While I don't think requiring a donor credit in an exhibit label should ever 
be a condition for a gift, I believe rather passionately that it's just common 
sense, good manners, and good practice to give donor credits wherever 
possible--in exhibit labels, published catalog entries, and online catalogs.  It 
sends museum visitors and readers of catalogs a strong message that gifts are 
appreciated and will be publicly acknowledged, unless the donor specifcally 
requests anonymity.  I think it should be standard practice (I believe it once was) 
and that omitting donor credits is a deplorable, wrongheaded mistake.  It is 
certainly standard in most art museums; in fact, I've never been in an art 
museum that failed to provide this information.  (I'm sure I'll get a list of art 
museums that don't do it, proving I don't get around enough, but it's clear to 
me that most art museums and many other museums get this detail right.)  It's 
an important tradition, in my book.

Certainly some donors prefer anonymity for reasons of privacy, security, or 
even modesty, and such requests must be respected, but I'd bet that the 
majority appreciate the acknowledgment and, given a choice between a museum that 
gives credit and one that doesn't, would opt for one that does.  The cynical might 
suggest that art museums give credit only because the value of a work of art 
is usually high compared to the value of gifts of non-art to history museums 
and other non-art institutions, but I think a tradition of credits for all 
gifts of artifacts to all types of museums represents a more democratic attitude 
and would promote good will between museums and their publics.  If an object is 
displayed separately with an individual label, why not add a line for an 
acknowledgment, perhaps in a smaller font?  The notion that viewers don't care 
anyway and that credit lines just clutter the display is specious.  Perhaps it's 
true that no one but the donor really "cares" who gave what individual object, 
but anybody who reads the labels, if they include credits, will gradually get 
the idea that the museum cares about its donors and that donors are important 
participants in the museum enterprise--and that can only be a plus.

Of course you can't put individual credit labels in period settings or other 
situations in which objects aren't separately identified, so you install a 
list of contributors somewhere nearby.  The manner in which you provide credit 
may be part of the mix in design decisions, but it should be an integral part of 
that mix.  I hate to see only big-bucks contributors to exhibit costs 
acknowledged, while the individual artifacts which form the actual content of the 
display go unheralded. 

The possibility that donor credits might stir up trouble if the original 
ownership of an object is contested only proves how important it is to make sure 
that proper legal ownership is established during the accessioning process--not 
that you shouldn't risk publicly acknowledging a gift for fear of a family 
feud.  If a donor credit draws a legal owner out of the woodwork to debate the 
donor's ownership and right to donate the object, that's good, for heaven's 
sake.  You don't want to be the recipient of a fraudulent donation.  Let the two 
parties fight it out in court.
 
If you think your exhibits don't need donor credit labels, think again.

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).