The Stanford University Museum of Art has been reviewing its
practices and its language regarding credit lines and/or donor
acknowledgements on objects.  We are seeking guidance, alternative,
and food for thought regarding appropriate and ethical phrasing in
the following circumstances:

When a living donor signs a deed of gift, or when a benefactor
arranges promised bequest, we agree on the proper language for the
credit line, e.g. Gift of A. Donor, in honor of Blah, Blah, so that
is settled.

But what do you do with the credit line when that object is
deaccessioned.  At SUMA, we use all funds realized  to acquire art,
and we also make a conscientious effort to use the funds in an area
related to the original gift, thus African for African art.

Our question arises from a desire to precisely identify the new
acquisition with maximum delicacy .  We cannot accurate identify the
new acquisition as  "Gift of A. Donor," nor do we really want a
public credit line reading, "Museum purchase with funds realized
from deaccessioning a gift from A. Donor."  Such an acknowledgment
might well be off-putting to potential benefactors.

We have observed in some museums the phrase, "Gift of A. Donor, by
exchange" but we prefer to reserved the "by exchange" notice for
objects in fact acquired by exchange with other institutions (a
practice we recommend to museums engaged in deaccessioning).  Also,
this still falsely implies that the object on display was given by
A. Donor.

One possiblity we have generated is:  "Museum purchase through the
generosity of A. Donor."

In conclusion, I would welcome examples of credit lines used in
other institutions that both properly identify objects and also
offer mimimum offense.

Thank you very much for your advice and good consul.

Please respond off-list unless you believe this is an issue of
general concern.

Bernard Barryte
Stanford University Museum of Art
[log in to unmask]


To:  [log in to unmask]