Under the Glass: Museums Reframe Their Practices for a Scrutinising Public

The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam began cataloguing colonial-era objects in 2021 as part of its ‘Slavery and Colonialism’ research project. With a budget of €4.5 million (approximately $4.8 million USD), this initiative clarifies provenance and acknowledges acquisition contexts. Provenance has become a moral imperative for museums.

In August 2022, the museum returned a 16th-century ceremonial crown to Nigeria, taken during Britain’s punitive expedition against the Kingdom of Benin. Valika Smeulders, the museum’s Head of History, stated, “It’s also about recognising the relationships that these objects represent, including those of violence and power.”

Across the Atlantic, the Smithsonian Institution launched a Provenance Research Initiative to assess items acquired under dubious circumstances. The museum no longer requires extraordinary justification for deaccessioning objects. Stakeholders, including Indigenous groups, are now routinely consulted in these reviews. The Museum of Natural History returned a 19th-century headdress to the Nez Perce tribe, marking a precedent for collaborative restitution.

However, some institutions hesitate, citing logistical complexities. The British Museum resists calls to return the Parthenon Marbles to Greece, arguing that the 1816 purchase from Lord Elgin was legal. This stance has drawn criticism from scholars like Dan Hicks, author of The Brutish Museums (2020), who argues that such positions ignore ethical dimensions.

Exhibition structures are also changing. In 2023, the Wellcome Collection in London closed its Medical History gallery after criticism of its colonial narratives. A spokesperson explained, “The gallery froze history through the lens of 19th-century hierarchies.” New programming will emphasize participatory storytelling, inviting audiences to co-curate displays. This reflects a shift towards museums as facilitators rather than gatekeepers.

The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York piloted its ‘Vox Audience’ programme in 2023, inviting visitors to annotate labels of exhibited works. This project led to tangible changes in how works by Latin American modernists were contextualised. Curator Sarah Suzuki noted, “Direct input from audiences ensures relevance, not compromise.”

Financial structures are also under scrutiny. In 2021, the Minneapolis Institute of Art (Mia) announced a ‘Community Access Fund,’ reallocating $3 million (approximately $3.3 million USD) to support free entry for underserved communities. Attendance among local residents increased by 27% compared to pre-pandemic levels. Philanthropy, long the backbone of major museums, now faces scrutiny over its sources. Following debates over the Sackler family’s ties to the opioid crisis, institutions like the Louvre and Tate Modern removed the family name from donor recognition walls.

Museums now balance contradictory forces. They must reconcile their roles as arbiters of cultural heritage with calls for shared authorship. A 2020 survey by the International Council of Museums found that 67% of professionals believed their institutions were unprepared to address the political implications of their collections.

This landscape reveals a fragmented map of reform. Some institutions lead with bold action, while others tread carefully. As Hicks noted during a 2023 symposium at the Victoria and Albert Museum, “The work isn’t about returning objects alone; it’s about dismantling the systems that made their removal possible.” A systemic shift may be the ultimate challenge.

If museums are mirrors to society, their transformations reflect a tension between traditions and evolving responsibilities. For visitors, the walls hold not only artefacts but also unresolved questions about ownership, belonging, and the narratives we choose to preserve.