The Imperial War Museum was founded in 1917 and most remarkably has retained its name.
It is not perfect, I will get onto that later, but to retain “Imperial” and “War” is a fine thing, to remain true to its original purpose is a fine thing and to educate younger people about the realities of war is a fine thing. Even the guns outside are an uncompromising statement about war. Not many institutions show that resolve and I will get onto that later.
It was founded to record the civil and military war effort and sacrifice of Great Britain and its Empire during the First World War. During the Second World War the museum collected more material and in 1953 began its current policy of collecting material from all modern conflicts in which British or Commonwealth forces were involved. Its stated remit is “to provide for, and to encourage, the study and understanding of the history of modern war and ‘wartime experience'” (IWM).
An important part of the museum’s collection is art and photography, indeed that was the main reason for my visit last week. Even in 1920 there were more than 2,000 pictures and today well north of 85,000 and eleven million photographs. Obviously only a selection can be shown and I saw some of the best by among others Paul and John Nash, John Singer Sargent, Eric Ravilious, Stanley Spencer and Cecil Beaton’s photographs. These used to be hung roughly chronologically so that each work could be properly seen with helpful signage about the artist and the subject. Now it’s like the sketch in which Morecambe (or Wise?) tells Andre Previn he has just played all the right notes, only in the wrong order. It is a hectic jumble that belittles these great works.
On the other hand the museum’s relevance, at least last week, seems to be for schools to visit. This is admirable and if that’s the price of getting a million visitors a year through the back door so be it. (School groups go through their own entrance at the side.)
I went to a museum in Paris on Sunday in a beautiful building that has not stayed true to its purpose, Musée de la Chasse et de la Nature. Last time I went more than twenty years ago it was all chasse and in depicting that the nature was obvious. Now it has got nervous and tacked on nature. Much worse was the room devoted to kitsch pictures of animals. It can easily be avoided but no – more are sprinkled around the rest of the collection. It was disappointing but escargots, ris de veau and Paris-Brest restored my humour. Rather a rich lunch.
Brilliant!