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).