David,

I guess it's growing a little late.  I'm a little tired.  But your note
perked me up and made me chuckle.  This has turned into kind of a silly
argument, hasn't it.  I totally agree with your reasoning.
Round-shouldered?  I never thought you were round-shouldered!

Thank you,

Jerrie

P.S.  Just don't make me put ID numbers on everything, okay?


>From: "David E. Haberstich" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: citations for artifacts
>Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:37:30 EDT
>
>In a message dated 00-09-18 13:31:51 EDT, Ron Twellman wrote:
>
><< First off, what is an "obscure donor"??? An obscure artifact in a
>donation
>  possibly, but not its donor! I'll assume that was inadvertent phraseology
>  but it did set off my elitism alarm.
>
>  How do you know that "many people are interested in KNOWING that an
>  institution cares enough to credit even obscure donors."  Maybe not
>"many"
>  but "some" because they've told me so by inquiring about how we credit
>  things before they agree to make their donation and, somehow, they do
>seem
>  to be the ones with the more obscure artifacts in their donations. >>
>
>Well, one of the dictionary definitions of "obscure" is "relatively
>unknown",
>and it was in that sense that I used the word, contrasting "obscure" vs.
>famous names.  My point was that relatively unknown donors deserve
>acknowledgment as much as famous or wealthy benefactors.  I think any
>policy
>which would publicize only famous, wealthy donors, but not Joe Sixpak-type
>donors, is inherently elitist.  There's nothing wrong with being "obscure"
>and I don't think it's an inherently pejorative term--even if some people
>seem to use it that way--as in the case of the remarks some days ago about
>"obscure" papers published in "obscure" journals, read by comparatively few
>people, in comparison to the hordes of people who might view a blockbuster
>exhibit.  Some folks (well, one) thought I took unnecessary umbrage, but I
>didn't object to the word "obscure" as much as the implication that
>popularity was somehow superior to specialized, hence obscure, scholarship.
>
>Anyway, there's nothing wrong with being an obscure person.  I'm pretty
>obscure myself.  (Humble and proud of it.)  As far as donors are concerned,
>they can be famous, noteworthy, notorious, or relatively unknown, often
>totally unknown except to family and friends.  Famous people can donate
>either well-known or obscure artifacts, and "obscure" or relatively unknown
>people conceivably could donate either obscure or high-profile objects.  I
>feel that all donors of either ilk deserve credit.  One reason I favor a
>blanket policy of acknowledging all donors is that sooner or later you may
>have a prominent donor demanding a credit or you'll want to display an
>object
>given by someone so famous that it would be almost unthinkable not to
>credit
>the donation--and then you'll appear elitist or publicity-conscious if your
>normal policy is to omit credits.  To avoid an appearance of favoritism if
>such an occasion arose, you'd be better off to have a blanket donor-credit
>policy in place to begin with.  That might seem far-fetched, but do you
>really want to tell a celebrity, "Oh, we never give donor credits," or to
>tell Joe Sixpak, whose family treasure you're displaying, that you don't
>normally give donor credits, but you had to make an exception for the
>famous
>donor whose gift is in the adjacent exhibit case?
>
>As far as how I know "many people" are interested in knowing that an
>institution cares enough to credit even obscure donors, you've got me
>there.
>I just made that up, based on my astute knowledge of human nature.
>Admittedly, I haven't taken any surveys and I have no statistics.  But this
>is more than mere opinion.  I have a hunch, even though SOME people think
>I'm
>just round-shouldered.  Many?  Some?  Who's counting?  Quibbles aside, it's
>clear that SOME people, if not many, agree with me, and I find that
>encouraging.
>
>David Haberstich
>
>P.S.  I also agree with the message about including identification numbers,
>in addition to donor credits, in labels and reproduction captions.  I've
>argued with editors and designers about this, but think it's very
>practical.
>Obviously, avoiding visual clutter in a label is important, and that's part
>of a designer's job.
>
>=========================================================
>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).

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

=========================================================
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).