While I agree that Vincent's idea is certainly a valid option, there are
dangers inherent in it that would need to be addressed. As a person that has
worked the floor at a lot of museums, I know that the visitor that wants to
see the artifact that they or a relative (or ancestor) donated is a near
weekly occurrence. Of those that must be turned away unhappy because said
artifact is in storage (which is most of them) the majority take the news
with disappointed grace. They understand intellectually that a museum cannot
possibly exhibit all of its artifacts, but that does not mean they are not
emotionally deflated.  Although they may not blame the museum and may still
donate other artifacts they are clearly sad that their place in history is
more crowded than they thought. They leave understanding the situation, but
not liking it.  When handled correctly these people also leave with a
broader understanding of how museum collecting works and the many uses and
values an artifact has over and above simple public display in an exhibit.

Now, what do you tell these people when they find out that another person in
their situation was appeased because he squeaked louder than they did?
"Sorry, you didn't make my life a big enough hell?" What do you tell future
donors? "No we cannot guarantee to exhibit your artifacts unless of course
you threaten to monopolize my and my boss's time with complaining and
threats?" Wouldn't putting this person's artifact on display because of the
controversy encourage others to make the same demands? Should artifact
disposition be based upon the complaints of donors?

How we deal with any one constituent has implications beyond that one
individual. To appease one will have an impact on how others perceive the
fairness of how they were treated and will influence how future people will
expect to be treated.  Depending upon the importance of the artifact to the
collection, (which admittedly  creates an artificial, and possibly unfair,
hierarchy of donors. Those with cooler stuff have more clout) I would think
that giving the artifact back, after due deaccessioning process that
involves the governing body or committee thereof, would create less of a
negative precedent and/or bad PR than appeasing a donor based merely on the
volume (or volume) of their complaints.

Visitor service tip: Have your floor staff armed with statistics, examples,
and possibly copies of research and scholarly work done in the collections,
including History Day projects or other student efforts. If you have an
online database, have business cards printed with the URL so that they can
be given out. This way your floor staff can say, "no your artifact is not on
exhibit, but look at these others ways it has proved valuable and
educational."

Also, many people have suggested (correctly) that an explicit statement of
the likelihood (or lack thereof) of permanent display be included in the
deed of gift and perhaps having a meeting and reinforcing this in person.
These are excellent ideas. I'd like to add a spin: Instead of phrasing it in
a negative way (ie "The museum makes no guarantee as to the exhibition
status etc.), start in a positive fashion. "Your donation to this museum
will potentially by used in number of educational and scholarly ways..."
then list them as completely and briefly as possible. Finish with a sentence
or two that states clearly that the decision of how to use this specific
artifact will depend on a number of factors including conservation needs,
exhibit needs, etc. and that the museum does not guarantee any particular
use. The goal of this is to A) Enlighten the donor on the many ways the
artifact (or manuscript collection for that matter) can be valuable and
contribute to history that may not include permanent display especially in
the internet age B) demystify collecting policies of museums, and C)
emphasize the positive aspects of artifact storage decisions, not the
negative.

For the advanced user, might I also suggest a brochure or web page for
potential artifact donors that lists all of the wonderful uses we have for
artifacts. Include a bibliography of books, articles, movies, other museum's
exhibits,  or whatever, that artifacts have provided research for or have
appeared in. Put permanent display as only one of many ways their donation
will contribute to our understanding of the past. Again the goal is to
emphasize the positive and demystify the work of museums.

We do a lot of great work in the museum field and we should stop being
apologetic because we decide to use an artifact in one worthy project and
not another or that we care as much for the conservation of an artifact for
future generations as we do the edification of this generation.

That's enough now, I need to get back to work.


--
Matthew White
Director of Museums
Mount Washington Observatory
www.mountwashington.org


Vincent Lyon Wrote:

> Another option of course is to display the item.  You said this was not an
> option for "obvious reasons" but the only actual reason you stated was that
> you didn't have room.  That means it is more important to the mission of
> your museum to display other things.  Perhaps you should reconsider where
> this donation fits in your mission.  Also, surely you have a rotating
> gallery of some sort.  I have known several institutions which have every
> few years a display of artifacts donated by local residents in the past few
> years.  I think this works very well.
>
> Try to put yourself in the donor's shoes.  He or she gave the object
> because his/her home was not a good forum to show it or storage for it, but
> it was something worth preserving.  You've stuck it in a box in a back
> closet for all he knows, or worse put it up on e-bay (the public doesn't
> really know how museums work, and don't want to be lectured on it).  The
> donor wants others to enjoy this item.  That's why he/she gave it.  Make
> every effort to let the donor know that people will enjoy this item when it
> will eventually be put to use, and hopefully that will be within the
> donor's life time.  This is particularly a concern if the donor is ill or
> of an advanced age.
>
> That's my opinion.
> Vincent
> Vincent T. Lyon
> Robert Crown Law Library
> Stanford University
> 650-724-6454
> [log in to unmask]

=========================================================
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).