Letter: Dishonouring museum bequests

Dr Selwhittingham
Sunday 20 April 1997 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Dishonouring museum bequests

Sir: David Lister fails to put the question of fidelity to donors' conditions in its proper context ("When treasure becomes a burden", 16 April). From the beginning, and never more so than now, British and American museums have been built up on the basis that much of their resources would be provided by individuals rather than the public. To encourage their gifts, promises to honour the donors' conditions were made, unless those were unacceptable, in which case the gifts should have been declined. It is therefore dishonest to renege on that contract by trampling on the conditions once the donor is powerless to object.

There are two sorts of collector involved: those who collect with their own money and those, the museum directors, who collect with other people's. It is natural that they should sometimes have divergent ideas and that directors should hope to have the last word, and to that end they invoke the principle of "changing circumstances". Museums, however, exist in part to embalm the past rather than to dress it up as the present. And the present offers no consensus on such topics as deaccessioning, entry charges, display and loans.

Dr SELBY WHITTINGHAM

Secretary-General, Donor Watch

London SW5

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in