I agree with Audra, donor's names are usually not useful in history
museum interpretive labeling, and I'm glad the discussion was not left
with only the art museum perspective.  Here are some comments, in the
spirit of friendly debate:


Chris Goodlett wrote:
>
>> When including a donor or lender name in our text, I do not think we should
>>consider what is most convenient for us.

It's not what's convenient for us but what will best inform and interest
our visitors. Actually this counters your argument because *using* the
donor's name is really just such a convenience to us --helping cultivate
donors.


>>There are many people that donate or loan an item because they know they will be >>recognized in the text when that object is on display.

I think we should try to get them out of that mindset and find other
ways to recognize them which make them feel just as good.  I think we
need to cultivate the idea that a museum is *for* the public and the
donors are providing a service to help the museum reach the audience
which is satisfying in its own right. (As important as donor relations
is, the museum isn't being run for the donors.)



>>When done correctly, this credit line should rarely disturb the flow of the exhibit >?text.

Rarely does it *not* disturb the label text if the label is written to
help develop an interpretive topic or theme and is not just an
attribution type of label.  Why not have a 'thanks to:' panel at the end
of the exhibit with a list of contributor's names, or even a little
booklet with all items and donors listed.


>
> This year at the Derby Museum, the great grandchildren of a Derby winning
> owner had a replica of the 1924 Kentucky Derby trophy made.  The original
> was stolen in the 1930's and never recovered.  This family gave this trophy
> to their father (the owner's grandson) this summer at the museum.  He was
> overcome with emotion, thanking his children and the museum profusely for
> this wonderful gift.  We are going to display this replica trophy in a
> temporary exhibit, and we would be doing a great diservice to our visitors
> if we didn't tell this story.

This story is interesting and certainly belongs somewhere (exhibit
catalog, handout leaflet, etc.) as an explanation for why you are
showing a replica, but it should be in the exhibit only if it enlarges
on the 'story' of the temporary exhibit?


>
> The stories of how a lender or donor decided to place their artifacts in our
> custody are sometimes just as exciting as the story of the object itself.

Perhaps to museum people, but I think not very much so to the average
visitor (nor, frankly, to me even as a visiting museum person), unless
it is a very exceptional story.


Lucy Sperlin
Chico, CA

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