A very interesting discussion over the past week or so.  Doug T. raises a
very valid point.  What's really gained by changing the name of the
person(s) who perform the work.  Registrars and their duties are
intregal elements of museums.  Libraries and archives also have very
similar registration processes, but usually not as involved or convoluted.
(the above statement should be cause for additional conversation...
 
H. Dale Durham, Chief
Museum Services Division
Southeast Region
National Park Service
[log in to unmask]
 
 
On Wed, 23 Nov 1994, STEVE MASLER wrote:
 
> I hope no one thinks that I meant to say that Registrars have outlived
> their usefullness.  They are usually the only ones that know what's going
> on and can see the big picture!!!  Its just that  folks think of people
> with that title as the place to dump everything rather than the
> professional position it truly is.  I'm afraid its in the title .... so
> lets change it.
 
I disagree that the title causes the problem.  Every museum must have
someone responsible for maintaining the official records on the
collection, supervising the physical care and handling of the collection,
maintaining insurance coverage, arranging for packing, shipping, and
movement of objects, and all the other things registrars traditionally
do.  Changing the title won't remove the need for those activities, and
in most museums they are assigned to someone with the title "registrar."
If you call that person a "collections manager" or "capo di tuti capo,"
the tasks still remain to be done.  Why change the name, unless the
position doesn't have responsibility for the tasks of a registrar?
 
********************************************************
Doug Tilghman, Assistant Director, Spencer Museum of Art
University of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045     913-864-4710
[log in to unmask]               FAX 913-864-3112
********************************************************