorrow for the naivety of the person at the DCMS who thought that another body would step forward and provide the money to support these museums, each of which costs over £1m to stay open? Or should one feel sorry for the poor civil servant who had to write this nonsensical stuff to satisfy a minister's uninformed conviction?

As it happens, over two years later, the DCMS has managed to pass on three of the seven: two to the Science Museum Group and one - the Tyne and Weir Museums and Archives - to the Arts Council England who has not previously been responsible  for managing any such venue. Both host organisations are funded by, yes you guessed it, the DCMS. One only wonders what sweeteners were offered.

The remaining four, including the Geffrye, Horniman and Design Museum in London, and the People's History Museum in Manchester (hardly a name likely to please a backwoods Tory) remain in DCMS hands. The DCMS now announce that they 'have decided not to pursue alternative sponsorship for the Horniman and the Geffrye'.

So that was a sound (bite) policy wasn't it.

If they want to save money on running these museums they could think of introducing an admission charge. Oh, sorry, I forgot. These museums and galleries are full of 'art' and that could never happen.

News from elsewhere:

• Westminster plans to scrap its £350,000 arts programme
• Sheffield Council has confirmed it will cut £200,000 from Museums Sheffield from April
• Blackburn with Darwen Council ... as part of overall savings of £30m ... is reviewing opening hours at Blackburn Museum
• Cornwall Council wants to reduce the annual £384,000 subsidy to Mount Edgecumbe estate  by £66,000 for the next three years. A councillor says 'the estate will struggle to survive'  
• Newcastle City Council has announced plans to scrap £1.2 million in subsidies to theatres and other arts venues. Is there any connection here with the transfer of the Tyne and Weir Museums and Archives to the Arts Council?
• Tracey Emin threatens 'riots' at cuts in the arts. Now we should be really worried 

The dominoes are beginning to fall. It will only be a matter of time ...

Self-serving spin?

A website called Culture Geek* recently carried an article which said:

'Concerned, as they are, with history and permanence, museums are not generally in the business of shaking things up. The idea of new blood – a youthful, invigorating force that can re-imagine an organisation – is not usually high on the Trustee agenda at established and venerable institutions. Big changes are often slow, perhaps almost generational, yet these same institutions are perpetually charged with attracting new and different types of audiences.

'In fact, one of the most consistent themes of the past decade or so of museum funding, at least in the UK, has been the push for audience development: how to reach groups that have been underrepresented amongst museum visitors.'

It went on to describe an initiative with young people in Amsterdam.

It is difficult to know how to react to much that is in this piece: it is so contentious. Of course museums are concerned with history: that is what they do. Museums are absolutely about permanence in the sense of preservation for posterity but not in the sense the article suggests: as stasis of interpretation, of unchanging displays or thinking.

'New blood is ... not usually high on Trustees' agendas'. Hardly true given the many training courses for museum staff.

'... a youthful, invigorating force that can re-imagine an organisation' ... try me. Why is 'youthful' the only solution?

'...yet these same institutions are perpetually charged with attracting new and different types of audiences ... how to reach groups that have been underrepresented amongst museum visitors'. Then we reach the nub of the issue and one that is worth talking about in a less emotional, objective and more cooperative manner.

* Culture Geek's mission espouses a lovely piece of puffery: The digital revolution is transforming the world around us, industries are shifting, companies are falling (sic: perhaps they meant 'failing') and keeping up with these changes and how they effect your organisation is a full time job. This seems to be coming from the same stable as one of our earlier postings.

The Regions

We enjoyed the Independent's '50 Best Museums and galleries' which identified the following regions of the the UK:

Wales: no argument here. It is the standard by which everywhere else is measured even though no one actually knows the size of Wales, even if you live there: there is North Wales and South Wales and lots of lambs in between. Still, it is good to know that Ruritania is half the size of Wales.

South-west and London: this is the well-known region which runs from Lands End to Ilford. Out of the twelve museums and galleries selected in thie region, nine are in London and three in the south-west: one in Bath, one in Bristol and one in Exeter. Good call, that's one within three hours' drive.

South-east and Midlands: anyone going near London will have to shut their eyes for a bit.

North: no argument here either. You start to notice it in North London where the signs used to say Hatfield and the North and Aylesbury and the North West. I have never quite worked out why these two particular towns were singled out: they seem an odd choice. You know you have arrived in the North, not when you pass Watford but when you reach the M18 Doncaster bypass where a sign used to say simply The North. When you see angels you are beginning to run out of North ... and are heading for ...

Scotland and Northern Ireland: a real gem of political correctness. Had we been back 2000 years with the Picti and Scoti then this might have been credible but I wonder if they have noticed that the plantation of Northern Ireland by Lowland Scots five hundred years ago did not go down terribly well and has been a source of tension ever since?

Wars have been fought for less. Perhaps it is not only Apple who needs a geography lesson.

Why we love curators

It looks as though we have had a month off ... let's call it a holiday or a break when it has actually been because September has done its usual trick of disappearing in a flash. However, we are back and here are two reasons why we love curators: museum ones, that is.

It is difficult to know where curators come in the hierarchy of reincarnation. Are they auditors or accountants who have lived blameless lives or somewhere below risk assessors? While individually charming and knowledgeable, they can occasionally show a devotion to paperwork and process which makes the USA Immigration Service look relaxed and imaginative.

Consider the example of a local museum building which used to be a bank. Like most such buildings, it has a strongroom with a wonderful thick door, dials and handles. Does the museum store its priceless Ming vase in the vault? its original Leonardo? its unique 14th century hand-crafted book? No. After much trouble de-activating the alarms, skipping past the infra-red beams and cracking the combination, the ambitious and inventive burglar will find ... the curator's paperwork. Nuff said?

Paperwork is evidence of title and so they can perhaps be forgiven but, more worryingly for scholarship, they can be equally jealous of knowledge and interpretation.

We had identified a large collection of historic images in a large remote museum and offered to help digitise and catalogue them. There were real reasons for wanting do the work soon: the material was fairly unstable and would therefore be at risk of decay, and the pictures were of things local to us and of a period for which there were local people who might be able to help identify the scenes.

Back came the answer: they were not a priority for funding - well all the more reason to allow us to help - and there was not sufficient curator time to analyse the images.

We did not actually want a curator; we were offering to do the work ourselves, with volunteers. How a curator, sitting in a remote office, could possibly identify the images was not explained. People on the ground might have done so, from memory or from other publications but that would not be of an acceptable standard. Could we have a look at the images and come up with some suggestions for the curator? No, not acceptable. We even offered to assemble a partnership bid to a funding body to do the digitisation work.

So the images will no doubt sit there, to give the museum their due, probably stable in the expensive cared-for environment, while the people who might have been able to say what the images showed quietly leave this earth.

What will the curator of the future say when faced with the images: 'if only ...' perhaps?

Let's have some courage and conviction

OK, so you say we have not been very positive lately. Here is a really uplifting thought from Nick Poole, the chief executive of the Collections Trust.

Writing on his website, he commented on the connection with the past made in the Olympics opening ceremony. It showed that Britain truly understood the links between a proud heritage and the fabric of daily life, he said. 'Our culture is playful, inclusive and grandiose precisely because we celebrate our past as the story of our present. That is the unique thing that museums do, in every community, in every village, town and city for people of every age.'

He goes on to argue that politicians and funders still required evidence about value and impact, but also needed courage and conviction. 'Without intrinsic belief in the value of a strong museum sector, no amount of measurement will ever make up for a nagging lack of conviction.' It was time to celebrate everything that was great about Britain’s museums and galleries. 'From our venues, which inspire, educate and amaze millions of people very year, to our collections and the rich, creative online resources we provide, our dazzling cultural offer is the envy of nations worldwide.'

Well said Nick: less of the tedious measurement statistics and bit more courage and conviction.

Takeover Day

Kids in Museums is encouraging museums to register their interest for this year’s Takeover Day on 23 November, when museums and galleries invite young people to take on meaningful roles in the running of their institutions.

Oh joy! I am so glad you have included the word meaningful this year. Let me think ... you can be in charge of health and safety for the day; and for signing contracts; and how about doing some staff appraisals; or answering some customer complaints? And could you let me have a draft of the corporate plan before the end of the day?

What do you mean those are not the sort of meaningful roles you meant?

Support success or reward failure?

Arts Council England (ACE) has announced a new museums and schools programme designed to increase the number of educational visits by schools to museums (yippee!). The £3.6m programme, funded by the Department for Education, is not apparently open to applications. Instead 10 regional museums will be commissioned to work with clusters of local schools. The funding will go to areas identified as having low levels of cultural engagement.

Another conundrum: if there is a low level of cultural engagement then museums are usually accused of having failed in their task. If this is the case, then why is the new money going to museums in these areas? Do we not usually reinforce success?

Is it facile to ask exactly what the process for choosing the areas will be?

Science Lottery funding anyone?

The report in the paper that great minds believe that Maths should be a compulsory subject up to the age of 16 prompts another thought.

Lottery money is distributed for Heritage, Arts, Awards for All and Big Lottery projects. Why do we not have a Science and Technology Lottery Fund? Nesta is the nearest we have to it but that is not targeted at the mass market.

Why not a Science and Technology Lottery Fund giving money for the advancement of these subjects? Then those of us that deal with design technology could help support this initiative. And we mean real design in the sense of making real thought-through innovations and not just things that look pretty.

Projects would have to have real technical or scientific application and/or involve learning. It would help to fund the many science centres which struggle for funding and it would meet the ambitions of the great minds to keep a knowledge and understanding of maths, physics, chemistry, biology ... alive above basic levels.

The recent launch of the boat in the Boat Project was all about the look of its hull. No one mentioned the technology behind the creation of the boat, its hydro-dynamic shape, its materials or its performance specification (no one mentioned what is going to happen to it now that it has been built at vast expense either, but that is another story).

We cannot think that Germany's economic miracle was founded on the back of a contemporary art programme.