The Year of the Dealer – Art Markets and Museums

The relationship between public museums and the art market is something that I’ve been working on a quite a few years now – the recent exhibition ‘SOLD! The Great British Antiques Story’ at The Bowes Museum was a key example of where some of this research is ending up. If you missed SOLD! (it ran from 26 January to 5 May 2019) it had a very particular (and unusual) narrative for a museum exhibition – i.e. it presented the museum objects as specific articulations of the art market – the objects even had prices on them – sacrilege! Anyway, it’s long forgotten now, but I thought the MGHG community might be interested to hear that the ‘project’ continues; 

The latest project is called ‘Year of the Dealer’  and the new project website is being constructed (thanks to Peter Edwards in University of Leeds, Arts, Humanities & Cultures Faculty IT team) – you can see the new website here – Year of the Dealer website 


The ‘Year of the Dealer’ project is a collaboration between the University of Leeds, the University of Southampton, 7 major national and regional museums (The Victoria & Albert Museum, The National Museum, Scotland, The Ashmolean Museum, The Lady Lever Art Gallery, The Bowes Museum, Temple Newsam, Preston Park Museum and the Stanley & Audrey Burton Gallery), together with a regional community theatre (The Witham, Barnard Castle) and one of the UK’s leading antique dealing businesses (H. Blairman & Sons). The project runs from 1 June 2019 until 31 May 2020 and is an ‘Impact and Engagement’ project funded (£100,000) by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). Over the next 12 months  the Year of the Dealer will be organizing a series of events, activities and museum object trails, using the research arising from the AHRC funded (£231,592) research project ‘Antique Dealers: the British Antique Trade in the 20th century’ AH/K0029371/1 (2013-2016).

Through these events and activities the project aims to draw further attention to the relationships between the art market and public museums and to share expertise, experience and perspectives among stakeholders and to increase public engagement with the significance of the history of the antique trade in British cultural life.

The Year of the Dealer will reveal new and previously marginalised stories of world-renowned and familiar museum objects through the co-production of a series of 7 museum ‘hidden history’ trails; each trail will have a curated selection of up to 20 museum objects foregrounding the history of antique dealers in the biography of the museum object.  So, for example, at The Bowes Museum, we will be drawing renewed attention to some of the museum objects by telling the story about the antique dealers who sold the object to the museum – this rare pair of gilded bronze lamps, made by William Collins in 1823………..


………………..will be reinterpreted through the Year of the Dealer trail in the museum as a pair of lamps sold to the Bowes Museum in 1960 by Stanley J. Pratt, a leading antique dealer then trading in ultra-fashionable Mount Street, London.  How Pratt acquired the lamps and how they ended up at The Bowes Museum will be key elements in the ‘story’ about the objects. Stanley Pratt came from a well-known family of antique dealers dating back into the 19th century; indeed the Pratt family of dealers were established, according to their own publicity, in 1860, and so sold the lamps to The Bowes Museum in their centenary year!


Besides the 7 museum trails, the project will also stage 4 art market themed knowledge exchange workshops and 3 public engagement ‘In Conversation’ events, hosted by the partner museums. The workshops will consider the relationships between the art market and public museums, drawing in historical and contemporary perspectives and will also consider the challenges and future opportunities for the relationships between museums and the art market.  The ‘In Conversation’ events invite key art market professionals, museum professionals, academics and commentators to discuss and debate the subject of the art market and public museums – all the events will be free, thanks to the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) funding.

Other activities as part of the Year of the Dealer project include museum front of house staff and volunteer training workshops at each of the 7 partner museums to ensure that the project research and objectives are disseminated and cascaded to the front-line interface with the public.


We will also be re-staging the play ‘Quinney’s (1914) at the Witham Theatre, Barnard Castle, and are organizing an associated workshop, ‘Dealing with Authenticity’ at The Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle.

‘Quinney’s’ is the story of the fictional antique dealer Joseph Quinney. The play and the workshop aim to critically engage the general public with the central role that ‘authenticity’ has played in the art market, and to explore and critique the trope of the antique dealer as a problematic character, often associated with fakes and forgeries and the ‘love of money’. The workshop will be interdisciplinary in scope, drawing on theatre and performance studies and material culture studies as well as the history of antique dealers.

As you can see, there are plans for a very rich series of events, activities and collaborations over the course of the Year of the Dealer project – but we have a great team to help deliver the project – my colleague from University of Southampton, Dr Eleanor Quince, and Vanessa Jones, our project administrator, and my colleagues at the University of Leeds, Professor Jonathan Pitches and Dr George Rodosthenous, and of course all of the curators and staff at the all 10 collaborating partners and a small team of PhD research students to help keep the project on track!……it’s no doubt going to be exhausting, but we hope it will also be a really engaging project…and one that will have real Impact!

We hope to see you at some of the events – we already have some events fixed in the project calendar…so do keep an eye on the project website and the antique dealers research blog.

Dr Mark Westgarth

MGHG Newsletter Editor

(Part of this blog post was posted in the antiquedealersblog)

The Imperial War Museum’s Work to Safeguard Its Collections During the Second World War

By Philip W. Deans


Over September-November 2018 I undertook a placement at Imperial War Museums (IWM). This placement was generously supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council via the Northern Bridge Doctoral Training Partnership scheme, which has overseen my doctoral studentship. During the placement, I assisted curators to develop an exhibition entitled Art in Exile looking at the IWM during the Second World War: the protection of its collection from aerial attack. This links directly with my own doctoral research on the broader history of the IWM over that period (see Deans 2017) and work for the UK National Committee of the Blue Shield. It also paralleled scholarship presented at the Museums and Galleries History Group’s 2018 summer conference Museums, Collections and Conflict, 1500-2010

During this conference, various institutional experiences of war were discussed. These included museum evacuation procedures such as at the Bologna Museum and the Louvre. The evacuations were often effective, or at the very least comprehensive. Over the two days, I was struck by how different the IWM’s evacuation experience was from those presented at the conference. This has motivated me to write about the IWM’s evacuation processes and problems. Decisions made on the spot, plus a conservative mindset on cultural value, caused an ineffective evacuation which had ramifications for the collection.

The Imperial War Museum prepares for war, 1933-1939

As the Second World War loomed, the United Kingdom took extra measures to safeguard its most vulnerable cultural property. The first meeting on the issue took place during 1933, not long after Germany withdrew from the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference. The IWM participated from the outset along with other national museums across London. The impetus was the advances in air war during and following the last war. For the first time, the United Kingdom had come under threat by potential enemies operating from mainland Europe. As these threats increased and became clearer with the Spanish Civil War, the dangers posed to the United Kingdom crystallised. There seemed a realistic prospect that the country would suddenly and decisively be knocked out of any conflict with Germany. This fear became reflected in the IWM’s interwar evacuation plans. For example, from 1934, any evacuation was eventually anticipated to be needed with little or no notice, at night, under fire. Consequently, a decision had been taken to arm the museum’s staff with old trench clubs so they could fend off mob attacks on the evacuation lorries. 

Plans for the initial evacuation were driven by practical and ideological considerations. The IWM’s collection included many big, bulky or heavy objects which could not easily be evacuated, e.g. vehicles, aircraft and guns. But it also included more manoeuvrable collections, ranging from smaller objects of materiel, art, photographs, manuscripts, maps and books. The London Fire Brigade reports on aerial bomb damage from the previous war, for example, were unique. Even so, during preparations, there developed a view at the institution that its collection possessed little inherent cultural value compared with those held in the other older national institutions. Alongside more understandable issues concerning size, therefore, this inferiority complex limited the evacuation. Initial removals were thus restricted to oil paintings, watercolours – its modern art at the time comprised the largest and most important in the country – and photographs.

This evaluation sits problematically with the IWM’s foundation and early years. On opening, the institution aimed to sanctify the war dead of the British Empire. Its exhibits were treated as ‘sacred relics’ – objects comprising tangible remains of or links with a saint. Accordingly, the collection was seen as forming tangible connections to the war dead. Yet just nineteen years later, the same collection had begun being treated more like junk. The apparent willingness to jeopardise its collection brings the institution’s commitment towards that message into question. The move also shows the persistence of conventional schemes of value whereby fine art outweighs ephemera and social history material.

The evacuation, August 1939

The initial evacuation of the IWM was far less eventful than had been anticipated. In a pre-emptive move, all the national institutions closed at the Home Secretary’s orders on 23 August 1939. Besides, the knockout blow that had been feared never materialised. When the United Kingdom declared war against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939, no bombs fell immediately. The evacuation took place over 24-25 August 1939. Three lorries provided by the Office of Works were despatched: two on the first day, three on the second. The IWM’s staff sorted the material that had been designated for evacuation in order of priority by three exits. This was planned with meticulous detail, facilitating rapid evacuation while ensuring staff could track where everything went. The lorries they received, however, were far bigger than anticipated. This led to the plans eventually being ignored when it was realised the job could be done faster by just filling each lorry to capacity rather than as per the evacuation schedule.

With loading complete, the lorries proceeded to prearranged refuges. These were three country houses spread out across south east England. 

The refuges

The use of country houses became central to the IWM’s safeguarding plans from 1934. Over the years, various properties were identified. During 1939 these had been confirmed as Colworth House near Sharnbrook in Bedfordshire, owned by Henry Ludwig Mond, 2nd Barron Melchett; Penn House near Amersham in Buckinghamshire, owned by Francis Curzon, 5th Earl Howe; and Ramster Hall near Chiddingfold in Surrey, owned by Florence Priscilla Norman, Lady Norman. Country houses comprised the main refuge for the United Kingdom’s national collections, but were problematic. Although located away from strategic infrastructure, they nevertheless comprised unsafe places to store museum collections. Firstly, they were old. This meant it was difficult to maintain good environmental conditions in them. Their combination of design and materials caused fluctuating relative humidity and temperature, which can be detrimental for museum collections. Secondly, they were often still inhabited or kept in regular use, rendering them a fire risk. That many had been made of flammable material such as wood did not help in this regard. Thirdly, they were often difficult to reach and monitor, being far away from the museums which used them. And fourthly, while landlords willingly looked after so called ‘valuable’ material, the same could not be said for large or less aesthetic material.

The IWM experienced challenges at its refuges. Reflecting on their use after the conflict, the institution’s Director-General, Leslie Ripley Bradley, commented that they had been far from ideal situations. This is most clearly seen with the IWM’s experience at Penn House, near Sharnbrook in Bedfordshire. Penn House was originally owned by the 5th Earl Howe, a Trustee of the IWM since the 1920s. During 1934, the 5th Earl Howe promised Penn House to the museum in an emergency. But circumstances eventually problematised this arrangement. By 1939, responsibility for Penn House transferred over to his son, Edward Curzon, 6th Earl Howe, who served in the Royal Navy during the Second World War, thus frequently leaving the property unoccupied. Although the 6th Earl Howe honoured his father’s pledge, the environmental conditions at Penn House became unsuitable for the watercolours and drawings that had been deposited there. As a result, these were mostly reclaimed by mid-1940. Yet some fifty oil paintings remained in a separate garage on the estate. These included works by well-known artists, including John Singer Sargent and William Orpen. About ten were described as ‘large’ works, suggesting that Sargent’s famous oil painting, Gassed – ‘the jewel in the IWM’s crown’, one curator told me – may have been among them. But eventually even these needed removing after the 6th Earl Howe decided to lease out the property. The new tenant was a boys’ prep school, which used the garage for vehicles. Over several months, therefore, the oil paintings shared their refuge with working motorcars. The unacceptability of this was quickly realised by staff at the IWM, who arranged for their transferal to Ramster Hall during November 1940.

Implications and further evacuations

Such was the unexpected size of the lorries sent by the Office of Works during the initial evacuation that the IWM’s staff considered extending the evacuation schedule, but decided against it. This would be a decision they may have come to regret. When the Blitz started on 7 September 1940, the IWM found itself at continuous risk. Located in central London near overt targets, the institution was far more vulnerable to air raids than other museums located around the more peaceful South Kensington area. Further evacuations thus became necessary. 

Although fortunately nobody was ever killed at the IWM during the Second World War, some material fell victim to bombing. On 31 January 1941, for example, the IWM’s Naval Gallery received a direct hit. Alongside the destruction of many expensive ship models and other material that had remained there, the museum lost the world’s last Short Seaplane – damaged beyond repair. Flown at the Battle of Jutland during the First World War, this specimen was the first aeroplane ever to participate in a Naval engagement.

With the Blitz underway and its building suffering damage, the IWM’s evacuation policy shifted to a reactive as-and-when-necessary approach. Some items were temporally accepted by other, more safely located institutions into their temporary care. Some were sent on tours around the country. And some were granted refuge in further country houses – this latter method being arranged commercially via the Office of Works. One of the last areas to be evacuated was the IWM’s library. It had long been intended that library material would remain for as long as possible at the institution. This is because the library was thought to be required for consultation by the general public and the state, which indeed became the case. Eventually, however, even this policy became unsustainable. Consequently, during June 1941, the library was evacuated to Barnstaple. With that, virtually everything which could be removed from the IWM’s building, had been removed.

Concluding reflections

The IWM’s struggle with the principles and practices of evacuation during the Second World War sheds light on wider issues around cultural property protection. Its experience was far from universal. A combination of circumstances and conceptions produced an evacuation strategy that became highly conservative and not fit for purpose. In sum, the first problem was that not enough material had been removed from the IWM in the initial evacuation. This came at a cost in air raid damage, and meant the museum eventually necessitated further, more difficult and expensive evacuations once the war started biting. The second problem was the inadequacy of storage locations such as Penn House. Intolerable environmental conditions, brought about by the landlord’s absence, resulted in the refuge being abandoned after just one year. And the third problem was the institution’s hitherto inexplicable inferiority complex, which produced an initial evacuation schedule that conveyed a very specific schema of value. This goes against core museum philosophy today, and the decision making around it would prove costly both in the short and long term. Unfortunately, such schemas of value can still pervade the heritage sector today. This account shows the ramifications conceptions like these potentiate where they are tolerated.

Philip W. Deans is a stage four doctoral research student at Newcastle University. He is Postgraduate Officer for the Museums and Galleries History Group, and Secretariat of the UK National Committee of the Blue Shield.

Note on primary sources

The majority of this blog post has been drawn from archival material in IWM’s own institutional archive and The National Archives. By far the most comprehensive source is the two-part unpublished War History of the Imperial War Museum, 1933-1946 manuscript. This comprises an unpublished account, produced by the Director-General for a proposed volume of the official History of the Second World War civil series about the national museum and galleries, which never came to fruition. This is currently viewable at IWM’s reading room.

Further reading

Deans, Philip W., ‘The Imperial War Museum Originally Opened As a Museum to End All Wars – That Didn’t Last Long’, The Conversation, 7 March 2017 <> [2 January 2019].

Gardiner, Juliet, Wartime: Britain, 1939-1945 (London: Headline Publishing, 2004).

McCamley, N. J., Saving Britain's Art Treasures (Barnsley: Leo Cooper, 2003).

Pearson, Catherine, Museums in the Second World War: Curators, Culture and Change, ed by Suzanne Keene (Abingdon: Routledge 2017).

Call for Papers: Museological Review Issue 23: (Dis)empowered Museums

Museological Review Issue 23: (Dis)empowered Museums

 Museological Review is an online peer-reviewed journal, published annually by the PhD community of the School of Museum Studies, University of Leicester. We are now inviting you to submit your research to reflect on our theme.

The theme for Museological Review Issue 23 is ‘(Dis)empowered Museums’. As an active response to the 7th PhD-led conference ‘Museums (em)Power’ (13th – 14th September, School of Museum Studies, University of Leicester), we invite people to reflect on the power of museums today.

Museums have the power to influence behaviours, foster change, improve lives and establish partnerships between different individuals and communities. Nevertheless, some would argue that museums are gradually losing their power. Disempowerment can be traced back to several factors, from financial restrictions to the current political situation. A very recent example is the Brazil’s National Museum fire, where insufficient financial resources from the Brazilian government was a significant factor in the permanent loss of invaluable museum collections.

What does power (or lack of power) in museums look like today? And how does this impact their social role?

We welcome submissions around the topic of museums and power, whether that be empowerment or disempowerment. Topics include, but are not limited to:

-        Museums and contested histories

-        Re-interpretation and/or repatriation projects

-        Activist practices in cultural institutions

-        Decolonising the museum

-        Diversity, representation and inclusion in museums

-        The role of social media/activist campaigns

-        Museums without collections and permanent displays

-        Participatory museums

-        Radical museology

-        Museums and political attitudes

There are several ways to engage with Museological Review this year: an academic article, an exhibition or book review, a visual submission. Please see the attached document for more information.

The deadline for the submission of abstracts/reviews/visual depictions is Monday 3rd November 2018, 17:00 GMT. Submissions can be:

· emailed to:
· uploaded through the online form:

The authors of the selected abstracts will be contacted by the editorial team in late-November 2018. The deadline for the submission of the final articles is mid-January 2019.

Art on the Move: Mobility in the long nineteenth century conference

12-13 January 2018, Birmingham (Ikon Gallery and Barber Institute)

Keynotes: Pamela Fletcher (Bowdoin) and Tapati Guha-Thakurta (Centre for the Study of Social Science, Calcutta)

Registration is now open for this 2-day conference exploring visual art and its nineteenth-century mobility. To register, and for the full programme, please visit:

Postgraduate funding opportunity:

Publishers Taylor and Francis have generously offered a Bursary for a postgraduate student (currently enrolled in MA or PhD courses anywhere in the world) to attend the conference. The Bursary is offered in memory of Helene Roberts (1925–2008), former editor of the journal Visual Resources. All conference expenses to the Bursary holder will be waived and they will receive a contribution of £150 for their travel and accommodation. In addition, the Bursary holder will have the opportunity to write a 500-1,000 words conference report for Visual Resources

If you are interested in applying to the Helene Roberts Bursary, please write to the conference’s email address ( by Monday 18th December 2017, with the subject heading “Helene Roberts Bursary”, and a 250 word statement on how the conference intersects with your research interests.

Please contact the conference organisers, Barbara Pezzini and Kate Nichols, for any further information.

Antique Dealer Project Conference

The British Antiques Trade in the 20th Century - A Cultural Geography

Temple Newsam House, Leeds

14 and 15 April 2015

This two-day conference is an opportunity to hear about the AHRC funded 32 month research project focused on the history of the British Antique Trade in the 20th century, and a celebration and thank you to the many participants in the project.

Full programme click here

Flyer here                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Book online here

Enquiries: or 0113 343 8919

Anatomical Modelling Symposium, Royal College of Surgeons, 30 January 2016

Covering the full scope of anatomical modelling across multiple materials and species, this study day offers the opportunity to learn more about the design, creation and use of anatomical models. Delegates will also have the opportunity to engage with makers and modellers to discover the creative process involved in the modern creation of anatomical models. Featuring speakers from across the heritage sector and a keynote by Dr Elizabeth Hallam; editor of the new RCS volume Designing Bodies: Models of Human Anatomy from Wax to Plastics (

Speakers: Dr Elizabeth Hallam (Aberdeen/Oxford), Miranda Lowe (Natural History Museum), Dr Anna Maerker (Kings College London), Annette Townsend (National Museums Wales), Eleanor Crook (Sculptor), Clare Rangeley (Modeller). Chair: Dr Sam Alberti (RCS).

See full details including programme and abstracts:

Tickets £38/£26 (concessions: students, RCS fellows, members & affiliates.) Includes all refreshments and delegates lunch. Booking is essential on 020 7869 6568.

Royal College of Surgeons of England, London WC2A 3PE


On 27 October the Museums and Galleries History Group held its Annual General Meeting at the Art Fund's Museum of the Year 2015, the Whitworth Art Gallery in Manchester. Head of Collections David Morris gave us a fascinating talk on the Clough Collection of Prints and the innovative ways in which they were displayed at the then Whitworth Institute. David then kindly led us on a tour around the building, taking in both the refurbished historic spaces and the impressive new galleries and educational facilities. 

Look out for forthcoming announcements about the MGHG 2016 Conference and exciting new content for members on the website.