In article <[log in to unmask]>
           [log in to unmask] "Allison Smith" writes:

> ...  Last summer I was an intern in the registration
> department in a small art museum in NE Wisconsin.  This museum  had a very
fine
> gallery/gift shop associated with it.  At a "flower arranging" demonstration,
> given by the manager of the gift shop, a very expensive vase, created by one
> of my all time favorite Wisconsin ceramic sculptors, was broken.  It was
> irrepairable, and the insurance company told the musem to destroy and dispose
> of the shards.  I asked the registrar if I could have a shard to place in my
> window sill (spelling?)  Unfortunatley, I was told this would be unethical.
I
> still mourn those shards.  Any comments on the ethics issue here?

Was the vase an item of shop display equipment (i.e. like a desk, or shelving),
at item of shop stock (i.e. like a pencil), or was it an accessioned museum
object?  The ethics are very different for the last case.  Not only are
insurance ethics involved, but also the ethics of exposing a museum object
to the risks.

So, assuming that this vase is not an accessioned object, perhaps the
insurance company could be persuaded that accessioning the fragments
is 'disposing' of them.  If the insurance company techinically owns the
fragments, a long-term loan agreement might be acceptable to them.

--
Patricia Reynolds
Keeper of Social History, Buckinghamshire County Museum / Freelance Curator

16 Gibsons Green
Heelands
Milton Keynes
MK13 7NH
ENGLAND

[log in to unmask]