The Stage

V&A musical chairs on Theatre Museum plans

Published Tuesday 22 August 2006 at 13:30

The Society of London Theatre laid itself open to criticism from the industry after its recent refusal to collaborate with the V&A and the Royal Opera House in a partnership to revamp the Theatre Museum at its Covent Garden site. Chief executive Richard Pulford’s response appeared to be lacking in the display of solidarity one might have expected from Theatreland’s most influential association in defence of our main drama archive.

Now it appears that Mr Pulford was a model of self-restraint. He had in fact raised serious doubts in private as to whether the V&A was serious about its much-publicised consultative process. One can infer he saw little point in working with an institution which seemed long since to have made up its mind about the future of the museum.

He can hardly be blamed for his reluctance to be cast as a collaborator in a venture which he feared would have the net effect of placing control in the hands of a single organisation and do perhaps little good for the society’s subsequent standing within the industry.

All this came to light thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, surely one of the more beneficial pieces of legislation to reach the Statute Book. As a result, powerful government and related institutions may still drag their feet while complying with disclosure requirements. But comply they must eventually.

This allows us the benefit of being able to contrast a public body’s most open statements with those delivered in less exposed circumstances. Tying up the loose ends can be a difficult procedure all the same.

It is apparent that the V&A board appeared first to favour one set of options for the Theatre Museum. Having considered four proposals, its museum review came down in favour of exploring just two - quitting Covent Garden or continuing in association with an arts partner. Yet somewhere along the line option A has been dropped, while option B is now combined with the previously dismissed idea of a new emphasis on education and temporary display within the existing site. Nothing wrong in that necessarily but does anyone - the board of trustees included - actually know precisely how one set of options metamorphosed into another?