With the birth of museums, came the Enlightenment idea that the contemplation of the works was an educational resource that was supposed to be available to the entire population. As a result, collections ostensibly became accessible to everyone (Bazin 1967; Cataldo and Paraventi 2007; Stermscheg 2014). Everybody could enjoy collections, whether they were curators and scholars, or not. Nevertheless, since curators and museums collected items rather carelessly, regardless of the available space, resulting in over-crowded premises, the idea of accessibility has begun to falter (Ames 1985; Crenn 2021; Ferriot 1995; Gilson 1914). Museums adopted several esthetic methods to lighten displays in order to address the unappealing presentation (Avery-Quash and Crookham 2018; Bazin 1967; Griesser-Stermscheg 2014; Murray 1904; Reinach 1909). Because many stored collections have not been displayed at all, the initial intent of their democratization has been compromised. As a result, a sizable portion of collections is accessible for study purposes for professionals only and not the general public. Therefore, the topic of stored collections and their uses has become contested since it endangers the museum's reputation as a place where anybody can access and appreciate its collections.
According to previous research, many collections are kept in storage. Specifically, some studies conducted in 1989 and 2005 on museums in England and Wales showed that 80 percent of museum collection items were stored; as a result, many of them were inaccessible to the public (Lord et al. 1989; Wilkinson 2005). Although regionally limited, these findings were supported by studies by ICCROM and UNESCO (Keene et al. 2008). Indeed, according to UNESCO's 2011 global assessment, only 10 percent of the content of museum collections are on display. Further studies on this topic have supported the previous results. For instance, Christopher Groskopf (2016) showed that just 5 percent of masterpieces were displayed to the public in several famous museums. Most recently, the report De Erfogoedmonitor (2020) confirmed that a significant portion of museum items in the Netherlands (20 percent) were kept in storage. These studies highlight the problem that most collections are not used directly for the benefit of audiences.
Despite the importance of earlier studies, there is currently a shortage of research on exactly how many stored collection items are accessible for the enjoyment of the general public. The adoption of particular museum practices, such as visible storage (also known as open depots), as a way to increase the use of stored collections has been the subject of several case studies in the literature (Antonini et al. 2019; Bond 2018; Crenn 2021; Godfrain 2022; Griesser-Stermscheg 2013; Lisney et al. 2013; Reeves 2018; Singh 2018). Despite this, research concerning how many stored items are lent to or exchanged with other cultural institutions is currently lacking. As a result, this study aims to give insights into how museums are using stored collections through loans and exchanges.
This study aims to shed light on the question to what extent loans and exchanges contribute to making stored collections available. Specifically, the purpose of this research is to estimate the approximate scale of the usage of stored collections through loans and exchanges in terms of quantitative data on average, and if there are differences in scale in different parts of the world. Furthermore, this study aims to determine if the differences in the degree of usage of stored museum collections through loans and exchanges is affected by certain variables, such as the types and sizes of collections and different legal status.
Theoretical Framework
This study focuses on loans and exchanges of items from museum collections. In order to explore the topic, it is essential to provide a definition of crucial terms involved in the study, namely: museum, preservation, accessibility, loan, and exchange. First and foremost, according to ICOM's (2022) definition of a museum, adopted during the twenty-sixth General Conference in Prague, “a museum is a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that researches, collects, conserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection and knowledge sharing”. This definition highlights the wide range of functions within museums, for example, collecting, preserving, researching, exhibiting, and interpreting. Specifically, the term “preservation” refers to a set of tasks that museums need to perform to safeguard their items from a variety of threats, including vandalism, deterioration, and any source of potential alteration.
With regard to the term accessibility, there are numerous definitions in the literature. “Accessibility in museums means that the exhibitions, living space, information services, training programs, and all other basic and special services offered by cultural equipment should be available to all individuals,” writes Viviane Sarraf (2010: 31), “perceptible to all forms of communication, and with clear instructions for their use that allow users autonomy.” This definition emphasizes the inclusive nature of culture. Additionally, accessibility is the degree to which museum services or environments are available and welcoming to the greatest number of individuals (Burkhart 2012: 98). Some authors emphasize the obstacles associated with accessibility that need to be eliminated to make museums and collections more accessible, such as “removing architectural barriers, making discourses understandable, making researchers’ work easier, proposing new ways of accessing work, introducing systems to obtain alternative resources to the official ones, etc.” (Álvarez de Morales Mercado 2013: 5). Other authors highlight the point that users should be able to safely and independently move around the premises (Solima et al. 2021). The concept of autonomy in this context has a broader meaning than mere physical accessibility.
Museums need to balance accessibility with other factors that require museums to keep items in collection stores. One reason is the need to avoid overloading the exhibition areas with too many pieces. So, educational goals or museographical criteria lead to choosing a limited number of particular pieces that make the exhibition reachable and comprehensible to visitors without overburdening the space with an excessive number of works. Another reason is to do with preservation issues. This is a difficult balance for collection management professionals. If, on the one hand, museums need to preserve their collections to allow future generations to enjoy them, then space, personnel, and funds are needed for the preservation of collections. On the other hand, collections represent an enormous educational, research, and recreational resource and are supposed to be accessible to the public.
Accessibility can be achieved through different strategies: visible storage, digitization, rotation of items, and lending to, or exchanging items with other cultural institutions. The loan is “the contract between the borrower and the organiser, stipulating the responsibilities of both parties” (Piacente 2022: 138). A loan is also characterized by certain expectations as well as rights and responsibilities for both the borrower and the lender (Matassa 2011). Moreover, the loan is associated with the French term bailment (Malaro and DeAngelis 2019). This term refers to a delivery of personal property by one person to another in trust for a specified purpose, with an agreement, either explicit or implicit, that the trust shall be honestly executed, and the property returned or duly accounted for when the specific purpose is fulfilled or retained until the bailer claims it. Also, a loan is understood as the delivery of personal property by one person to another in trust for a specific purpose (Commonwealth v. Polk et al. 1934). The definition implies the existence of two parties and a contract known as a loan agreement. Consequently, there is a bailor and a bailee, who are the lender and borrower, respectively. Another essential definition of a loan agreement is “a document that grants temporary custody of something belonging to one party to another” (Wood and Gardner 2020: 224).
As with all contracts, the loan contract consists of at least an object, two parties, a duration, a reason, and a site of execution. Consequently, the loan agreement is the document comprising all agreed-upon terms of the contract. This contract may involve an incoming loan agreement, in which items are borrowed from other institutions, or an outgoing loan agreement, in which items are lent to other institutions. The contract has two parties: the bailee or borrower, which is the institution that receives the collection, and the lender or bailor, which is the institution that delivers the collection.
The exchange agreement is the contract between two institutions that deliver items to each other according to a reciprocal relationship. Therefore, exchanges differ from loans in which items are delivered from one party to the other one according to a monodirectional path. Loans develop through numerous phases before their approval. Receiving the loan request, determining the loan's purpose, the borrower's eligibility, and the borrower's facilities, determining the terms of collection, and negotiating the terms of the agreement, are all parts of the procedure for lending museum items (Ambrose and Paine 2018; Bakke 2020; Malaro and DeAngelis 2019; Matassa 2011; Wood and Gardner 2020). Once accepted, loans offer a chance to give objects that have been stored within museum collections a second life through public displays (Pye 2000). In the case of exchanges, museums will lend one another objects of comparable worth to complete the exhibition of permanent collections in the main museum galleries (Wood and Gardner 2020). As a result, more people can see a greater number of original artifacts due to loans and exchanges from other institutions (Matassa 2010).
Methodology
This data was gathered through quantitative research involving many museums in various nations. ICOM national committees on all five continents were contacted with a Google form survey in December 2020, and the survey was eventually distributed to 48 individual committees who published it on their websites. In addition, the survey was distributed via direct invitation to museums in at least 10 countries around the globe, according to official museum directories, for example, national museum associations and ministries of culture. Museums were expected to provide their feedback by the end of January 2021.
This research has some limitations due to the response rate or the number of museums from around the globe that could not respond. In order to reduce the risk associated with this eventuality, the research aimed to involve 10 countries across five continents and address a target of 80 to 100 museums from each country so as to receive feedback from a minimum of 80 to 100 of these museums. If more than 20 museums did not provide their feedback, the study would have utilized an additional sample of museums. Every form of governance (national, local, private, and more), collection type (art, history, science, and others), and collection size (large, medium, small) was supposed to be represented in the integrative sample. To overcome these limitations, a survey was sent directly to a large sample of museums (2,558 museums) located in 25 countries around the world so as to represent a wide range of museums according to their legal status (national, regional, local, private, trust, partnership state, and trust), type of collections (art, archeology, history, ethnology and anthropology, and so forth), and size of collections, determined by the number of items in museum collections (small: up to 100,000 items, medium: from 100,001 to 1,000,000; large: from 1,000,001). The survey was emailed to the selected museums, and they filled it out anonymously. In accordance with general ethical guidelines, anonymity was maintained to encourage museums to participate. Museums might be unwilling to consciously declare how they use their items, which might deter them from taking part in the study.
The survey examines several topics associated with stored collections, such as collection and documentation assessment, storage availability and type, and access strategy. In addition, it considers the dimension of the stored collections based on the strategies and services offered. After completing the questionnaires, data was collected. The survey received feedback from 131 museums in 31 nations across all five continents. One plausible explanation for the low response rate (5 percent) could be that data was collected at the beginning of 2021 when the coronavirus spread around the globe. Many museums complained about the lack of staff during lockdown due to the pandemic. Data was categorized according to different parameters, such as museum governance (public or private), type of collections (art, history, and so on), and the size of collections according to the number of pieces (small, medium, and large). Data was also analyzed according to these parameters to evaluate whether these variables impact the usage of stored collections.
The analysis provided an overview of the usage of stored items and resources, modality of access, conditions of collections and documentation, and other museum-related matters. Since the findings contribute to the task of evaluating and analyzing the uses of stored collections, this study's findings are of the utmost importance because they suggest alternative strategies for more efficient utilization of collections.
Results and Discussion
This study focuses on loans and exchanges as a means to improve the usability of stored museum collections. The discussion of the results of this study considers the data gathered from 131 museums in 31 countries and represents a wide range of governances and types of collections.
The participants were located in the following countries:
- a)Africa: Chad, Ivory Coast, Morocco;
- b)Americas: Argentina, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, United States;
- c)Asia: India, Japan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia;
- d)Europe: Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom;
- e)Oceania: Australia, New Zealand.
Respondents have different legal statuses:
- a)part of the state, central or federal government (e.g., in the United States);
- b)part of the regional government;
- c)part of the municipal or provincial government;
- d)a trust (public enterprise), a public foundation;
- e)a non-profit private body;
- f)private, commercial enterprise;
- g)a church or a religious institution;
- h)part/department of Another Institution;
- i)other: university, volunteer-based organization.
The participants hold items from different types of collections:
- a)art;
- b)archeology;
- c)ethnography and anthropology;
- d)history;
- e)natural history and natural science;
- f)science and technology;
- g)other.
According to the data collected, the participation of museums in this study varies according to the continent the respondents come from. The European participants outnumber Americans almost three to one, who, in turn, are twice the number of the Asian respondents. There is lower participation by museums located in Africa (6 percent) and Oceania (8 percent). Nevertheless, respondents from Africa represent 1 percent of the total number of museums operating in African countries participating in this study, compared to respondents from Oceania representing only 2 percent of the total museums in that region (Australian Museums and Galleries Association 2022; National Services New Zealand 2022; UNESCO 2020).
According to the findings, only 36 percent of museums plan to repeat the recent experience of loans in the next five years. Among continents, only European participants are unwilling to lend their stored items (33 percent) for a higher average value than the average (36 percent). Conversely, the highest value is reported by Asian museums, with 43 percent. Likewise, not all respondents in Africa (38 percent), the Americas (37 percent) and Oceania (40 percent) plan to grant loans in the future.
With regards to exchanges, 44 percent of participants wish to continue exchanging stored items in the future. As opposed to most of respondents planning to exchange stored items, (Africa, 25 percent; Americas, 22 percent; Asia, 43 percent; and Oceania, 40 percent) and the results concerning loans, only European museums are willing to exchange items more than the average, with 54 percent. Thus, the biggest gap between loans and exchanges is reported in Europe, with 33 percent and 54 percent respectively.
One possible explanation for these results might be that the data could be affected by the fact that it was collected during the coronavirus pandemic. Because loans and exchanges require several tasks, and many museums report staff were furloughed, museums struggled to manage their collections due to continuous lockdowns (ICOM 2021; United Kingdom, Government 2021). That context led museums to increase the accessibility of collections in the digital realm (Corona 2021). That decision might have impacted museums’ decisions to the detriment of plans concerning loans and exchanges.
Another possible reason for the low support for that option could be found in the covenants the borrowers are subject to. Depending on the pieces considered for lending, the costs of specific preparations (e.g., mounting and handling, framing and glazing paintings, providing display supports), the insurance premiums, transport and installation to the venue and the fees are elements that generally tend to increase the cost of a loan and make that operation not convenient for small, medium and private institutions (Ambrose and Paine 2018; Bakke 2020; Malaro and DeAngelis 2019; Matassa 2011; Wood and Gardner 2020).
Even without fees and with exchanges for free, some parts of the collections are not considered of value by the museums. The figures say that only 44 percent of the institutions used those options and are considering using that possibility in the next five years, which means that 56 percent of museums are unwilling to lend their works if asked by others to borrow them. This shows that the above-mentioned elements, which generally prevent museums from lending, are still in place despite the absence of fees.
From the analysis of the collected data, it is possible to compare the percentages of usage involving stored items that are lent to and those that are exchanged with other cultural institutions. Although the average use of stored collections is the same for loans and exchanges, there are differences in the size of usage among countries. As shown in figure 1, European museums use loans and exchanges more than other countries (22 percent and 21 percent, respectively). Conversely, African museums have the lowest percentages (15 percent) of usage through loans and exchanges. This low usage is also reported for loans in the Americas and exchanges in Oceania. The most significant gap between loans and exchanges is reported in Oceania, where museums lend 21 percent and exchange 15 percent of their stored items, as shown in figure 1 “Loans and exchanges of stored items by continent.” One plausible explanation for this discrepancy could be the lack of suitable conditions and environments to house incoming items needing special care, such as fragile items. These figures are corroborated by a previous study shedding light on how fragility in museum collections is common, with 45 percent of reported fragile items in Europe (Corona 2023). Another factor may be that because exchanges imply transactions of items with the same value, museums are likely to struggle to find other cultural institutions with similar collection values.
Loans and exchanges of stored items by continent. Source: Author.
Citation: Museum Worlds 12, 1; 10.3167/armw.2024.120113
Another crucial piece of information that emerges from the data is that museums lend a different proportion of their collections according to the types of collections, as shown in Table 1. For instance, science and technology items have the highest mobility (30 percent), considerably higher than the average percentage (19 percent) of usage through loans. Conversely, museums with ethnography and anthropology collections and those with natural history and natural sciences collections have fewer loans (15 percent). The ethnographic artifacts might be constrained by conservation considerations. In addition, art museums (18 percent) and archaeological museums (17 percent) have low usage of stored items through loans. This study supports previous research that argued that the type of collection was a crucial factor for the usage of collections (Corona 2023; Lord, Lord, and Nicks 1989). Therefore, museums are likely to use more or fewer stored items according to the types of collections they wish to lend.
Loans of stored items for continent and type of collections. Source: Author.
| Type of Collection | Africa | Americas | Asia | Europe | Oceania | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Archeology | 15% | 18% | 17% | |||
| Art | 15% | 15% | 15% | 19% | 23% | 18% |
| Ethnography and Anthropology | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | |
| History | 15% | 15% | 23% | 20% | 21% | |
| Natural History and Natural Sciences | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | ||
| Other | 15% | 15% | 30% | 23% | ||
| Science and Technology | 30% | 30% | 30% | |||
| Total | 15% | 15% | 17% | 22% | 21% | 19% |
The analysis also considers differences in loan usage among museums according to governance and collection size. As demonstrated by the study conducted by Lara Corona (2023), participants with a partnership (state and a trust) as governance use more stored items (45 percent), and public institutions are among those that use fewer stored items (16 percent). As shown in table 2 “Loans and exchanges of stored items for the museum governance and size of the collection,” the data presents a considerable gap between the highest extent of usage and the average usage (19 percent), but not for the lowest usage reported by private and commercial enterprises (15 percent).
Loans and exchanges of stored items for the museum governance and size of the collection. Source: Author.
| Legal Status | Large | Medium | Small | Average | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loan | Exchange | Loan | Exchange | Loan | Exchange | Loan | Exchange | |
| Partnership State and Trust | 15% | 45% | 15% | 45% | 15% | |||
| Private, Commercial Enterprise | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | ||||
| Private, Non-profit Body | 15% | 15% | 15% | 33% | 18% | 28% | 17% | |
| Public, Part of the State, Central, Federal or Municipal Government | 15% | 15% | 19% | 43% | 16% | 20% | 16% | 21% |
| Trust (Public Enterprise), Public Foundation | 15% | 25% | 20% | 15% | 22% | 15% | ||
| Total | 15% | 15% | 20% | 32% | 20% | 19% | 19% | 19% |
Considering the factor of the size of collections, large museums lend fewer items (15 percent) than the average. There are no differences between medium and small collections (20 percent). These results confirm the study conducted by Michael Ames (1985), who demonstrated how large museums are more prone not to actively use their collections. Likewise, Corona (2023) showed that the more expansive a museum's collection, the greater its challenges in providing access to visitors.
Regarding the exchanges, museums with natural history and natural sciences collections exchange more stored items (32 percent), whereas they have fewer loans, as shown in table 3 “Exchanges of stored items for continent and type of collection.” Art and archaeological museums exchange stored items slightly above the average, with 20 percent and 21 percent (Lord et al. 1989). Science and technology collections are among the stored items that are exchanged the most (30 percent), thereby confirming the high degree of usage for loans. These results corroborate previous research, demonstrating that science and technological collections are more intensively used (Gardner 2010). These findings suggest that the type of collection can impact the degree of usage of items.
Exchanges of stored items for continent and type of collection. Source: Author.
| Type of Collection | Africa | Americas | Asia | Europe | Oceania | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Archeology | 15% | 45% | 15% | 21% | ||
| Art | 15% | 38% | 15% | 22% | 15% | 20% |
| Ethnography and Anthropology | 18% | 18% | ||||
| History | 15% | 15% | 17% | 15% | 16% | |
| Natural History and Natural Sciences | 20% | 58% | 15% | 32% | ||
| Other | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | 15% | |
| Science and Technology | 30% | 30% | ||||
| Total | 15% | 20% | 20% | 21% | 15% | 19% |
Turning now to the matter of legal status, the results show that public institutions exchange more items (21 percent), as shown in table 2 “Loans and exchanges of stored items according to legal status and size of the collection.” Conversely, the other types of governance do not differ from each other and are below the average. Bearing in mind the size of the collections, there is a considerable gap between exchanges in museums with medium-sized collections (32 percent), large collections (15 percent), and small collections (19 percent). Therefore, these results corroborate previous studies that demonstrated that museums with large collections have more difficulty using them actively (Ames 1985; Corona 2024).
Loans and Exchanges: Challenges and Opportunities
Museums can actively use their stored collections by lending and exchanging them, according to external requests. As reported by participants in this study, museums face several challenges if they decide to carry out loans and exchanges, such as the increased exposure of items to risks. As well, exchanges require that the museum items of the transactions between cultural institutions have the same cultural value. Moreover, loans and exchanges imply a procedure with numerous tasks requiring accuracy. Participating in this research highlighted, nevertheless, how these museum practices create new audiences who can enjoy collections, otherwise confined to collection stores or depots. Loans and exchanges also reduce overcrowding in storage facilities. Additionally, in Europe at least, loans are typically provided without charging a fee. According to the museums in this study, adopting loans and exchanges encounters many inconveniences and opportunities, the most prominent of which are shown in figure 2 “Challenges and opportunities of loans and exchanges.”
Challenges and opportunities of loans and exchanges. Source: Author.
Citation: Museum Worlds 12, 1; 10.3167/armw.2024.120113
On one hand, the enhanced accessibility of collections caters to diverse audiences: on the other hand, not all borrowers can ensure the standards to guarantee adequate collection conditions. Furthermore, various measures need to be implemented to mitigate the escalation of unfavorable circumstances degenerating into legal repercussions. Consequently, the procedure of approving or denying loans and transactions needs to be supported by explicit regulations set by policies and consistently revised and updated in line with the museum's mission.
Museums need to contemplate their potential benefits and drawbacks in the process of making decisions related to loans and exchanges. The most prominent arguments for approving or rejecting loans and exchanges are shown in figure 3 “Decision-making process for increasing accessibility of stored collections through loans and exchanges, where the red circles indicate the dominance of opposing conditions.”
Decision-making process for increasing accessibility of stored collections through loans and exchanges. Source: Author.
Citation: Museum Worlds 12, 1; 10.3167/armw.2024.120113
What:
Carefully selecting items that are eligible for loans and exchanges is crucial. Museums establish the foremost criteria through detailed policies. The selection procedure implies accurate assessment of collections to verify the safe transportation of items from the store and updated accession records to ensure there are no unlawful items. Furthermore, certain artifacts are not eligible for lending or exchange due to limitations imposed by donors’ wills, the intrinsic worth of collections, or other reasons.
Who:
Participants in the borrowing process may include museums, other institutions, or organizations with similar characteristics. It is vital that borrowers possess the capacity to manage their belongings. Hence, the procedure necessitates an adequate assessment of borrowers based on the criteria set in the museum policy.
When:
Loans and exchanges are permissible solely if they do not coincide with prior agreements of identical goods or forthcoming museum initiatives. The time of the contract needs to be clearly established in order to mitigate the occurrence of unclaimed incoming loans.
Where:
The parties need to set the location where loans and exchanges take place, where objects are temporarily borrowed from the lender, where they are intended to be displayed, and where they are eventually returned to. The suitability of the facility where the objects will be displayed is crucial in guaranteeing optimal conditions, including safety, security, and a healthy environment for the preservation of collections. An inspection may be necessary.
Why:
The decision to lend and exchange products can potentially produce advantages in terms of enhancing accessibility to items. Museums can actively use their stored collections by loaning objects to other museums to include in their exhibitions where the objects align with their overarching exhibition topics.
Loans and exchanges promote cultural exchanges as a form of soft power, meaning the ability to create connections by generating a perception that others may identify with or hold in high regard (Nye 2005). These practices foster positive ties with other institutions and allow museums to communicate cultural values, as they are supposed to do as cultural institutions (Hoogwaerts 2016). Specifically, due to cultural exchanges, museums contribute to building international relationships by utilizing soft power to shape preferences, attract agreements, and create positive images. Loans and exchanges provide the audience with the opportunity to engage more closely with collections, as well as a nation's culture. Therefore, they play a vital role in the dissemination of culture. Additionally, they may contribute to a better understanding of others’ opinions. For these reasons, cultural exchanges are usually more effective than coercing others (Bound et al. 2007; Cuno et al. 2004). Additional arguments on loans encompass ethical considerations, such as the purpose of the loan, which is supposed to be granted so as to display collections for people's enjoyment, instead of other objectives, such as the increase of monetary resources.
How:
Carrying out loans and exchanges requires several tasks. For instance, the transportation and placement of fragile items may necessitate the aid of couriers. The borrowers are provided with explicit instructions regarding the proper handling, shipping, display, and other relevant aspects related to preventive conservation duties. This is particularly important for artifacts that possess a high degree of fragility or are made from materials that require special care.
How Many, How Much:
The museum policy can set the quantity of items that can be lent or exchanged. The procedure implies parties set the costs that each party is required to pay, even in cases where the objects themselves are provided for free. The greatest expenditures are insurance and transportation services. Loan and exchange agreements need significant time to complete and give rise to various duties, such as potential hazards. The invoice needs to be carefully considered in relation to the object's worth, potential hazards, duration of the loan or exchange, and other conditions.
Conclusion
The main topic of this article is the usability of stored museum collections through loans and exchanges. The analysis of the research showed that on average, 19 percent of stored collections are lent to and/or exchanged with cultural institutions. The study highlights how many stored items are used across the world according to their size, the type of collection, and the museums’ governance. Specifically, the findings show that European museums have the greatest number of objects on loan or exchange (around 22 percent). At the other end of the scale, African museums appear to underutilize their collections since they lend and/or exchange 15 percent of their stored collections. Furthermore, the findings of this study suggest that museums struggle to use large collections comprehensively (Ames 1985; Corona 2023). Likewise, this research implies that the types of collections might affect how many stored items are loaned or exchanged.
This study provides important insights into how museums use their stored collections through loans and exchanges with other cultural institutions. However, one major limitation of this study was that it was conducted during the global COVID 19 pandemic. Because museums were often in lockdown, they focused on the digital realm to enhance the accessibility of their collections (Salvador et al. 2022). For this reason, it is recommended that the research is repeated post COVID in the “new normal.”
This study may help us better understand how museums handle their stored collections so that everyone can benefit from cultural democratization in several ways. For instance, loans and exchanges, as a form of soft power, are museum practices that might play a fundamental role in developing key relationships between different nations (Hoogwaerts 2016). Museums can be proactive, contributing to and driving the change to face global challenges—such as sustainable development issues, complex societal changes, and armed conflicts—more effectively than official political institutions (Bound et al. 2007; Cuno et al. 2004). As a result, it is worth reconsidering these museum practices as crucial tools for many larger social issues, not least for the current global need for peace and stability.
Besides loans and exchanges, museums can democratize access to their stored collections by digitizing items. According to a previous study, digitizing objects allows museums to actively display 41 percent of their stored collections (Corona 2024). Besides being a powerful tool for promoting future loans, fundraising, bequests, membership and physical visits, this strategy boasts other advantages, such as broader democratization (unlimited access, social inclusion, education), preservation of objects, increased revenues from image licensing sale and merchandising, as well as the opportunity for reuse of collections and fulfilling research purposes. Moreover, it allows the building of comprehensive databases, such as the Digital Benin project that made public 12,000 images and metadata provided by 131 museums in 20 countries related to bronzes returned or destined to be returned to Nigeria in the near future (Oltermann 2022; Rahmat 2023).
Despite its advantages, digitization has some disadvantages that loans and exchanges might cover, such as digital illiteracy, the need for staff with specific expertise, the persistent necessity for updating digital content, discontent with image licensing sales, as well as sustainability and affordability issues. Another inconvenience related to digitization is the technological “quicksand.” That concept was introduced by Jeff Rothenberg (1999) to elucidate the contradiction inherent in digital collections, wherein a significant portion of digital content requires specialized software in order to be effectively utilized. The readability of it is contingent upon the software and hardware employed. Nevertheless, the hardware and software components of computers undergo fast replacement as a result of their obsolescence. Consequently, digital content lacks perpetual readability. Another drawback associated with digital collections is arguably the lack of aura. Given this issue, museums might run on-site exhibitions of items, including loaned and exchanged objects, so as to provide the audience with a physical experience (Atasoy and Morewedge 2018; Benjamin 1936).
An alternative strategy to increase the democratization of stored collections is visible storage, meaning an area where collections are displayed in high-density arrangements with minimal labeling (Corona 2024). Despite the advantage of ensuring physical experience for people, this solution is not feasible for many museums due to its costs (Kisters 2021).
Considering that the suggested strategies for the democratization of stored collections—loans, exchanges, digitization, and visible storage—have both benefits and drawbacks, it is recommended that museums adopt a multi-strategy approach, so as to reach a broader public and offset the inconveniences of each solution, such as their affordability, and the difficulties of meeting the standards necessary to ensure healthy conditions for collections, including objects on loan and exchange. Finally, this study provides museums with a scheme that might support them in the course of the decision-making process for increasing the accessibility of collections by pondering the advantages and disadvantages of lending and exchanging stored collections.
References
Álvarez de Morales Mercado, Cristina. 2013. “La Accesibilidad En El Museo Desde Una Perspectiva Sociológica [Accessibility in the Museum from a Sociological Perspective].” Revista de Estudios Jurídicos, no. 13, 1–18.
Ambrose, Timothy, and Crispin Paine. 2018. Museum Basics. The International Handbook. London, New York: Routledge.
Ames, Michael M. 1985. “De-Schooling the Museum: A Proposal to Increase Public Access to Museums and Their Resources.” Museum International 37 (1): 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0033.1985.tb00540.x
Antonini, Anna, Sara Chiesa, Rossella Di Marco, and Sara Franco. 2019. “Discovering Hidde Collections: The MUDEC Open Storage.” Museologia Scientifica, no. 13, 103–9.
Atasoy, Ozgun, and Carey K. Morewedge. 2018. “Digital Goods Are Valued Less than Physical Goods.” Journal of Consumer Research 44 (6): 1343–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx102
Australian Museums and Galleries Association, AMaGA. 2022. “Australian Museums and Galleries Association Annual Report 2021.” Deakin West Act.
Avery-Quash, Susanna, and Alan Crookham. 2018. “Upstairs, Downstairs: The National Gallery's Dual Collections.” In Museum Storage and Meaning: Tales from the Crypt, edited by Mirjam Brusius and Kavita Singh, 167–82. New York, London: Routledge.
Bakke, Julie. 2020. “Organizing Loan and Traveling Exhibitions.” In Museum Registration Methods, edited by John E. Simmons and M. Toni Kiser, 298–311. Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bazin, Germain. 1967. The Museum Age. New York: Universe Book Inc.
Benjamin, Walter. 1936. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility. London: Penguin. https://doi.org/10.1162/grey.2010.1.39.11.
Bond, Sarah. 2018. “Serendipity, Transparency, and Wonder: The Value of Visible Storage.” In Museum Storage and Meaning: Tales from the Crypt, edited by Mirjam Brusius and Kavita Singh, 64–73. New York: Routledge.
Bound, Kirsten, Rachel Briggs, John Holden, and Samuel Jones. 2007. Cultural Diplomacy. London: Demos.
Burkhart, Kat. 2012. “Accessibility Is for Everyone.” In Small Museum Toolkit. Reaching and Responding to the Audience, edited by Cinnamon Catlin-Legutko and Stacy Klinger, 98–120. Plymouth, United Kingdom: Altamira Press.
Cataldo, Lucia, and Marta Paraventi. 2007. Il Museo Oggi. Linee Guida per Una Museologia Contemporanea. Hoepli. Milan.
Commonwealth v. Polk, Court Clerk, et al., Court of Appeals of Kentucky. 1934. “256 Ky. 100, 75 S.W.2d 766.” https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-polk-court-clerk.
Corona, Lara. 2021. “Museums and Communication: The Case of the Louvre Museum at the Covid-19 Age.” Humanities and Social Science Research 4 (1): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.30560/hssr.v4n1p15
Corona, Lara. 2023. “Digitization for the Visibility of Collections.” Collection and Curation 42 (3): 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-06-2022-0024
Corona, Lara. 2024. “Digitization: An Overview of the Advantages and Disadvantages.” chapter V, in Aspects of Digital Libraries - Digitization, Standards, Open Access, Repositories and User's Skills. Edited by Liat Klain Gabbay. London: IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1002006.
Crenn, Gaëlle. 2021. “‘Storage Exhibitions’ in Permanent Museum Collections.” Museum International 73 (1–2): 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13500775.2021.1956743.
Cuno, James, Philippe De Montebello, Gleen D. Lowry, Neil MacGregor, John Walsh, and James N. Wood. 2004. Whose Muse? Art Museums and the Public Trust. Edited by James Cuno. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv39x630.
Erfgoedmonitor, De. 2020. “Museum Collections - Location of the Objects.” 2020. https://erfgoedmonitor.cultureelerfgoed.nl/mosaic/dashboard/museumcollecties-en-objecten/.
Ferriot, Dominique. 1995. “Museum-Reserve Collections: An International Symposium.” Museum International XLVII (4): 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0033.1995.tb01268.x.
Gardner, Laura. 2010. “The Uses of Stored Collections in Some London Museums.” Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 18 (S1): 36–78. https://doi.org/10.5334/pia.288
Gilson, Gustave. 1914. Le Musée d'Histoire Naturelle Moderne: Sa Mission, Son Organisation, Ses Droits Mémoires Du Musée Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique [The Modern Natural History Museum: Its Mission, Its Organization, Its Memory Rights of the Royal Museum of Natural Hi. Brussels: Hayez.
Godfrain, Marie. 2022. “Le Musée Boijmans Réinvente Le Concept de Reserves [The Boijmans Museum Reinvents the Concept of Storage].” Le Quotidien de l'art October:7–9. https://www.lequotidiendelart.com/articles/18434-le-musée-boijmans-réinvente-le-concept-de-réserves.html.
Groskopf, Christopher. 2016. “Museums Are Keeping a Ton of the World's Most Famous Art Locked Away in Storage.” Quartz. https://qz.com/583354/why-is-so-much-of-the-worlds-great-art-in-storage/.
Hoogwaerts, Leanne. 2016. “Museums, Exchanges, and Their Contribution to Joseph Nye's Concept of ‘Soft Power.’” Museum and Society 14 (2): 313–22. https://doi.org/10.29311/mas.v14i2.645
ICOM. 2021. “Museums, Museum Professionals and Covid-19: Third Survey.” 2021. https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Museums-and-Covid-19_third-ICOM-report.pdf (accessed 13 May 2024).
ICOM. 2022. “Museum Definition.” Extraordinary General Assembly of ICOM.2022. https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/ (accessed 23 April 2024)
Keene, Suzanne, Alice Stevenson, and Francesca Monti. 2008. Collections for People: Museums’ Stored Collections as a Public Resource. London: University College London-Institute of Archaeology. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13886/.
Kisters, Sandra. 2021. “A New Museum Typology?” Museum International 73 (1–2): 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13500775.2021.1956738.
Lisney, Eleanor, Jonathan P. Bowen, Kirsten Hearn, and Maria Zedda. 2013. “Museums and Technology: Being Inclusive Helps Accessibility for All.” Curator: The Museum Journal 56 (3): 353–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12034
Lord, Barry, Gail Dexter Lord, and John Nicks. 1989. The Cost of Collecting: Collection Management in UK Museums ; a Report Commissioned by the Office of Arts and Libraries. London: H.M. Stationery Office.
Malaro, Marie C., and Ildiko Pogany DeAngelis. 2019. “Loans: Incoming and Outgoing Loans.” In A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections, 273–318. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.
Matassa, Freda. 2010. “Active Collections: Re-Visiting Our Collection for More and Better Use.” In Encouraging Collections Mobility- A Way Forward for Museums in Europe, edited by Susanna Pettersson, Monika Hagedorn-Saupe, Teijamari Jyrkkio, and Astrid Weij, 107–35. Helsinki: Finnish National Gallery, Institut für Museumsforschung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,Erfgoed Nederland.
Matassa, Freda. 2011. “Loans.” In Museum Collections Management, 169–200. London: Facet Publishing.
Murray, David. 1904. Museums, Their History and Their Use. Glasgow: James Maclahose and Sons.
National Services New Zealand, Te Paerangi. 2022. “Kōtuia Ngā Kete.” 2022. https://www.kotuia.org.nz/visit/.
Nye, Joseph Samuel Junior. 2005. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs Books. http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=1586482254.
Oltermann, Philip. 2022. “Digital Benin Project Reunites Bronzes Looted by British Soldiers.” The Guardian, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/10/digital-benin-reunites-thousands-of-objects-scattered-after-british-looting.
Piacente, Maria. 2022. “Travelling Exhibitions.” In Manual of Museum Exhibitions, edited by Maria Piacente, 133–52. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pye, Elisabeth. 2000. “Collections Mobility and Risk.” In Encouraging Collections Mobility – A Way Forward for Museums in Europe, edited by Susanna Pettersson, Monika Hagedorn-Saupe, and Astrid Weij, 136–49. Helsinki: Finnish National Gallery, Institut für Museumsforschung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Erfgoed Nederland.
Rahmat, Stephanie Bennett. 2023. “Digital Benin.” Arlis/NA, no. September. https://digitalbenin.org/.
Reeves, Nicky. 2018. “Visible Storage, Visible Labour?” In Museum Storage and Meaning: Tales from the Crypt, edited by Brusius Mirjam and Singh Kavita, 55–63. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315159393.
Reinach, Salomon. 1909. “Musées, Bibliothèques et Hypogées [Museums, Libraries and Hypogeums].” Revue Archéologique 2 (July-December): 267–70.
Rothenberg, Jeff. 1999. Avoiding Technological Quicksand: Finding a Viable Technical Foundation for Digital Preservation. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services. Vol. 25. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1464-9055(00)00214-1.
Salvador, Elisa, Trilce Navarrete, and Andrej Srakar, eds. 2022. Cultural Industries and the Covid-19 Pandemic: A European Focus. Oxon, New York: Routledge.
Sarraf, Viviane. 2010. Museum Rehabilitation: Cultural Inclusion Policies through Accessibility. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Verlaag Dr. Müller.
Singh, Upinder. 2018. “‘Storage’ and ‘Display’: Third World Perspectives and Practices.” In Museum Storage and Meaning: Tales from the Crypt, edited by Mirjam Brusius and Kavita Singh, Routledge, 167–82. New York.
Solima, Ludovico, Mario Tani, and Pasquale Sasso. 2021. “Social Innovation and Accessibility in Museum: Some Evidence from the SoStare al MANN Project.” Il Capitale Culturale. Studies on the Value of Cultural Heritage., no. 23, 23–56.
Stermscheg, Griesser Martina. 2013. Tabu Depot. Das Museumsdepot in Geschichte Und Gegenwart [Taboo Depot. The Museum Depot in the Past and Present]. Wien: Böhlau.
Stermscheg, Griesser Martina. 2014. “Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte Des Museumsdepots – Ein Überblick [The History of the Development of the Museum Depot – an Overview].” Museum.Ch issue 9 (ICOM): 10–17.
UNESCO. 2020. “Museums around the World in the Face of COVID-19.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373530 (accessed 24 April 2024).
United Kingdom, Government. 2021. “Museum Partnership Report, Sharing Collection 2019/20.” 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/museums-partnership-report-sharing-collections-201920 (accessed 6 September 2024).
Wilkinson, Helene. 2005. “Collections for the Future: Report of a Museums Association Enquiry.” Museums Association, London. http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?id=11121.
Wood, Rose, and Andrea Gardner. 2020. “Loans.” In Museum Registration Methods, edited by John E. Simmons and Toni M. Kiser, 224–45. Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield.
