Recently, a press release went out about a new appointment to a local museum. I’ll be somewhat vague here, as the particulars don’t matter to the discussion, but there was a phrase within that had some of my colleagues (and myself) a bit piqued. The release stated how excited the person was to be working at an institution “unencumbered by collections.” I found this choice of words particularly curious as, regarding the individual, their position is one that has very little to do with collections, and as to the institution, artifacts from other museums are constantly used within their exhibitions. But “unencumbered”? That implies that every collecting institution on the planet is “encumbered”! And to that I strongly disagree.
Do collecting institutions spend a great deal of money, staffing, space and time caring for collections? Most definitely, yes. Is this a waste of resources, especially in a digital age when they could conceivably scan or make models of artifacts and then store only the copies? I won’t repeat the results of years of research conducted by a great many folks who have studied how access to original artifacts supports learning, research, and emotional connections to places, people, and history. Digital objects degrade in ways physical objects do not, nor can they replicate the meaningful, unquantifiable aura of the original.
Wedding Dress, Turkey, 19th century. gold metallic embroidery on velvet. Gift of Sara Levi Willis. 86.42. The Magnes. Click the image to read more about this piece.
Could this encumbrance upon the institution be caused by the devotion to objects by hiring collection managers, when funds for staffing could be used for additional curators and educators instead? Perhaps so, but there are also costs associated with borrowing artifacts for exhibitions and programs. Not as much as storing them, true, but the costs still exist, even if they’re not borne specifically by the non-collecting institution. Someone has to shoulder the burden of storage and management, if there are to be objects to display and study at all.
Are institutions without collections effective and valuable? Of course! I am very pleased that they are able to take the materials we collecting institutions can provide and use them to develop exciting and unique educational content. But that doesn’t mean that collecting museums can’t develop similar programming. And I’d be surprised if there’s evidence to support the idea that non-collecting institutions develop better programs than collecting ones.
As someone whose mission and purpose in life is to make cultural heritage materials accessible to the world, the thing I think I find most insulting about this choice of words is that it demeans institutions, professionals, donors, and all other stakeholders who take great pride in protecting the world’s treasures. We’ve a duty to our public to safekeep and share these artifacts. I would very much like to applaud those archives, libraries and museums – with a special nods to smaller places – who have made fantastic strides in the past decade to increase access to their collections through innovative programming, digitization and publication on the web, leveraging social media for incubating research and ideas, open storage, remixing, etc. We’ve come a long way in a very short period of time, and I can say quite definitively that far from being “encumbered”, we are empowered by our collections.
March 11th, 2010 02:46
Great post, Perian! As a professional who has dedicated a lot of their life to promoting collections work, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think the quote is intended to be provocative. And if it has provoked such thoughtful writing as yours then it’s worked. Also, it’s informed by current dialogue in the field stemming from Janes’ recent book Museums in a Troubled World, or postings on-line like at the Center for the Future of Museums:
http://futureofmuseums.blogspot.com/2010/01/challenging-assumptions-why-not-sell.html
most all of which stems from the financial considerations around the cost of collections care, as you note, and not all of which I actually agree with. It was great to be part of working with you at the Magnes, and helping to put in place funding and a business plan by which that collection can serve generations to come. I applaud your work, as you know too well, and am glad you took note of my quote. Thanks for drawing attention to it. Nice piece. Your eloquence never ceases to amaze. Fondly, James
April 11th, 2012 10:47
I have more than 25 years museum experience as a curator, director, and historian. You are so right, but I would like to take issue with you on one point: “Could this encumbrance upon the institution be caused by the devotion to objects by hiring collection managers, when funds for staffing could be used for additional curators and educators instead?” Funds are never wasted on collection managers and curators. Funds are nearly always wasted on ‘educators’ who are very frequently little more than schedulers, very often have education degrees hence they are generally not at all well educated (despite the popular misconception about this). I have worked in several museums and in every case the ‘educator’ was an unnecessary expense. Ditto for my colleagues in other museums. At the same time curators (and collection managers) are invaribly the most educated, most knowledgeable, and hardest working member/s of the staff. So please, please don’t ever, ever lump curators and educators together.
April 11th, 2012 04:57
Please don’t ever, ever lump curators and educators together. No museum educator wants to be cast into a group of elitists who value objects over the people we are supposed to be sharing them with. People who have reached such a level of expertise that they can no longer communicate the value of those objects to a general audience because of their concern over minutiae that only they and their peers care about.
There is a difference in attitude since museum educators are not living in fear that their expertise and skill set is becoming increasingly irrelevant as less people visit museums and funding is less available. That doesn’t make the visitors or the educators unintelligent, it just means that some people in museums have not caught on to the fact that the world has changed, and the museum field has to change with it. Of course, embracing change while spending most of your time preserving old objects could be seen as a bit of a contradiction.
Fortunately I work with curators who understand what educators do to connect our visitors with our exhibitions. Working in tandem we are reaching out to our visitors to improve their experience in the museum, and their understanding of our art. I think this is the case in a lot of museums, and I am excited by the efforts of many of my colleagues to update the museum experience.
April 11th, 2012 06:00
Susan, I encourage you to attend a session on May 2 at AAM titled “Museums Without Silos: New Perspectives on Organizational Structures” to see where the profession is headed in terms of cross-departmental collaboration. I hope it gives you pause and allows you to begin to think differently about the potential of working with educators, who are arguably as valuable and dedicated to the museum as you are. You may also want to take a look at the administrative schematic at the Art Gallery of Ontario as an exemplary case of cooperation among curators and educators. We simply can’t afford not to work together, nor should we desire to remain segregated in our common efforts.