Art Alive – Interpreting Religious Heritage

Sponsor: Art Alive in Churches

Photo taken on Thursday, April 9, 2015

Our project team in front of Norwich Cathedral

Sponsor Liaison: Jenifer Hawks, Director
Student Team: Nicole Beinstein, Kayla DeSanty, Paulina Karabelas, and Lingyi Xu
Abstract: Churches in the city of London are an important part of the religious heritage of the UK, but they lag behind other popular heritage sites in terms of promotion and accessibility. The goal of this project was to identify ways to promote the religious heritage of the UK through improved access to and better curation of the art, artifacts, and architecture of churches. We conducted interviews with stakeholders in heritage and access, distributed a survey to members of a religious heritage organization, and visited numerous churches and other heritage sites in London and southeast England. To conclude, we recommend how church administrators and clergy, the Friends of the City Churches, and other religious heritage organizations can improve access to and promotion of religious heritage.
Links: https://wp.wpi.edu/london/files/2015/04/Art-Alive-Final-Report.pdf
https://wp.wpi.edu/london/files/2015/04/Art-Alive-Final-Presentation.pdf

Executive Summary

The churches and religious sites of the United Kingdom are an important part of the heritage of the UK. British religious sites have served for thousands of years as places of worship and local community hubs. It is estimated that 80% of the churches in the United Kingdom are used for community purposes other than worship, and nearly half are used as venues for cultural outlets such as dance, music, and the arts (“National Churches Trust Survey,” 2011). Churches have much to say about culture throughout the centuries and can be utilized as an important historical tool in education about the heritage of the United Kingdom. While some of the largest churches in the UK are represented well in this way, many smaller churches and religious sites are often overlooked. Large churches such as St. Paul’s Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, and Canterbury Cathedral have over 1 million visitors each year, while smaller churches that are open to the public may only see a few thousand visitors over the course of a year (Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, 2013). Many of the smaller churches in the UK do not have the resources to cater to large numbers of tourists. Only half the churches in the UK are regularly open to the public, and even these churches lack the resources necessary to conserve, maintain, and promote the art, artifacts, and architecture in their care, (“National Churches Trust Survey,” 2011). As a result, many churches and much of the religious heritage of the UK may go unnoticed by UK residents and tourists.

The overall goal of this project was to identify ways to promote religious heritage of the UK through improved access to and better curation and interpretation of religious architecture, artwork, and artifacts. Our team achieved this goal by completing the following objectives. We:

  1. Determined the opinions of church watchers, church administrators, and representatives of religious heritage organizations on the importance of the churches in the city of London as heritage sites;
  2. Analyzed how heritage sites in London currently curate the art, artifacts, and architecture in their care;
  3. Identified barriers that exist in terms of accessibility to religious heritage for the disabled community and determined what can be done to overcome these barriers; and
  4. Determined the opinions of the members of religious heritage organizations regarding access to and interpretation of religious heritage sites.

We worked closely with our sponsoring organization, Art Alive in Churches as well as the heritage organization, The Friends of the City Churches (FCC), to conduct interviews with key representatives of religious heritage and disabilities access organizations and museums, and survey members of some of the religious heritage organizations.

Findings

We interviewed 21 stakeholders from various religious heritage organizations and churches. Across the board, the stakeholders believed that the religious heritage of the United Kingdom is important. We found that 88% agreed that churches are not being promoted well enough to the general public as sites of heritage. A majority of stakeholders also mentioned that the churches are limited by funding and other resources, such as volunteers. A majority of the stakeholders agreed that technology should be incorporated into churches in some way, but 19% were completely opposed to the use of technology. Surprisingly, 16% of the stakeholders believed that current state of accessibility in the city churches is acceptable. On the other hand, 84% of stakeholders believed that at least some changes should be made to improve accessibility in churches.

Distribution of the opinions of the 21 stakeholders we interviewed

Percentage of stakeholders in favor of and against the use of technology in churches

Division of 81% who were in favor of technology

Of the stakeholders in favor of technology, the percentage of stakeholders who believe technology should be non-intrusive and the percentage who believe all technologies should be utilized.

Distribution of the opinions of the 21 stakeholders we interviewed

Percentage of stakeholders who believe that churches are accessible in their current state, temporary changes should be made to improve accessibility, and permanent changes should be made to improve accessibility

Distribution of the opinions of the 21 stakeholders we interviewed and the 9 survey responses we received

Opinions on the promotion of churches. The response distributions are the same for survey respondents and stakeholders.

Throughout our site visits, we found that heritage sites vary greatly in how they curate and interpret items in their care. The two museums we visited had more interpretive and curative resources than any of the churches viewed. However, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, and Norwich Cathedral all offered a variety of resources for visitors. For the most part, and not surprisingly, the lesser known and smaller churches found in London and Cambridge were far behind the three large churches and the two museums.

The number of churches that employed interpretive methods, out of a total of 25 churches

The number of churches that employed interpretive methods, out of a total of 25 churches.

During our visits to selected churches, we looked specifically at the accessibility of the churches, including physical access, intellectual access and lavatory access. Again, there was a difference between the museums and well-known large churches and the smaller churches found in London and Cambridge. Despite the use of ramps in some churches, only 44% had either level access to the entryway or an alternative entrance for individuals who could not use the stairs. Once inside the churches, 76% were level.

The city churches of London and Cambridge offered little in terms of resources to aid visitors with disabilities to interpret the artwork, artifacts, and architecture. For example, of the 16% of city churches that offered any type of tour, none of them offered guided tours for individuals with visual and hearing impairments, 12% of the city churches offered any sort of technology to aid those with disabilities in interpretation and none of the city churches offered any interpretive information in large print or Braille.

Another important aspect of intellectual accessibility is the use of websites. Only 11% of church websites had an accessibility page listing the accessibility features of the church. Similarly, only 16% of church websites had any sort of information about the artwork within the church, and 9% of church websites presented either a virtual tour or 360 degree view of the church online.

Another detail we paid attention to was the lavatory facilities in the churches. Toilets in churches are generally not available for public usage due to security issues. Of the small churches, only 36% had toilets open to the public, and only 40% had accessible toilets.

The number of churches that had accessible features, out of a total of 25 churches.

The number of churches that had accessible features, out of a total of 25 churches.

From the interviews we conducted, we took away five main points in terms of what can be done to alter the churches, which are all listed buildings, to make them more accessible. These major points are as follows: (1) By law, churches, as public buildings, have an obligation to make reasonable adjustments in order to become more physically accessible to visitors; (2) altering a listed building is possible with good planning/design; (3) in some cases, changes cannot be made without destroying the fabric of a historic building; (4) well-updated websites with information on current exhibits and accessibility resources can be helpful for all visitors, as these websites can enable visitors to plan their trip in advance; and (5) disabilities awareness training may be useful so volunteers can empathize with visitors with disabilities.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall, the rich religious heritage displayed in the churches of the city of London is not fully accessible to all visitors. This is a result of a lack of promotion, limited interpretive materials, and barriers to access for the disabled community. All of these issues stem from the lack of resources that are available for the city churches. In response to these findings, we suggest measures to increase resources as well as simple ways to improve interpretation, and accessibility for people with disabilities to the administrators and members of the clergy at the London city churches. Local religious heritage organizations are also key proponents in the promotion of the religious heritage of the UK. The Friends of the City Churches, in particular, can improve the promotion of the city churches by adapting the role of the church watcher into the role of a guide. As a whole, we suggest that religious heritage better promote themselves by updating social media and websites, collaborating with other heritage organizations to plan events, and pairing with tourism boards to better market churches as a tourist destination.

Based on our findings, we made several recommendations to the City Churches administrators, the Friends of City Churches, and religious heritage organizations in general.

We recommend that the city churches’ administrators and clergy:

  • Take measures to increase church resources by directly asking for donations, joining incentive schemes like the Community Toilet Scheme, and developing interpretive materials for sale to visitors.
  • Take measures to improve interpretation information by improving interpretive materials and signage.
  • Take measures to improve access with the church by:
    • Improving physical access by installing temporary and permanent ramps and other accommodations necessary for the disabled;
    • Improving intellectual access by providing improved websites and interpretive materials in large text, Braille, and audio formats; and
    • Making churches more welcoming by leaving doors open, installing glass doors if possible, and keeping lights on.
  • Conduct programs with local communities.

We recommend that the Friends of the City Churches:

  • Adapt the role of the church watcher by educating church watchers on the city churches so they can highlight important aspects of buildings they watch in to visitors, incorporating disabilities awareness training into the standard church watcher training, and collaborating with access teams at large churches and museums to hold the disabilities awareness training.
  • Take measures to increase visitor numbers by incorporating better signage and better placement of that signage to promote the fact that churches are open with watchers available, increasing social media presence, extending church watcher hours, and creating themed, guided church tours.
  • Improve internal communications by creating an electronic mailings list of members and volunteers to facilitate communication to and between members of the organization.

We recommend that religious heritage organizations in general:

  • Better promote themselves by using social media accounts more often, keeping social media accounts updated, and providing more details and linkages on their websites.
  • Network and collaborate with other heritage organizations and local tourism boards by promoting each other’s events, co-sponsoring events, and planning open church events with tourism boards.