I think that there is a huge distiniction that is made between
archaeological artifacts and those that are either on the open market
or in musuems that have been treated as "art" and disassociated from
their provenances.
All of the archaeologists that I have known basically consider a
disassociated object worthless, because it's context as datum is ruined
as far as being in association within a strata and with other
artifacts, soil layers, etc.
Pot-hunting and the legalities of ownership are prime issues, but also
it is the loss of association of an individual artifact or group of
artifacts that is equally important to archaeologists.
When I was doing aracheological conservation I did demonstrate through
researching a extremely well=preserved 18th century artifact that was
excavated from a disturbed layer from the ground, that such an object
did have significant research value - maybe not strictly archaeological
but due to the state of preservation it was an invaluble look at
literally a brand new original surface that does not exist on objects
in deocrative arts collections that have undergone use and wear.
So, I personally, as an objects conservator who is senstivie to
material culture and social history issues, feel that no object is ever
totally "worthless".
Also, not every object in a history collection has a great provenance.
I remember seeing many that were acquired because they were known types
and could help flesh out an interior or add a type into the collection
that was not there before.
I rather think that it is the legalities of ownership that are more
point on. I remember hearing a presentation at a conference some years
ago, that legally, a conservator or other person, who undertook any
sort of work on an object or artifact that did not have a clearly
demonstrated legal ownership, made you as potentially criminally liable
in trafficing in stolen goods as the person who may have stolen it,
whether you were aware of it's being stolen or not. This was presented
in the context of archaeology and antiquities, of course, but is
equally valid in fine and decorative arts as well.
It's a complex issue that many of us deal with at one time or another.
I rather think it's best that if anything is at all suspect or murky
that you just pass on it and not step into a potential pile of trouble.
Cheers!
Dave
David Harvey
Conservator
Los Angeles, California USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Katie Wadell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:39:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of Private Collecting
Jason,
I think your philosophical question about the collecting market is
interesting, too. I have absolutely no experience or expertise that
makes
me qualified to talk on the subject, other than thinking about what
collecting is, and what it means, in a larger cultural context.
From what I've heard, most museum folk support and encourage private
collecting - of most artifacts. As someone already said, many museum
collections wouldn't exist if someone hadn't, at some point in the past,
decided that each collected object was worth saving. Plus, as you say,
maybe people appreciate collected objects more when they see them
through
the lens of their own collections- like they appreciate history more if
they
understand how it fits with their personal history.
On the other hand, most archeologists argue that the antiquities market,
fuel by private collecting, encourages grave robbers to go into
archeological sites with a backhoe, steal the "collectable" pieces, and
destroy any information about the site. (I don't think that museums
are in
complete agreement with the archeologists, since some art museums
reputedly
have illegally excavated works in their collection.) I've heard history
museums make a similar point when they are grumbling about ebay and
garage
sales, explaining how such sales destroy an article's provenance.
There's
also the argument that a larger collector's market means a larger
market for
forgeries or stolen art. (George Grotz's books on making fake antiques
are
fun to read - and explain a lot about the antiques/collectibles market
of
the 1960's.)
These are just a few possible ways to look at the topic- I think I'll
turn
it over to more experienced folks now.
Katie Wadell
> From: Jason Aikens <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:23:42 -0400
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of Private Collecting
>
> Thanks to all that responded to my inquiry and for clarifying the
> legalities of appraising and authenticating. I posted this inquiry
> because of the increasing amounts of requests we receive to appraise
and
> authenticate objects.
>
> Often many of these inquiries start with, "What can you tell me about
> this... “Or "Are you interested in this..." They usually end with the
> person wanting to sell the item. I often try to persuade the person
to
> donate the object but often this proves to be fruitless and
frustrating.
> I'll try to avoid any specific information on the value of items in
the
> future. I've always tried to steer the public towards licensed
appraisers
> in the past and we do not appraise items for donors.
>
> I think the best thing is to develop a policy regarding appraising and
> authenticating and add it to our collections policy. I often do get
in
> the situation where the public wants us to date objects, which I never
> considered harmful until reading some of these posts and other
> publications regarding curatorial ethics.
>
> Can dating objects put a museum into a legal dilemma? I've always
> considered dating objects different that authenticating objects
(meaning
> associating objects to a particular person).
>
> I'm still interested in any other opinions from anyone on whether they
> believe the collecting market is a source of competition to museums or
> generates interest in museum collections.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jason
>
> =========================================================
> 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).
=========================================================
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).
=========================================================
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).
|
