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).