TELLOGLEIO FOUNDATION wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
> We are in the process of cataloguing the collections of a new art
> museum. We would appreciate any feedback we can get. Here are some
> questions:
> When we have a set of objects that relate to each other (such as a
> triptych) how do you deal with it? Do you accession it as a whole by
> attributing a number like x.x.1-3? Do you catalogue it first as a set
> and then each part of it separately?
> How do you catalogue installations?
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Alexandra Apostolidou
> Fotinie Efstratiadou-Wisner

You have described one of the great debates in collections management -
what is an object?  I don't know if there is a definitive answer.  You
have your "lumpers" (few objects with lot's of parts) and you have your
"splitters" (lot's of object with relatively few parts).  Is a framed,
matted and glazed watercolour one object with four(+) parts, or four(+)
objects which are (possibly) historically related.  I don't know.  You
have the infinite advantage of starting to develop a catalogue from
scratch for a new collection.  Prior to developing a documentation
system decide for your own purposes which approach will work for the
best for the way you wish to use your collection.  Then stick to it.
One of the problem's I face with the data for my collections is that
this was not done historically.  So our information system is less
efficient than I would like because sometimes a tea service was one
object and sometimes 250 objects depending on when it was catalogued
over a 63 year collecting history.  This could be corrected by
re-catalguing the collection, but this is not a realistic possibility.

If you come up with a really good solution to this problem with old
documentation let me know, for your new system - make the decision early
and force everyone to live with it.  I will make finding information
easirt in the end, particularly if you end up using a relational
database.

Richard Gerrard