Collections people can be so focused on protection that they forget accessibility and visibility and the usefulness of the artifacts. If a curator has to unwrap tissue from 100 things time is being wasted an handling is increased and damage more likely.

Money: I blame the fund raisers for the lack of collections funding, for failing to see that collections maintenance, tracking and care could be spun in a way to solicit donations, of stuff if not money. How many of us could use a donation of shelves from Home Depot or carts from Lowes? How many donors who really want to help are not being told that such and such donation will prevent 100 items from being damaged in a flood or from a mold infestation? Obviously the old systems are not really working, but it seems no one is really jumping on trying new things.

Also, the refusal and inability to pay living wages, especially to the people handling the art the most, and needing the most experience and education, mean every museum has substandard work and staff that cannot get attached and stay an grow because they cannot afford to. I lost count years ago of how many hours of work I have had to do in order to fix enormous mistakes made because museums tried to use unskilled and unpaid and unsupervised interns in order to save money...

Also, I am currently working for a for profit corporation that looks at the salary surveys and is thrilled that the pay rates are so low and use that to justify also keeping their rates insanely low.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Brian Rayca <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In defense of Mike Diaz's point, because I know him and have shared his experience. There are a range of museums out there. Just as many that focus on research and collections care while providing little or no interpretation and education. Stuff just sits in display cases with little attention paid how the information is put to the audience. Little regard to the audience. In a complaint about a label that was written at to high a grade level I heard a curator remark that "if they are to stupid to read they shouldn't be here."

So yes, Collections care is important, because without the collection there is nothing to interpret, but without interpretation the objects are just chachkies collecting dust.

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Sarah LeCount <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Marc,

Thank you for bringing this out, and I agree wholeheartedly. In my career I've seen conservators and curators overworked, underpaid, and their positions left unfilled when they leave an institution. I admire what educators do (goodness knows I haven't the patience for it!) but I feel that the boards and administrators of many museums are forgetting what is important - collections care and preservation, and research - in an effort to get more bodies through the door.

Just my 2 cents . . .

Sarah

---- Marc A Williams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Deb, and all,
>
> If all of us are allowed to gripe for a moment, I would postulate that currently the bottom of the ladder are conservators. How many small to medium institutions have staff conservators? Virtually none? How many such institutions would have anything to educate about if they did not have collections or historic buildings? Why is preservation of such historic assets near the bottom of their agendas? Everything lasts forever without planning and preservation actions? In this era of digital collections, it just might be possible to have a "museum" without a collection. But is this what most institutions want? I was trained in the 1970s as a conservator. In the nearly 40 years since then, there has been very, very little movement in museums/institutions hiring conservators on staff. ALL museum professionals are having a hard time gaining employment, partially due to too many training opportunities being offered at all the universities/colleges across the country without consideration for the number of potential jobs. However, the number of conservation training venues has remained fairly constant, excepting paper/library/archival programs, which have been a bit exuberant. But, not that many more conservators are on staff at institutions. Why? Every survey that has ever been done indicates that preservation in our institutions is severely neglected at best. And in smaller institutions, it is nearly non-existent.
>
> I suggest that every institution advocate for preservation of their collections, whether objects or architecture. And I mean REAL advocacy, not an occasional mention. With real physical objects being preserved, institutions can educate and tie their collections to their local history. Without them, can they still do this? Will a "collection" with virtual objects be the same? Advocacy for preservation generates interest and excitement and a growth of the perceived need for educators, curators, and museum administrators. And this leads to jobs and perceived worth. What is the base of the pyramid, and what is the top?
>
> Marc
>
> American Conservation Consortium, Ltd.
> 4 Rockville Road
> Broad Brook, CT 06016
> www.conservator.com
> 860-386-6058
>
> Marc A. Williams, President
> MS in Art Conservation, Winterthur Museum Program
> Former Chief Wooden Objects Conservator, Smithsonian Institution
> Fellow, American Institute for Conservation (AIC)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>

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

To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1