The history of the City Museum’s collections goes back to 1787, when the bass drums, horns and standard that belonged to the city’s disbanded cavalry unit were collected.2 The members of the bourgeoisie who led Helsinki at the time must have had their reasons to preserve these specific objects, even though no documentation of those reasons remains. We can consider their collecting to be a part of the general identity project of the rising European bourgeoisie class. Weapons and musical instruments were typical collectibles, already in the collections of Renaissance nobility, and flags and standards were valued as spoils of war and signs of victory.
The first written form of the City Museum’s collection mission is the task given to the Antiquities Board of Helsinki in 1906, i.e., documenting a disappearing Helsinki. The City Museum was founded in 1911 to continue the Antiquities Board’s work with the task of “collecting objects that are ideal for illustrating the city’s history, its appearance and its societal life” (Kertomus Helsingin kaupungin kunnallishallinnosta 24, 1911, p. 230). In other words, the view of what should be collected for the City Museum’s collections has existed since its founding, even if the matter was not conceptualised as a collections policy per se.
In 2000, Helsinki turned 450 years old and was named the European Capital of Culture. After the City Museum had accomplished this Herculean task, it was time to focus on developing collections management. Many factors incentivised development. Firstly, Helsinki’s city administration adopted a results-based management model from the business world. The model emphasised strategic thinking and measuring operations. A mission and vision were also defined
2. Helsinki City Archives, Maistraatin pöytäkirjat Ca:93. 3. maalisk. 1787, § 5. pp. 14–149.
for the City Museum as one of the city organisation’s actors (Helsingin kau- punginmuseon kokoelmien historia 2002, p. 2). Secondly, the museum’s own museological thinking developed in the same direction as part of the internal professionalisation process, together with the museum field. By chance, the City Museum of Stockholm explored the collection collections management goals of other Nordic capital museums during this time (Sigurdsson 2001), and discussions during this process inspired colleagues in Helsinki to study their own collections more analytically.
The work was aided by the storage room’s basic renovation and a desire to direct resources from accepting donations toward museum-led documentation projects (Helsingin kaupunginmuseon kokoelmastrategia 2003, p. 2). The undertaking was characterised by the difficulties involved in pioneering work. There were no real domestic models, which was one additional reason why Stockholm’s report was so welcome.
Work had to begin from scratch. The first task was to describe what the museum’s collections actually included. Information on the collections’ specific contents was largely based on employees’ personal skills and tacit knowledge, because the information was – as was the case with almost all other museums – primarily recorded in manual record books and files. Moreover, cataloguing was behind in accessioning, despite the fact that the first IT-based relational database was implemented in 1991 (Toimintakertomus 1991). Information on the contents and goals materialised as accessioning and everyday practices, and was retained as an oral tradition whose interpretation depended on the new generation of museum employees.
The analysis demonstrated that the personality and interests of the Museum Director had a significant impact on the collections’ acquisitions until the be- ginning of the 1980s. Directors made decisions on which objects to purchase for the collections and purchased objects themselves. Later, as the museum grew, curators began to play a larger role. A survey conducted as background for the history project revealed, however, that curators either lacked the necessary skills or were unwilling to analyse the reasons for their decisions. Instead, they spoke of “an intuitive recognition skill” (Helsingin kaupunginmuseon kokoel- mastrategia 2003, p. 39). That said, there was a unanimous view of the goal, which was “a collection of objects that is as varied and comprehensive as possible and describes Helsinki and the people of Helsinki” (Kokoelmastrategia 2003, p.
38). In other words, the process of adding to collections had followed the mis- sion given during the founding phase at the beginning of the 20th century, even though there were no written or public instructions. The insufficient cataloguing made accessioning difficult in the present, because people felt that there was no comprehensive understanding of the collections.
The City Museum’s first real collections strategy was completed as part of the process in 2003. It began ambitiously with the definition of Helsinki’s city iden- tity. According to the strategy, the identity’s elements were being a city by the sea, the city’s position as a capital city and being European – all themes that
are still present in the Helsinki City Strategy. The collections were examined in relation to the identity’s different elements. One central observation was that the object collection placed more emphasis on private life and women’s lives, whereas the photograph collection focused more on public spaces. Another observation was that the collections as a whole emphasised the inner city. It was noted that these factors caused many of the city’s residents to be excluded from the collections. Much thought was given to what it meant to identify as a Helsinki resident, but the museum’s relation to legislation or the Helsinki City Strategy was not mentioned at all. Instead, borders were defined between the Helsinki City Museum and other museums in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area.
The aim was not only to limit the museum’s acquisitions but also to improve co-operation. The museum’s own primary processes received descriptions, which was possible because the city had recently adopted a process description prac- tice. Contemporary collecting was mentioned referentially, but the matter had clearly been considered:
We must assess which contemporary trends will be given more significance and become permanent fixtures of city life. If these trends are added to collections, the reasons for adding them should primarily be based on the impact of the trend in Helsinki instead of how hot the trend is. (Hel- singin kaupunginmuseon kokoelmastrategia 2003, p. 48, translated by the author)
The document also notes that the museum should represent other realities besides those of the museum’s employees and most typical customers, but no means to accomplish this or concrete goals were defined. The document also discovered deficiencies and development needs. Online publication was not yet possible in 2003, and the document was not published in any other form either, so it was only available for the museum’s internal use. In fact, the internal nature of the document is one of its notable features. There are no mentions of any stakeholders, external users, citizens or financiers.
The collections strategy was updated rather quickly in 2007, and it was called The Collections Policy Programme. This time, the incentive came from legisla- tors. The Museums Act of 2005 required museums receiving statutory state aid to have a comprehensive long-term plan. The previous document consisted of 56 sheets of A4 paper. The new document was comprised of only 12 sheets and contained many references to previous processes and the history of the collec- tions. It was easy to build on earlier work, and the new document proved that collection thinking and work had developed. The collections strategy of 2003 was mostly descriptive, whereas the 2007 version included more strategical- ly-minded writing. The document defined customers, citizens and the research community, and named the owner of the collections, i.e., the City of Helsinki.
The document also set a goal for collections policy work – defining the future of the collections’ content and care. The guiding principles according to the document were the museum’s mission and operational plan, which meant that collections management was redefined as a part of the museum’s comprehensive
operation. The museum’s first collection inventory began with this collections policy update. In addition, the document made visible the serious problem of objects without inventory numbers, which had previously gone largely unmen- tioned. The accessibility and mobility of collections were mentioned for the first time, which indicated that museological discussions and suggestions were being followed. The digital world had also developed. Transferring collection information online was set as a goal, and the new collections policy programme could be published on the museum’s website.