I still think it’s better to not
accession to the regular collection things that will be used. If, at some time
in the future, a ‘support’ collection item is taken out of use and
still has value in the permanent collection, it can be moved out of ‘support
collection’ and into permanent collection.
However, I do think this is a question
worthy of discussion, because I suspect many local museums and historic houses
struggle with variations on the theme.
I use the mission to differentiate between
what we can allow use of and what we keep in the ‘support’
collection. Items that clearly need to be protected as part of the
history of our county aren’t used. However, the slope can be
slippery because we have a historic house which uses mostly non-collection
items as furnishings because it is sometimes rented and a lot of our programmatic
activities take place there. There are some donors from major families in
the community who bring in things that they expect us to use in the house,
because they don’t themselves value those items as part of the community’s
history..
So, even though we don’t use things
from the permanent collections (and mostly we don’t), donors and other
volunteers keep saying ‘but I (they) want it to be used’. The
current issue is a quite special wedding dress that I *really* want to take off display due to
over-exposure to daylight, but the donor has reiterated once again her
wish that it be seen and “enjoyed”. And, because it was never
actually accessioned in an earlier period in which things that came to the
historic house weren’t processed as they should have been it is in a gray
area. Usually I can get donors to understand the need for long term
preservation, but in this case the volunteer who is in charge of the house is
the one who communicates with her.
I’m considering creating some sort
of a form letter or other document that I would ask the donor to sign, to
acknowledge that they do not wish the item to be preserved according to museum
standards. From earlier experience at another museum, I’m concerned
with protecting our reputation at the time in the future when descending
generations arrive on the scene (sometimes decades later) and become upset that
their family things are not in as preserved a condition as they expected.
Has anyone ever done something like that?
Lucy Sperlin
Oroville, California
From:
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011
9:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MUSEUM-L] Collections
Policies and Categories of Collections Use
Hello
All,
Do
any of your collections policies include a category for accessioned artifacts
that receive regular use? This is different from a hands-on or educational-use
category, in which the objects are understood to be eventually expendable. This
category would include things that will be preserved but for practical reasons
must also be used.
Our
museum has some large accessioned pieces that are considered permanent
collection, but are used in the galleries either by staff or visitors. One
example is a clock, another is a piano. We’ve just acquired a large
dining table that would also fall into this category if we decide to accession
it into the permanent collection.
As
we update our collections policy we want it to reflect the reality of how these
things are used, and include a category that recognizes this “gray
area” between permanent-collection-preservation and hands-on-use.
I’d be grateful to know how other policies have addressed this.
With
thanks,
Sharon Clothier
Curator of Decorative Arts
(920) 236-5776
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3922 - Release Date: 09/27/11