>>> "Gayle "Indigo Nights"" <[log in to unmask]> 10/31/06 2:33 PM >>>
Every time I read that you folks destroy something, it raises the hackles on my neck and gives me spasms. I would rather not know that something once considered valuable has been rendered because the value is no longer there. I understand that you do, but it's creepy from the perspective of somebody who loves the treasures. So, if I can feel that way, I can understand why the volunteer may have thought they were doing the right thing.
>snip<
Gayle, I don't know if you've done much gardening, but you really should consider de-accessioning and disposal, even through destruction, as akin to pruning a tree or dead-heading your perennials. Yes, it destroys part of the plant, but does so to make the whole stronger. Just as pruning a tree (if done right) is good horticulture, deaccessioning (if done right) is good collections management.
It's also a mis-conception that everything in a museum is a "treasure" by virtue of it being in a museum, or that everything in museum collections was at one time considered "valuable." Policies to guide collections growth were rare prior to the 1980s, and many institutions still do not have one; this can (and has) lead to museums that collect anything that comes through the doors, regardless of relevance to mandate, perceived value, ability to preserve and care for, or any other consideration (this is also a reason to not judge the material in this instance to have value, or even perceived value, just because another institution accepted the materials--not saying that the material here in question is value-less, just not necessarily valuable).
Among the things we have under consideration for deaccessioning includes rusted bits of unidentified metal that were collected over 50 years ago, for which we have no information regarding significance or provenance (not even source); pieces that are inherently unstable due to the materials they're made of, which we can't preserve or store, and attempts to do so may put other artefacts (or staff) at risk; pieces so heavily damaged that their research and display potential is minimal; broken and incomplete examples of pieces well represented in our collection by good examples of the type; and artefact types that have just been over-collected, and are taking up valuable storage space and other resources (we've got 61 sadirons in our collection, 29 sewing machines, 18 typewriters--and this type of thing is not atypical in many museums).
We just moved into a new facility, and didn't have the chance to do a thorough de-accessioning prior to the move. So, all these marginal pieces had to be inventoried, packed, and shipped, and are now awaiting unpacking, inventory, and condition reporting (a process we estimate will take another year). That's a lot of resources that could have been channeled into much better directions had we done a cull beforehand. Not to mention these pieces are now occupying storage space and equipment (which, surprise surprise, was reduced during the course of project development of our new building), so we're still going to have to do the cull, or declare ourselves closed to new acquisitions in four years' time, for lack of space to accommodate new collections.
Of course, it is best to find an appropriate home for de-accessioned materials (in Alberta, we're required to do this in order to be eligible for provincial grants), but some times there just isn't an appropriate home to send materials to (anyone here need more sadirons or typewriters?). Willingness to accept the material is not a basis for determining if another institution is an appropriate home; we don't have enough information in this instance to judge whether or not the museum that ultimately received the material is an appropriate repository. As such, I don't think we're in a position to judge the deaccessioning/disposal procedures of the originating museum either (although, hindsight being what it is, "witnessed destructions" certainly would have avoided subsequent developments).
Forgive me if this issue has "raised my hackles" a bit, but when a non-museum person from a perspective of admitted ignorance regarding museum policies and procedures makes the above comments regarding de-accessioning/disposal, a necessary, valid and valuable tool of collections management, I do feel a need to set the record straight.
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McShane, Assistant--Cultural History
Esplanade Museum
401 First Street SE
Medicine Hat, AB T1A 8W2
Tel: (403) 502-8587
[log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The information transmitted is intended only for the
addressee and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged
material. Any unauthorized review, distribution or other use of or
the taking of any action in reliance upon this information is
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender
and delete or destroy this message and any copies
=========================================================
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).
|
