Claudia:

I think we all suffer from these failures.  Certainly a brochure clearly
explaining that not all (or even many) artifacts donated to a large
history museum's collection are exhibited permanently, or even often,
would help.  Asking prospective donors to sign off that they've read
the brochure might not hurt.  I doubt it will make the problem go away,
because people will continue to think that their stuff is neater than
anything else you've got and ought to be exhibited instead of that stuff
you think is more important.

If you have any inkling (is that how you spell that?) that the donor has
such expectations, you should be especially clear with them that their
piece may not be exhibited.

We sometimes relieve some of the pressure by doing a news release about a
new donation, giving much credit to the donor.  We also regularly and
frequently mount a "Recent Acquisitions" exhibit in the entrance to our
main gallery, offering a showcase for "new" stuff.  If we actually plan to
include a new acquisition in that exhibit, or have acquired it for a
specific upcoming exhibit, we write the donor a letter inviting them to
come see the exhibit, attend the opening, etc., when the exhibit is
scheduled.  It all helps, but the problem will not go away so long as you
have more than you can, or should, exhibit at one time.


Chris Dill
Director, Museum Division
State Historical Society of North Dakota
612 E Blvd.
Bismarck  ND  58505-0830
[log in to unmask]




[log in to unmask] (Claudia Nicholson) wrote:
>
>I am suffering from a small string of failures with donors over the issue
>of permanent exhibition of the gift.  The most recent centers around a
>gift transmitted to the museum by the brother of the actual donor, who
>had been deputized to negotiate on donor's behalf.  We talked about a lot
>of things before we left with the object, but the issue of exhibition
>never came up.  I find out now (a year later) that both the donor and his
>brother expected the object to be permanently exhibited in our museum.
>
>I told the brother (still my only link to the donor) that no professionally-
>managed museum promises a donor permanent exhibition.  And our gift
>agreement, which the donor signed, states quite baldly that the gift is
>absolute and irrevocable.  I am developing a brochure that explains to
>prospective donors what our museum collects, why we collect, and what will
>happen to their donation once they sign the form.  I have also toyed with
>the idea of having the prospective donor sign a form that says they have
>read, and understood, what was in the brochure.  Will this work?
>
>Although I take personal responsibility for the failures I have suffered,
>I cannot help but wonder if it is not part of a larger museum-wide problem.
>Most members of the public who do not work in museums or know intimately
>someone who does have no idea what we do or why.  When they walk into a
>museum, they see the exhibits.  They then assume that this is all the
>museum has in its collection, and if they donate something, it, too, will
>be permanently enshrined.
>
>I have felt for a long time that we do a poor job at best explaining
>ourselves.  When national museum day comes around next year, couldn't we
>do something more?  I have found that when prospective donors visit our
>facility, take a tour (including storage) and talk with me at length, we
>have no problem understanding each other.  Unfortunately, that does not
>occur with all donations.
>
>While behind-the-scenes tours are not practical on a regular basis--at least
>for the institutions with which I am familiar, couldn't someboy develop
>a series of PSAs that might better explain the museum biz?
>
>We talk to ourselves a lot.  How much do we talk to the public?
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Claudia
>
>Claudia Nicholson
>Curator of Collections
>South Dakota State Historical Society, Pierre
>
>[log in to unmask]