We swoon for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle #historyvalentine

My dearest Arthur,

I went to the Museum of London the other week to see their new exhibition all about your detective stories- they even had a little interview clip of you, so good to hear your voice again! But then it was the strangest thing- after you finished speaking about your creation of Sherlock Holmes they cut you off, before you could get to the wonderful things that made you...well you!

My darling as you are, undoubtedly, reading this in the afterlife, you are surely aware how much these 21st century people just adore your stories. Really they are so very popular, on TV and in the cinema - even though I think you'd find these modern Sherlocks a little bit young and funny-looking. But for some bizarre reason they seem to not remember that you were also the world's foremost Spiritualist! A beacon to us all! Come to think of it, there's actually quite a few things people don't seem to remember about you. Your valiant efforts for the country in the Boer War...I mean well in terms of your writing, it was hardly your fault that you were too heavy to enlist. I always did like a man with some meat on his bones.

For all your efforts, people still don't believe in fairies. I mean it's as if they never read your 1921 book The Coming of the Fairies. As if those little girls made those fairies out of paper, preposterous.

You would be pleased to know the Rochester Spiritualist Temple still exists in London, so not all your work is for not. I just find it so unbelievable that people don't remember you could actually speak with the dead!

To add insult to injury, Brits now absolutely love to ski yet do they remember who brought the sport form Scandinavia? No, of course not. Although actually this forgetfulness could be seen as a plus as they also don't seem to remember your failed career in ophthalmology. Never was for you darling.

Well, Arthur, I'll always remember these most lovable attributes about you. Well- I don't have to remember, you can tell me all about it at the next seance.

See you soon xxx

Film, archive or art? Who cares- it's Sherlock Holmes at the Museum of London

A few months ago we were, well, a little critical of the Museum of London and their penchant for exhibitions that tie in with recent television and film releases (see: this article from November). In fact this question of films, promotion and temporary exhibitions has been picked up elsewhere, including a feature in January's Museums Journal. We wondered whether all these PR driven, crowd pleasing, Hollywood inspired displays were a good enticement or an indication of the decreasing importance of collections. Well, a Christmas visit to MoL's Sherlock Holmes exhibition set us right- it is possible to build something which lures in film fans and also shows off your objects.

Regardless of this debate, I would have gone to see this exhibition anyway. I mean- who doesn't love Sherlock Holmes? Admittedly when most people say this they mean Benedict Cumberbatch or Robert Downey Junior - but who can blame them. It occurred to me as I walked through the party trick door that MoL loves so much- Sherlock Holmes is not a real person. How are they going to pull off an exhibition about a fictional persona? Essentially the MoL had three ways they could go with this- a British Library style archival exhibition with original manuscripts, a media-dense exploration of the major themes and historical context of the works, or to focus on London as an essential character in Conan Doyle's stories. Eureka! thought the curators, we shall do all three.

Sherlock Holmes does very much feel like several exhibitions stuck together, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It begins with exactly what most visitors expect as they walk through the bookcase- lots of videos and film posters creating a cacophony of sights and sounds of Sherlock over the past 150 years. But this is no film exhibition, before you know it...BAM! We are getting archival up in here bitch. Look at these manuscripts, original prints of the Strand Magazine, even some Edgar Allan Poe. Personally I enjoyed the video clip of Conan Doyle himself (although did any one else notice how this was introduced as an interview about his close connections with the spiritual world?! Guess we are just skipping over that one...)

If you only briefly looked at the faded pages of early Sherlock, you may well have been equally surprised to find yourself in the next section - oh its an art exhibition! Personally I like this bit- the Sherlock Holmes stories have been inspired for students of London and undoubtedly the metropolis itself shapes the mysteries even more than the great detective himself. Plus hey, we are in the Museum of London and I'm sure they have infinite amounts of London based photographs, etchings, paintings, and whatnots they are dying to get out of the store. So go on then, relish it art curators. You put up all those Victorian photos of foggy London-town.

The last portion of the exhibition is probably what most people had in mind when they bought a ticket- a dense display about Sherlock as a character featuring historical objects related to the stories plus film props (swoon, Benedict's coat and all). And why not- when it comes the Victorian London I imagine MoL is bursting at the seems with stuff for people to see. Clay pipes, medicine chests, carriage models, boots, guns- you name it. Personally I found the displays around the outside which looked at the development of fingerprinting, phrenology, iris-matching, and all other fodder for Sherlockian detective work fascinating. It's so much stuff in one tiny space you probably need at least 2 times around to see it all.

Is this a good exhibition- overall, yes. It's certainly feels like several exhibitions rolled together, but maybe that's necessary when addressing a topic that people think about in so many different ways. MoL seems to be trying to please everyone in their relatively small exhibition space, and to that I say, hats off to them. When faced with the challenge of creating an exhibition about a fictional detective, the museum turned to their collections to provide the solution. Although slightly disjointed, Sherlock Holmes is well worth a visit for lovers of the original stories, its recent incarnations or just the city of London.

Sherlock Holmes: The Man Who Never Lived And Will Never Die is on at the Museum of London until the 12th of April. 

Museum of London: Clever or evil? You decide...

I came across this image on the internet recently of superstar du jour, Benedict Cumberbatch, posing next to a Paddington Bear statue dressed as Sherlock in the Museum of London. At first I didn't think much of it, and then my brain became rapidly muddled with the stunning amount of cross promotion encapsulated in these images. Cumberbatch, star of the BBC's immensely successful Sherlock, at the Museum of London where they are having their Sherlock Holmes exhibition - fair enough. But the museum also has a Paddington Bear exhibition, which funnily enough coincides with the release of a major motion picture just in time for Christmas. And now they have a Sherlock themed Paddington Bear? Is the Museum of London run by a production studio? Is this incredibly brilliant or incredibly evil?

First off, let's be clear- Benedict I really doubt you designed this paddington sculpture. That is just a bear holding a deer stalker. Everyone calm down. I know he's amazing, but clearly not a particularly original sculptor.

But isn't what's more concerning that the MoL's exhibition masterplan seems to based around popular tv and film programmes? On the one hand, I will admit that both of these franchises are based in London and so would fall within the museum's remit. Also, the MoL has always focused on engaging school children audiences, and these two exhibitions can hardly fail to please. But on the other- the museum has commissioned a new deerstalker hat to be on sale at Liberty- is this an educational institution or an incredibly clever business?

I would say without a doubt the MoL is clever- indeed all we seem to talk about at conferences these days is building our brands, making the most of our collections, increasing visitor figures and income. Check check check- the MoL is on that like, well, like the PR savvy place it is. In fact, I would think the museum would be a paragon of a clever heritage institution - if it still had any of its collections staff.

I don't personally have a problem with the PR and cross-promotional wizardry that the MoL is pulling off. What does bother me is that it seems to come at the expense of its curatorial staff, or just its staff more widely, as we all have seen in its well publicized redundancy plan. The exhibitions are easy to market, because they aren't developed from the collections they are developed to sell, carried out by external contractors. And the scary part is- it is working.

So every time we buy our Liberty/MoL hat or pose for photos with Paddington Bear- are we condoning the rise of museums run with exposure and profit in mind? Or are museums finally getting their fair share of attention from the media? I just don't know guys. For the moment I'll have to leave it that the Museum of London might be the most savvy institution out there, but whose success appears to come at a terrible price.