Are you interested in specific situations, or just museums' approach to
creators in general?

Obviously, it makes quite a difference if the creator is still alive (or
relatively recently dead) or dead.

In cases where an object is still within copyright, a museum should ensure
that that copyright is not violated, for example by limiting photography in
the gallery.

Most museums and galleries in our area pay an exhibition fee to artists
(living) when we display an exhibition of their work.  This fee is set by
(in our case) West Midlands Arts.  I assume other arts boards in the UK have
a similar recommendation.

We also have a contract we use with living artists which explains what we
hope to achieve from our exhibitions and states which things are negotiable
with the artist (some of the laying out of displays for example) and which
things are not (the presence and size of interpretation labels).  Hopefully
this means we meet our aims and mission but the artist also knows where they
stand.

Finally, whether a creator is alive or dead, most museums will include a
label in some format with that creator's name (if they know it), which
clearly is part of that responsibility to the creator.

>From Simon Ward, <[log in to unmask]>, Bishop Grosseteste College

>to any one who may have feelings on this matter, to what extent do
>you feel museums have a responsibility to an objects creator whendisplaying
it.


Philippa Tinsley
----------------------------------------------------
Registrar, Wolverhampton Art Gallery
[log in to unmask]