Glasgow Guide Home

Whats On Glasgow Guide
  Glasgow What's On


    Glasgow Reviews


    Glasgow Gallery


      Glasgow Links
Discuss | Guestbook | Postcard | News | Weather | Feedback | Search | About | What's New
Glasgow Guide Discussion Boards

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )                >> View Today's Topics <<


  Replying to Glasgow To Lose Burrell Collection
Enter your Name
Anti-spam code
Security Code Confirmation
Confirm security code
Loading Image
You should NOT see this if you are REGISTERED and LOGGED IN.
 

Post Options
 Enable Smilies?
 


Last 10 Posts [ In reverse order ]
Scotsman Posted 18th Oct 2016, 03:24pm
  A labour politician getting finances wrong. Never happened before!! rolleyes.gif

Its crazy that they are spending all this peoples money in Pollok Park.... was in Sauchiehall Street yesterday and what an absolute tip!!
GG Posted 17th Oct 2016, 10:01pm
  And so begins the sorry exposure of the deeply flawed financial strategy cobbled together by Glasgow Life and the Burrell (ahem) Renaissance Group. From the highly-respected museum-sector journal, a story today that lays bare the fantasy that the council and its chums were ever going to raise £15 million in sponsorship from sending Burrell works overseas, against the repeatedly expressed wishes of Sir William Burrell. Poor wee Archie is going to have some explaining to do when he has to go cap in hand to the public coffers again after the whole fundraising debacle falls through.

QUOTE
Burrell’s world tour struggles to get beyond Glasgow

Scottish museum hoped to raise £15m for renovation fund but international venues are proving hard to secure.


The planned international tour of works from the Burrell Collection, which the museum hoped would generate as much as £15m, is proving more challenging than anticipated. Although the institution is scheduled to close for a major renovation on 23 October, details of the tour have yet to be announced. The delay suggests that Glasgow Life, which runs the museum, is struggling to convince foreign venues to pay substantial fees to borrow works from its 9,000-strong collection.

Three years ago, trustees of the Burrell sought special approval from the Scottish Parliament to allow works to be lent abroad. In his bequest, the Glasgow-based shipping magnate William Burrell, who died in 1958, banned international loans because he feared works would be damaged if they travelled overseas. In February 2014, the Scottish Parliament passed a bill overturning Burrell’s wishes.

The trustees originally hoped the show of around 100 objects would travel to six venues. In 2014, the museum explored spaces in the UK, North America, France, Japan, China, Russia and Qatar. Discussions were held with the British Museum and the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, but neither venue decided to take the exhibition.

So far, the Burrell has announced the loan of just four paintings. [...]

Full story here:
http://theartnewspaper.com/news/museums/bu...-beyond-glasgow

Told you so!
QUOTE (GG @ 16th Sep 2013, 07:24pm) *
According to Councillor Archie Graham, Glasgow City Council has already committed to contributing £15 million, and they hope to get a further £15 million from the National Lottery Fund ... but the real doubtful figure is that Glasgow Life think they will get the same amount, £15 million, in profits from commercial sponsors!

GG.
Glasgow Guest Posted 17th Oct 2016, 09:46pm
  With only a few weeks left before the Burrell closes its doors for the much debated (if only on this board) refurbishment, I wonder how many opponents of the closure will be making their way to the collection for a last loving look for the foreseeable future.
Doug1 Posted 29th Mar 2016, 08:14pm
 
QUOTE (marydee @ 30th Nov 2015, 10:14pm) *
The Government, the Council and the folk at Glasgow life can do what they want because the vast majority of Glaswegians don't give a hoot what happens to the Burrell Collection I could bet the same vast majority have never been near it. I could see the money spent on better things but history repeats itself, they built the magnificent City Chambers while Glasgow's workers were living in squalor.

Ever the truth, sadly!
Guest Posted 28th Mar 2016, 11:11pm
  There is a serious selling out of the museums and their collections going on, without any mechanism to challenge or even discuss the unethical management and their decisions based not on a vision but a business model.
GG Posted 2nd Mar 2016, 01:40am
  The final insult for the (ignored) people of Glasgow in this long and deeply humiliating debacle for Glasgow City Council and Glasgow Life: the contract for the £66M scheme to repair and tart up the Burrell Collection building – closing it to the public for at least four years in the process – has been awarded to a London-based architects' firm. So, up to a maximum of approximately £40M of Glaswegian/Scottish taxpayers' money will be siphoned off to pay for the exorbitant fees of London architects who have absolutely no meaningful connection with the city.

Quite an achievement: ignore the wishes of the people of Glasgow; betray the legacy of Sir William Burrell; and snub Scottish architecture firms while bulging the coffers of a distinctly mediocre London-based firm.

See the the Herald story here; never mind the sycophantic journalistic spin, just skip to the reader comments.

GG.
GG Posted 30th Nov 2015, 11:51pm
 
QUOTE (carmella @ 30th Nov 2015, 12:21am) *
I certainly think the people of Glasgow deserve some explanation as to how the work was left until it became very very expensive to repair - this doesn't happen overnight.

Carmella, we won't ever get the proper explanation, because our local (US-owned) media are in the pockets of Glasgow City Council courtesy of the advertising spend that the council contributes to The Herald and the Evening Times. Certainly the latter publication would cease to exist if it was not being propped up by the council's anachronistic public notice expenditure in the paper, as well as other advertising spending by the council and its quangos.

The reality of why nothing was done to repair a leaky roof until it became a £66million problem was laid out plainly for all to see in the reports of the 'Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) (Scotland) Bill' committee meetings. Time and time again the members and officers of the council and Galsgow Life were openly embarrassed, ridiculed and humiliated by some committee members and guest participants, yet, of course, the deeply flawed and unjust Bill was still pushed through because only those politicians with a vested interest bothered to get involved. An example: Joan McAlpine, convener of the committee, had already expressed (when she was a journalist) highly biased views that should have automatically excluded her from membership of the committee; instead, she became the most powerful member of the committee that would destroy the legally-endorsed wishes of a man who so generously gave to his city.

The true story of why nothing effective was done for decades about roof water ingress until that wholly avoidable ruination became a £multi-million problem was that the increasing threat of water damage to the collection was used as a battering ram to break down the will of the Burrell Trustees; Trustees who had been committed to defending Sir William's wishes that his collection should not be split up and no part should be sent outwith the British mainland. Eventually the council (and latterly Glasgow Life) won by breaking the resolve of increasingly weak-willed trustees.

The story is alluded to in a letter from a former Deputy curator of the People's Palace – a highly-respected and experienced museum professional – to the Sunday Times in 1997, where he displays graphically the contempt that the council had been showing for the Burrell Trustees as they fought (then, not latterly) to protect the shipping merchant's legacy to the city he loved.

QUOTE
In reference to Joan McAlpine's article, Glasgow's Jewel is Dulled by Neglect (Ecosse, February 2), the war of attrition against the trustees of the Burrell Collection is as scandalous as it is unjustified. The Burrell, like the People's Palace Museum, is failing not because of intransigence by the trustees but because of the seeming incompetence of Julian Spalding and his chief curator, Mark O'Neill. The static nature of the displays and the abysmal lack of interpretation of the exhibits at the Burrell is their responsibility for, as Spalding with his customary diplomacy reminds the trustees, "it has nothing to do with them". Bad transport, third-rate merchandising and an inefficient and overpriced cafe are a recipe for failure entirely of their concoction.

The Burrell, like any other museum, is only as good as its curators, who in turn can only function properly in an atmosphere conducive to creative work. The atmosphere in Glasgow museums is more likely to induce a nervous breakdown. All departments of Glasgow district council are facing savage cuts and these have generally been handled in as humane and sensitive a manner as circumstances will permit. But the cuts in Glasgow museums have exposed the tip of an iceberg of demoralisation which has existed since Spalding's arrival. Consider, for example, the systematic shedding of senior curatorial staff which began with his appointment. The present malaise cannot be blamed on his predecessors, for the staff which last week voted unanimously their complete no-confidence in his professional ability are substantially his own appointees.

Threats by Spalding to "mothball" the Burrell if he does not have his legal way with the trustees should be treated with contempt; besides, most of us thought he had done that already. O'Neill's self-acclaimed "exciting new displays" at the People's Palace caused attendances at that popular museum to plummet from 446,000 in 1990 to less than half that in 1996. Instead of being held to account for this disastrous decline, he has been promoted. As Spalding's protege he is now in charge of all curatorial services, yet instead of demonstrating some enthusiasm for a job which has been virtually handed to him gift-wrapped, he can barely conceal his ennui at the idea of being asked by your reporter to get some of the Burrell treasures out of store.

His statement that "international experts in preserving wood and stained glass are a luxury the council can no longer afford" and Spalding's that "there is not enough year-round work for specialists" are either the product of ignorance or a crude attempt to deceive the public, which must be totally refuted. Apart from the famous collection of medieval glass, the Burrell also houses the only specialist collection of Scottish 19th-and 20th-century stained glass. This amounts to more than 200 panels, only one of which has thus far received any conservation. Many were either collected or purchased in a damaged condition and without expert conservation cannot be placed on show in Glasgow, much less loaned to any other location. If Spalding thinks he can get these conserved cheaper by buying in expertise, he knows as little about that subject as he does about interpersonal relationships.

Instead of persecuting staff and trustees, Glasgow's politicians should call off this destructive process and cut their losses by getting rid of this deadly duo before the expense and self-inflicted damage become irreversible and someone has to call in the auditors.

Michael Donnelly
Deputy curator
People's Palace, 1975-90
Glasgow

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

GG.
GG Posted 30th Nov 2015, 11:28pm
 
QUOTE (marydee @ 30th Nov 2015, 09:14pm) *
The Government, the Council and the folk at Glasgow life can do what they want because the vast majority of Glaswegians don't give a hoot what happens to the Burrell Collection I could bet the same vast majority have never been near it. I could see the money spent on better things but history repeats itself, they built the magnificent City Chambers while Glasgow's workers were living in squalor.

I understand what you are saying, Mary, but to a large extent that's why we vote and pay for politicians, i.e. to represent our wishes in matters where we may not always be paying attention. That said, this topic is one of the most viewed news topics on these boards; such was the recognition of the strength of feeling coming through these boards that one of the MSPs read out a post from this topic during the final stage debate. I could see from the log reports that there were a great many visits from politicians during the reporting process, so they will have known in great detail just how the more informed people of Glasgow felt about the issue.

The bottom line, however, is that the vast majority of politicians no longer represent the will of the people who keep them in their comfortable lifestyle; instead, they represent the interests of the elites who fund their campaigns and contribute to their 'extra-curricular' money-making schemes (both during and after their fruitless time in office).

GG.
marydee Posted 30th Nov 2015, 09:06pm
  The Government, the Council and the folk at Glasgow life can do what they want because the vast majority of Glaswegians don't give a hoot what happens to the Burrell Collection I could bet the same vast majority have never been near it. I could see the money spent on better things but history repeats itself, they built the magnificent City Chambers while Glasgow's workers were living in squalor.
carmella Posted 30th Nov 2015, 12:13am
  I certainly think the people of Glasgow deserve some explanation as to how the work was left until it became very very expensive to repair - this doesn't happen overnight.
Review the complete topic (launches new window)
RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th Dec 2019

All material in the site Glasgow Guide is copyright of the Glasgow Guide Organisation. This material is for your own private use only, and no part of the site may be reproduced, amended, modified, copied, or transmitted to third parties, by any means whatsoever without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.

Glasgow Hotels: book cheap hotels in Glasgow online now.