THIS IS NOT THE WORK THAT IS MISSING BUT IT IS A REALATED WORK ALONG WITH A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST
People of a certain age seem to remember Bret Whiteley and all the consternation that surrounded his life and work. What he did and stood for challenged the status quo and the ordinary. In so many ways he, and indeed his family, have been at the edge of a great deal of what has made Australian cultural production what it is looking from the sharp end of the vernacular.
For a somewhat conservative cultural institution such as the QVMAG to have had the wit and cultural wherewithal to collect a risky contemporary work – a drawing WAVES V – of an artist such as Whiteley is more than notable. It took a bit more vision than might has been appreciated at the time – Australia in the 1970s.
For the drawing to dissolve unnoticed into some kind of curatorial oblivion is disappointing in one sense and not unexpected in another given the ad hoc manner in which musingplaces in Australia developed and maintained their collections.
For the drawing to dissolve unnoticed into some kind of curatorial oblivion is disappointing in one sense and not unexpected in another given the ad hoc manner in which musingplaces in Australia developed and maintained their collections.
Regions well away from metropolitan centres yearn to be bigger, better, brighter in competition with their cousins in the metropolitan world. Sadly where that's the case its meaningless and especially so when it is spiked with hubris. Oh my goodness, we are punching above our weight!? Dreams of innocence and greatness, whatever, they are in the end just that. Typically such imaginings depend on disclaiming a reality that can be its own form of hubris.
But what has this to do with a missing drawing in the collection of a regional musingplace with a missing drawing made by one of Australia's most significant artists and apparently since the late 1970s at the time it was acquired?
For what 'purpose' would a musingplace gather 200,000 object together, with an estimated dollar value it $240Million other to maintain a research resource? However, the QVMAG, strategically, does not articulate its 'purpose' – and clearly speculative institutional research plays hardly any part. Rather, it talks about its 'mission' "to grow, preserve, interpret and share the QVMAG collections in an inclusive, creative and sustainable way in perpetuity" – in other words, simply fulfil an institutional cost centre aspiration to 'be there' – and ideally forever. Well, on the evidence, in large part the QVMAG has fulfilled that aspiration albeit seemingly 'without purpose' – quite possibly without purposefulness – and consequently any dividends appear to be coincidental rather than purposeful.
Interestingly, the institution looks very much like it has taken, and relied upon, its own 'expert advice' at management level and it appears as if the 'trustees' – the aldermen – have given it the OK. That is, without actually asking themselves 'why are we conscripting funds for this purpose/aspiration from our constituency?' Let alone proactively including the institution's Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) in the determination of institutional policy making and/or the determination of strategic directions. And then there are the matters of accountability, due diligence and transparency with the COI in mind.
Just being there is a kind of 'theme park' aspiration that has value but museums and art galleries can and do that and offer their COI much more than slaking curiosities. Interestingly the QVMAG is listed as a "theme park" in the city's tourist attractions, arguably selling the institution's value short.
Laudable, as it may be to have a musingplace there does need to be some 'purpose' in having one to provide its management with 'performance guidelines'. In a 21st C context just being there no longer quite enough when it comes to funding and resource allocation.
While it' is said that the "City of Launceston owns the museum" culturally, morally and ethically, law and lore seem to be in conflict at Launceston's Town Hall where the 'trustees' reside and for the most part careless of QVMAG's existence. That is until news of a missing drawing makes the national cum international 'world news'.
Again, what has this got to do with a missing drawing held in the QVMAG's collections? Well it comes down to the acknowledgement of the accountability on the part of the QVMAG's Trustees to the COI and then assessing the institution's 'purposefulness'. When something is held in a collection this should be done with more purpose than say an exhibit 'Bullens Circus and Menagerie' where purposefulness was mostly to do with entertainment and the quenching of curiosities in order to make a profit.
So, when something disappears from view in a musingplace, its purposefulness – the object's and the institution's – is blighted and compromised. It is a point at which the musingplace's performance and cost benefit might be thoroughly reassessed. It is a point where its delivered dividends, social, cultural and fiscal might be profitably assessed.
In the case, of the QVMAG, 'just being there' delivers something in that the institution gains a budget that affords the employment for something in the order of 50 people with skill sets the community might not otherwise have access to. With an operating budget of $6plus million', a notional average 'levy' of something in the order $130, the cost per visitation being something in the order of $50plus there are some serious numbers to be crunched, values to be assessed and current relevance to be thought about.
There is a trickle down effect to all that in that the institution 'adds value' to the community just by 'being there' even if it is only delivering nominal value relative to inputs. The extent to which fiscal concerns do unavoidably comes up, and they are contentious, that is unsurprising. When the community is conscripted to fund the institution via their 'rate and tax demands' funding v's dividends – cultural, social, fiscal – is ever likely to be on the agenda.
So, where does this missing drawing from the QVMAG's collections take us?
Brett Whiteley's Waves V drawing is still missing from QVMAG
But what has this to do with a missing drawing in the collection of a regional musingplace with a missing drawing made by one of Australia's most significant artists and apparently since the late 1970s at the time it was acquired?
For what 'purpose' would a musingplace gather 200,000 object together, with an estimated dollar value it $240Million other to maintain a research resource? However, the QVMAG, strategically, does not articulate its 'purpose' – and clearly speculative institutional research plays hardly any part. Rather, it talks about its 'mission' "to grow, preserve, interpret and share the QVMAG collections in an inclusive, creative and sustainable way in perpetuity" – in other words, simply fulfil an institutional cost centre aspiration to 'be there' – and ideally forever. Well, on the evidence, in large part the QVMAG has fulfilled that aspiration albeit seemingly 'without purpose' – quite possibly without purposefulness – and consequently any dividends appear to be coincidental rather than purposeful.
Interestingly, the institution looks very much like it has taken, and relied upon, its own 'expert advice' at management level and it appears as if the 'trustees' – the aldermen – have given it the OK. That is, without actually asking themselves 'why are we conscripting funds for this purpose/aspiration from our constituency?' Let alone proactively including the institution's Community of Ownership & Interest (COI) in the determination of institutional policy making and/or the determination of strategic directions. And then there are the matters of accountability, due diligence and transparency with the COI in mind.
Just being there is a kind of 'theme park' aspiration that has value but museums and art galleries can and do that and offer their COI much more than slaking curiosities. Interestingly the QVMAG is listed as a "theme park" in the city's tourist attractions, arguably selling the institution's value short.
Laudable, as it may be to have a musingplace there does need to be some 'purpose' in having one to provide its management with 'performance guidelines'. In a 21st C context just being there no longer quite enough when it comes to funding and resource allocation.
While it' is said that the "City of Launceston owns the museum" culturally, morally and ethically, law and lore seem to be in conflict at Launceston's Town Hall where the 'trustees' reside and for the most part careless of QVMAG's existence. That is until news of a missing drawing makes the national cum international 'world news'.
Again, what has this got to do with a missing drawing held in the QVMAG's collections? Well it comes down to the acknowledgement of the accountability on the part of the QVMAG's Trustees to the COI and then assessing the institution's 'purposefulness'. When something is held in a collection this should be done with more purpose than say an exhibit 'Bullens Circus and Menagerie' where purposefulness was mostly to do with entertainment and the quenching of curiosities in order to make a profit.
So, when something disappears from view in a musingplace, its purposefulness – the object's and the institution's – is blighted and compromised. It is a point at which the musingplace's performance and cost benefit might be thoroughly reassessed. It is a point where its delivered dividends, social, cultural and fiscal might be profitably assessed.
In the case, of the QVMAG, 'just being there' delivers something in that the institution gains a budget that affords the employment for something in the order of 50 people with skill sets the community might not otherwise have access to. With an operating budget of $6plus million', a notional average 'levy' of something in the order $130, the cost per visitation being something in the order of $50plus there are some serious numbers to be crunched, values to be assessed and current relevance to be thought about.
There is a trickle down effect to all that in that the institution 'adds value' to the community just by 'being there' even if it is only delivering nominal value relative to inputs. The extent to which fiscal concerns do unavoidably comes up, and they are contentious, that is unsurprising. When the community is conscripted to fund the institution via their 'rate and tax demands' funding v's dividends – cultural, social, fiscal – is ever likely to be on the agenda.
So, where does this missing drawing from the QVMAG's collections take us?
- Firstly, it raises further questions like, are there any more missing objects?
- How appropriate is the institution's current governance in a 21st C context – policy determination and strategic development?
- Is the institution's management really open to criticism and critique?
- Is the institution actually delivering dividends commensurate with investments made on the part of the institution's COI?
On the second question, once looked for, there are bound to be all kinds of anomalies as there is a search going on for at least one other set of objects albeit without the fiscal value attached to Whiteley's WAVES V.
Link
- ABC story and video on Bret Whiteley ... CLICK HERE
Ray Norman
Independent Researcher
Launceston
Brett Whiteley's Waves V drawing is still missing from QVMAG
Johanna Baker-Dowdell......... https://www.examiner.com.au/news/local-news/5617812/waves-v-still-missing-from-qvmag/
The whereabouts of Brett Whiteley's Waves V drawing, which is owned by QVMAG, is still unknown.
Brett Whiteley said, “Drawing is the art of being able to leave an accurate record of the experience of what one isn’t, of what one doesn't know”......................
The last part of that quote is apt for Launceston art lovers, as there is a piece of Whiteley’s art we may never know, even though it is part of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Galley’s collection......................
Whiteley’s Waves V drawing was bought by the museum in 1976 and recorded as part of its collection, but has not been seen since.
.....................
It has never been displayed in Launceston.
.....................
I’m disappointed it wasn’t on show.
Carolyn Riley.....................
Launceston Art Society president Carolyn Riley said she was unaware the museum had a Whiteley work, but said the mystery around its disappearance was “a bit exciting”......................
“I’m disappointed it wasn’t on show,” she said.
.....................
“It would be nice if we could have some sort of recognition of his work.”
.....................
There is no photographic or digital image of the drawing, which Whiteley produced in the mid 1970s.
.....................
Waves V was bought for $800 and its value is unknown, however similar works have sold between $20,000 and $30,000.
.....................
Gallery storage containers have been searched and employees from the time when the Whiteley work was acquired have been contacted.
.....................
City of Launceston owns the museum.
No comments:
Post a Comment