The Victoria and Albert Museum has agreed to remove maps and images from several of its exhibition catalogues to comply with the censorship demands of a Chinese printing firm. The decisions, which surfaced through freedom of information requests, highlight a growing tension between the financial pragmatism of major cultural institutions and the editorial integrity of their publications.
The Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) utilized Chinese printers to produce catalogues for recent exhibitions, including the upcoming “Music is Black” and the 2021 “Fabergé: Romance to Revolution.” To maintain these partnerships, the museum acceded to requests from the General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP), China’s state censorship body, to delete content deemed “sensitive” by the Beijing government.
This practice of using Chinese printing services is not unique to the V&A. Other prominent UK institutions, including the Tate, the British Library, and the British Museum, have similarly employed Chinese printers. The primary driver is cost; these firms can often produce high-quality catalogues at roughly half the price of British or European competitors.
However, the cost savings approach with a strict set of geopolitical conditions. Printers must adhere to state mandates regarding topics such as Tibet, Taiwan, Buddhism, Tiananmen Square, and pro-democracy movements. In the case of the V&A, these restrictions extended even to historical documents that seemed unrelated to contemporary Chinese politics.
The cost of “minor edits”
For the “Music is Black” exhibition, the V&A intended to include a 1930s illustration depicting the trade routes of the British Empire. In November, the museum’s printer, C&C Offset Printing, notified them that GAPP had rejected the map because it did not employ the “standard maps from Chinese Government.”
Internal communications reveal a sense of confusion and frustration among museum staff. One email exchange noted that the map was a historic depiction of British colonial rule and had “nothing to do with China,” other than the fact that China appeared on the map. Despite this bafflement, the V&A agreed to the deletion because it was too late in the production process to move the printing to Europe.
The map was originally intended for an introduction by Gus Casely-Hayford, the director of V&A East. After the censorship caused a printing delay, the museum eventually replaced the map with a photograph of passengers arriving in Southampton on the liner Begoña.
The censorship extended to other subjects as well. In the catalogue for the “Fabergé: Romance to Revolution” exhibition, the museum removed another map and a photograph of Vladimir Lenin. A production team member expressed frustration in an email to a curator, noting that the “list of restrictions is ever changing.”
| Exhibition | Censored Item | Reason for Removal |
|---|---|---|
| Music is Black | 1930s British Empire Trade Map | Non-compliance with standard Chinese government maps |
| Fabergé: Romance to Revolution | Historical Map | State censorship guidelines |
| Fabergé: Romance to Revolution | Photograph of Vladimir Lenin | Deemed “sensitive” by GAPP |
In an official statement, the V&A described these changes as “minor,” asserting that they maintain “close editorial oversight” and would pull production if any requested change were deemed problematic. The museum stated they were “comfortable making minor edits, as they did not affect the narrative.”
A broader institutional pattern
The V&A’s experience points to a wider systemic reliance on the Chinese printing industry among UK museums. A UK publisher, speaking on the condition of anonymity, noted that quotes from domestic printers—including one in Wales—were sometimes double the cost of Chinese alternatives. This financial gap often forces a choice between budget stability and absolute editorial freedom.
Even as the V&A has acknowledged these edits, other institutions have been less forthcoming. The British Museum declined to provide specific details on how it handled censorship requests for at least eight recent publications printed in China. A spokesperson stated that print orders are based on “quality, availability of materials, schedules and cost,” but declined further comment on censorship.
The British Museum is currently chaired by George Osborne, the former chancellor who famously promoted a “golden decade” of economic relations between the UK and China. This political background adds a layer of complexity to the museum’s relationship with state-controlled suppliers.
Other institutions have denied similar interference. A spokesperson for the Tate confirmed the use of Chinese printers for some catalogues and children’s books but stated that Tate Publishing has “never changed the content of any books at the request of a printer.” Similarly, the British Library claimed it has never encountered censorship issues with its Chinese-printed materials.
The implications for cultural heritage
The V&A censored catalogues incident raises fundamental questions about the role of publicly funded museums as custodians of history. When historical maps or photographs are removed to satisfy the political requirements of a third-party vendor, the record of the exhibition is subtly altered.
For many in the arts and culture sector, the issue is not just about a few missing images, but about the precedent of allowing a foreign government’s “red pen” to dictate what is printed in a British museum’s official literature. The tension is compounded by the fact that these catalogues are often sold in museum shops and used as scholarly references.
As museums continue to navigate the financial pressures of the post-pandemic era, the reliance on low-cost overseas production may lead to more frequent clashes between editorial standards and state censorship laws. For now, the V&A and its peers remain balanced between the necessity of the budget and the purity of the archive.
The museum has not announced any changes to its printing procurement policy. Further disclosures may arise as more freedom of information requests are processed regarding the production of institutional publications.
Do you believe museums should prioritize editorial independence over cost-cutting measures? Share your thoughts in the comments or join the conversation on social media.
