In 1979 a couple of my colleagues and I drove an 18 wheeler with a 40'
trailer a thousand miles to pick up a collection and bring it to a new
"world-class" institution.
 
The media accepted the institution's new, self-appointed designation, and
we looked forward to another run; "Kalamazoo in '82."
 
The deal fell through, and we did not make the run to Kalamazoo.  Two
days ago I learned that the owner of the Kalamazoo collection had passed
away recently, and the collection had been dispersed among the scholar's
students, many of whom are now tenured faculty here and there.
 
The 1979 collection has been parceled out.  Some elements were "out of
field" and were sold off; some were not considered important enough to
the primary collections of the institution and hit the dumpster.  The
residue, while augmenting the institution's collections, is no longer an
accurate reflection of the collector's vision/aim, and the state of
preservation activity there does not bode well for the survivability of
the residue.
 
On balance, I approve the dispersion of the Kalamazoo collection because
it enhances the survivability of the collection.
 
Nearly 30 years of experience as a conservator and visitor to museums in
the US, Canada, UK, Spain, Mexico, Italy, and Greece, inform my opinion
that, on average, collections are better served in small institutions
with an active volunteer cadre than they are in major institutions.
 
Certainly, there are exceptions, but they are exceptional; not the norm.
 
Another thing which I have come to believe is that there are only a few
people in any generation who are willing to apply what they learn from
the past to inform their age, and project into the future.
 
I am not offended by a museum exhibit which serves the attention span of
an MTV person, so long as the artifacts remain available to those who
decide that it is their task to interpret them.
 
Enough.
 
Jack C. Thompson
Thompson Conservation Lab.
Portland, OR
[log in to unmask]