David Haberstich referred to the Photo History list in his post of Nov. 5:
David, can you share the subscription information to this list with me?
Thank you,
Lesley
-------
Lesley L. Humphreys
Curator of History and Research
NYSHA/TFM
PO Box 800
Cooperstown, NY 13326
-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Automatic digest processor
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:14 AM
To: Recipients of MUSEUM-L digests
Subject: MUSEUM-L Digest - 4 Nov 2000 to 5 Nov 2000 (#2000-308)
There are 4 messages totalling 192 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Cabinet Cards (2)
2. Studies from entertainment /amusement park industry (2)
=========================================================
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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 08:09:49 -0500
From: Lynne K Ranieri <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Cabinet Cards
Hello,
I am preparing exhibit labels for a small exhibit in our small
historical society museum. Among the items to be labeled is a cabinet
card. I have spent more time than I ever want anyone to know trying to
find out where term "cabinet card" or "cabinet portrait" came from and
what it means, so that I can add it to the label -- or at least answer
intelligently when someone asks. Can anyone on this list tell me the
derivation or meaning?
Thank you
Lynne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:08:46 EST
From: "David E. Haberstich" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Cabinet Cards
Lynne Ranien asked about the origin of the term "cabinet card" (also called
a
cabinet print). When this question was asked on the Photo-History list a
couple of years ago, the following replies emrged. I quote Steve Knoblock,
quoting others.
In May 1862, Marion & Co announced the publication of a series of
Cabinet views, 6.75 x 4.5 inches, photographed by G W Wilson,
[see G W Wilson, Artist & Photographer, R Taylor, Aberdeen,
1981, p85] which as far as I can trace is the first public
announcement of the format. Given the name is of French origin its
pronuniciation should be `cabinee`, which my 1850 dictionary
defines either as " A closet, a small room or retired apartment" or "
Any close place where things of value are deposited for
safekeeping"
Roger Taylor
UK
Larry Schaff said recently,
that "cabinet pictures" were produced by the Flemish and Dutch painters for
merchants houses. They were small enough to fit on an easel. Now
what is small for a painting would be large for a daguerreotype or
photograph but these were often displayed on small easels. I would
suspect the term comes from there and likely pre-dates photography
(just as the early daguerreian cases were already established as
miniature painting cases).
Lately, the Dagurrean News noted that
On this day (June 25) in the year 1845, the following advertisement
appeared in the "Springfield Gazette" Vol. 14, No. 25:
Miniatures and Portraits taken in all the
various sizes, from the smallest breast-pin size
to that of the Cabinet Portrait.
About which Luis Nadeau said:
The above is new to me as I was also under the impression that "cabinet"
had not been used to refer to a photographic size before the 1860s. This is
very interesting.
On the other hand, Shirley Wadja, offered this account:
I took the "cabinet" card to mean appropriate, by beauty or uniqueness, for
display in a cabinet. American parlors were filled with cartes de visite
and
with cabinet card-size portraits, arrayed on mantels (family-centered
hearths). whatnots
or etageres (where cabinet cards were displayed with rocks, flowers, books,
objets d'art, and the like on this altar of culture), and in wall-pockets
and
on tables and, of course, albums. The term "cabinet" seems to have referred
to the practice of collection--cabinets of curiosities, for example, a
wunder- or kunstkammer, even a schatzkammer.
I'm sure the connection is there, even if the term did originate in
painting.
Hope this summary helps,
>Does anyone have an idea on the origin of the term
>"Cabinet Photograph"? Has it any relationship to
>the cabinets that miniatures were kept in?
Steve Knoblock>>
(Copied from my voluminous e-mail files.)
David Haberstich
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:07:41 EST
From: "David E. Haberstich" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Studies from entertainment /amusement park industry
In a message dated 00-11-04 20:00:02 EST, T. W. Moran wrote:
<< David, I still say the comparison does not work; in that Theme
park/entertainment vs. museuns/education are coming from opposite
directions and aiming ( I hope ) at different goals. The theme park's
only consern is getting the coustmers' dollars. Charging what the public
will bear and giveing as little as they can get by with. I.e. gain the
highest return on investment as quickly as possible. Where as the
museum/educational instution is tring to enlighten. >>
Whereas, Harold Needham wrote:
"David has just expressed my own viewpoint with his usual eloquence and
sagacity - far better than I could have! " Harold, thanks (blush).
T.W., I don't mean to seem argumentative, but I feel my idea still hasn't
gotten across. Here's one last attempt at clarification. I'm not talking
about comparing audiences, and I wasn't concerned about comparing the
OBJECTIVES of theme parks vs. those of museums. I was interested in
audiences' expectations of value. I had previously written:
"I too would bet that the entertainment and amusement park industries have
done studies about raising and lowering prices--in order to arrive at the
optimum fee for the most profit. But do you really think such studies would
be useful in helping a non-profit museum decide on "free vs. fee"? If I
recall correctly, that was the original issue."
My later message was intended as an amendment to the above, because upon
reflection I decided I had missed something. I don't think a survey of the
theme park or other entertainment-for-profit industries would be useful in
helping a non-profit museum decide on "free vs. fee," as I said, but it
occurred to me that different questions directed to these audiences,
concerning attitudes about paying for diversion vs. free diversions, might
yield the kind of information which could establish the fact that there are
some people who assume that free entertainment, diversion, or activity is of
little or no value. Such a study would have to include a valid sample of
respondents who are open-minded enough to separate specific content from
value. Answers from theme park visitors who are just seeking "fun" rather
than a memorable, fulfilling experience and who think museums and similar
educational experiences just aren't fun, regardless of cost, wouldn't tell
you much.
But the issue I'm seeking to address is spending money or not spending
money.
The point of questioning a theme-park audience about issues of value would
be access to people willing to spend a significant sum on a day's diversion.
Do they assume that it takes money to guarantee a high-quality experience,
regardless of nature or content? I merely suggest that a paying theme-park
or other paid-entertainment audience might have assumptions about value
which
could be teased out with appropriate strategies. I don't know if such a
proposed survey would yield statistically or philosophically useful
information. I just think it might be a means of getting at whether there
are people in existence who think that free experiences are of little or no
value, not specifically museum-like experiences. It's not necessarily to
determine what theme-park visitors think of museums, although this might be
reflected in the responses.
David Haberstich
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:17:17 -0500
From: T W Moran <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Studies from entertainment /amusement park industry
"I don't know if such a proposed survey would yield statistically or
philosophically useful information. I just think it might be a means of
getting at whether there are people in existence who think that free
experiences are of little or no value."
David,
I am but an "N" of one. But 20 years of doing events free and not
have
brought me to the point I don't do free events. I can not say that those
who attend the free events don't value the experience. I can say that
there is a significant difference between paying and non-paying
audiences. Their expectations and attitudes are literally opposite each
other.
As I say, I can't say the non pay don't value the event, I can say
for
the most part they are looking to be entertained, not educated. While
paying audiences expect to learn something.
Each values the event, as they came out to it and spent time they
could
have spent elsewhere. Just different values.
If that helps any
Tw
------------------------------
End of MUSEUM-L Digest - 4 Nov 2000 to 5 Nov 2000 (#2000-308)
*************************************************************
=========================================================
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).
|
