In July, members of the RLUK Special and Heritage Collections Network met to explore the underdiscussed topic of managing public art within the context of research libraries. Public art holdings that are often dispersed across university campuses present significant cultural value and possibilities for community engagement despite any operational complexities. This discussion surfaced shared experiences, structural challenges, and opportunities for better integration of public art into the research library’s strategic mission.

Regarding the origins of the collections, several RLUK members reported that their institution’s public art collections have evolved organically or accidentally, often through ad hoc donations. As a result, this has led to fragmented acquisition histories and a lack of formal strategy or cohesion across institutions. Moreover, public artworks are frequently managed outside of special collections workflows, despite their aesthetic value or historical significance. This can result in ambiguity over responsibility, especially regarding preservation, movement, damage, or insurance.

Thinking about the management of these artworks, more specifically, the lack of clear collecting policies or funding streams dedicated to public art acquisition or conservation constitute a fundamental challenge. Also, staff roles and responsibilities relating to public art can be undefined in many institutions. Where responsibilities are shared across broader portfolios, the time and attention given to public art can be limited. Documentation challenges, such as unclear provenance or copyright status, make it difficult to determine the usability and accessibility of artworks for purposes such as research or digital engagement.

However, despite logistical challenges, public art offers rich opportunities for research, teaching, and community engagement. Knowing the provenance and historical context of artworks, especially those with controversial pasts, is essential. Some members commented on the challenge of diversifying these collections and emphasised the importance of transparency in communicating complex histories to diverse audiences.

A number of examples showcasing the potential for collaboration and engagement were presented during the meeting. For example, some research libraries collaborate with local artists, museums, and councils to borrow or showcase works, expanding both the reach and relevance of public art programmes. Furthermore, providing self-paced guides and art trails for various audience groups, including disabled users, is a commonly employed practice which can enhance public interaction with collections.

Overall, it became evident through the discussion that public art holdings can be an underutilised resource within Higher Education campuses. Even though management practices can vary and resource limitations persist, the discussion revealed a growing interest in positioning these collections more centrally within institutional missions, particularly around engagement, accessibility, and identity. By formalising responsibilities, building partnerships, and embracing inclusive practices, libraries can maximise the impact of their public art and enhance their value to both academic and wider communities.

Christina Kamposiori,
RLUK Executive Programme Officer

Useful Links – Examples of public art managed by research libraries:

Author spotlight: Christina Kamposiori, Executive Programme Officer

Christina is interested in the role of the research library in supporting scholarship and fostering innovation in the digital age. She has also an interest in audience engagement and the facilitation of research and learning through collections.