Donor information may be the standard in art museums but I find it very
distracting when included in history museum labels.  We recently installed a
wonderful traveling exhibit.  It's a delight in many respects but every
artifact is attributed.  These lent by, donated by words truly get in the
way.  They interrupt the flow and add information that is uninteresting for
most of your audience.
In graduate school, the discussion also included the idea that it also
alerted thieves to the idea that certain individuals might hold collections
worthy of their attention.
History museums also deal with many more artifacts than art museums.  Often
these individual items are of far less value than a painting or sculpture
donated to art museums.  With the quantity of items we deal with in history,
it is far too easy to possibly attribute a gift incorrectly.  Then, too,
with our donors, we can also inadvertently raise family squabbles and find
ourselves in the middle of family disputes via, "He didn't have the
right..."
My first year at a small history museum, one lady called to ask me to
"watch" for her relative that they were afraid might be donating things to
the museum.  Another couple debated leaving an item on loan for a longer
period of time to hide it from a recently divorced spouse of one of them.
Throughout my career I've been educating people on the idea that we do not
attribute individual items directly to a donor in our exhibit text.  I would
hope that we would not go back to the era where most of our exhibit text is
"belonged to Joe Smith's great grandmother.  donated by Sally Jones."  After
all, what does this tell you that you want to remember?

----- Original Message -----
From: David E. Haberstich <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: citations for artifacts


> In a message dated 00-09-01 10:52:45 EDT, you write:
>
> << Is there a standard citation formula when publishing articles about
>  artifacts?  In other words, when one uses a photograph of an artifact in
an
>  article, what information should be included in the caption?  Artifact
name,
>  where artifact was collected, material, date, museum collection where
>  presently located, accession #?
>
>  Should any or all of the above information be included?  Is there a
standard
>  order, like in bibliographic citations and footnotes?
>
>  Best,
>
>  Nicholas P. Ciotola >>
>
> I hadn't noticed any response to this question over the past two weeks, so
I
> thought I would venture one.  I'm not aware of any official standard, but
I
> think all the important points have been included above--with one
exception:
> name of donor.  I think the latter is a very important detail to include
in
> any object caption, whether in an exhibit label, a museum's own collection
> catalog, or when a photograph of the artifact is released for outside
> publication.  I'll expand on this below.
>
> I think many art museums have established a good tradition in this area in
> their own publications, and they usually include most of the above
> information in their basic exhibit labels and illustration captions (I'm
> referring to identification rather than interpretive or explanatory text).
> The main exception might be "where collected," as provenance history might
be
> too complex or not sufficiently relevant with many objects.  Obviously it
> would be more important with certain kinds of artifacts, such as
> archaeological items.
>
> I've always felt that museums should be careful about supplying full
captions
> with credit lines when releasing pictures of their artifacts for
publication.
>  This is an important aspect of ensuring a scholarly approach.  It also
helps
> your colleagues (and often yourself) in the long run when a published
image
> attracts new requests and you have to locate the same picture of the same
> object for a new use.  You may find that a negative or other file number
for
> the picture will facilitate retrieval and will also be useful in a caption
or
> credit line (whatever it takes to make your life easier, depending upon
the
> way your institution does business).
>
> As I write this, I'm looking at a book published by my own institution
(the
> Smithsonian) which contains many photographs of our artifacts from a
variety
> of collections: none includes adequate identification to facilitate easy
> access to the photographs for re-use.  Since most Smithsonian curatorial
> units handle reproduction permissions independently of each other, anyone
> wishing to republish these illustrations will have some degree of
difficulty
> in identifying and locating the appropriate individual repositories.
Since I
> manage a collection in which original photographs are themselves the
> artifacts, I often end up redirecting a lot of inquiries for photographs
OF
> artifacts.  Just the other day I had to figure out who handles compasses
so I
> could refer to that unit an inquiry for a photograph OF a compass which
was
> reproduced somewhere with a "Smithsonian Institution" credit line and no
> other information.  This is a constant headache for me which can be
> alleviated only by (a) an integrated database of information about
> Smithsonian collections, not yet a reality, and/or (b) full disclosure and
> identifcation in captions.  Obviously, less complex institutions will not
> have these same headaches.
>
> But that's my problem.  Getting back to the other issue about donor
> information, I think this is an important aspect of an orderly approach to
> the way a museum ought to do business.  I think a museum should be
prepared
> to honor the contributions of donors by insisting that donors always
receive
> credit whenever their gifts are exhibited or when photographs of them are
> reproduced.  I think this credit should be provided almost automatically.
> Obviously, this means that it's important to ascertain at the time of a
> donation whether the donor wants credit in such circumstances, and the
> catalog and accession records should reflect this for future reference.
> "Anonymous gift," when the donor wishes to remain anonymous, is also a
useful
> credit when appropriate.  Again, I think the standard practices of many
art
> museums in this regard provide a useful model.
>
> Sorry to go off on such a lengthy tangent, but I thought there were a
number
> of important issues embodied in this deceptively simple question.
>
> David Haberstich
>
> =========================================================
> Important Subscriber Information:
>
> The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).
>
> If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).