an insight into museums and collections

wolviex · 26th May 2005, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

How do you see the future, do you think the museums will get better possibilities for conservation, better exhibitions?

I'm not optimistic either. I think that Museums are institutions of higher purposes, and it should be funded by government. Of course it's day-dream while not every museum is under government protection, but I can talk only about the biggest, National ones. Museums in Poland, judging from what I can see everyday, won't earn money on tourists. There is not so many of them. And you can't force people to visit museum. Some of them (most of them?) just aren't interestet. Museum is not a cinema where you're going just to relax and fun, it's cultural institution, and because of that for many people it is equal to boring institution! You'll have to change mentality of people to change the rest. There are some ways to increase the income from tourists, but it will be always not enough to keep the institution in life without additional money.
Here in my Museum, when we have to preserve some important object, but project is very expensive, we are depending on sponsors and it works. There are also some other, not museum way of earning money - hiring the local. So we've got fairs and conferences in museal rooms. Sometimes it is grotesque when the exhibition is removed (!!!) for e. g. two days, and then we are installing exhibition again. But there are real big money from such events.
But for real these are very complex problems. I'm not museum theorist but just historic who is trying to get some knowledge about weapons gathered in my Museum, so maybe I'm not the best person for discuss

Rick · 26th May 2005, 11:34 PM

This may sound silly but this discussion of museums and preserving the past brings to mind the great science fiction novel by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle , The Mote In God's Eye .

The book is about an alien race that cannot control its population increase and their society goes through regular cycles of crashes back to the stone age . In that book Museums were used as the keys to redevelopment of technology .

just an OT observation ...

Battara · 27th May 2005, 06:49 AM

Rick, I read part of that book and could not get into it (though I thought the idea of a Scottish space fleet interesting).

There is one exception to this forboding. Here in Louisville, KY, US we have things like the Frazier Arms Museum.

Although attendance is lower than what they would have liked, it displays arms and adds martial and historical re-enactments to the show. Most of the arms displayed come from the basement of the Royal Armouries in Great Britain. Although mostly European and American in focus, there is a smatering of ethnographic stuff. Some of us on this forum have visited and enjoyed.

On a side note, I was originally asked to be a consultant for the museum until the original group working on the internet portion fell apart. Now I'm just another customer.

BluErf · 27th May 2005, 01:41 PM

I understand how collectors feel when they see fantastic specimens that they could hardly get in the market crumble and decay with neglect in a Museum. But lets face it, Museums are not passionate collectors who will take care of their collection with all the loving care they can spare. If the weapons are like our children, Museums are like orphanages. It may not be the best place, but at least some decent care is dished out by the Museums.

Moreover, collectors lose interest, get lazy and forget. A well-kept collection could as easily fall into a decrepit state when the collector falters in his passion. More often than not, collectors pass on and you know what their children do to the collection that they never cared about...

All things are impermanent; all things that are made will eventually be unmade. It is the natural way of things. Clinging on otherwise is probably not going to change much, but it would certainly add more worry lines and white hairs to ourselves. We do what we can and let the rest take its natural course.

wolviex · 27th May 2005, 05:22 PM

Because I was writing about responsibility of Museums for their objects, and necessity to find funds for preserving their collection as a fundamental, I think it won't be unsensibly to quote the ethic rules which are obligatory in Museums united by ICOM (The Internatonal Council of Museums). Here I decided to quote only those which seemed to me basic in the light of my recent words: preserve, conserve, trained staff etc. as the most important. If someone is interested more in the subject please go to the site of ICOM http://icom.museum/, where you can find many interesting links, just as this code of ethics :

Quote:

From Statute of ICOM:

Article 2 - Definitions
1. A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, and open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment.

ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums

1. Museums preserve, interpret and promote the natural and cultural inheritance of humanity
Principle: Museums are responsible for the tangible and intangible natural and cultural heritage. Governing bodies and those concerned with the strategic direction and oversight of museums have a primary responsibility to protect and promote this heritage as well as the human, physical and financial resources made available for that purpose.
PERSONNEL
1.11 Employment Policy
The governing body should ensure that all action concerning personnel is taken in accordance with the policies of the museum as well as the proper and legal procedures.
1.14 Competence of Museum Personnel
The employment of qualified personnel with the expertise required to meet all responsibilities is necessary
1.15 Training of Personnel
Adequate opportunities for the continuing education and professional development of all museum personnel should be arranged to maintain an effective workforce.
1.17 Museum Personnel and Volunteers
The governing body should have a written policy on volunteer work which promotes a positive relationship between volunteers and members of the museum profession.
1.18 Volunteers and Ethics
The governing body should ensure that volunteers, when conducting museum and personal activities, are fully conversant with the ICOM Code of Ethics and other applicable codes and laws.

2. Museums that maintain collections hold them in trust for the benefit of society and its development.
Principle: Museums have the duty to acquire, preserve and promote their collections as a contribution to safeguarding the natural, cultural and scientific heritage. Their collections are a significant public inheritance, have a special position in law and are protected by international legislation. Inherent in this public trust is the notion of stewardship that includes rightful ownership, permanence, documentation, accessibility and responsible disposal.
ARE OF COLLECTIONS
2.18 Collection Continuity
The museum should establish and apply policies to ensure that their collections (both permanent and temporary) and associated information, properly recorded, are available for current usage and will be passed on to future generations in as good and safe a condition as practicable, having regard to current knowledge and resources.
2.19 Delegation of Collection Responsibility
Professional responsibilities involving the care of the collections should be assigned to persons with the appropriate knowledge and skill or who are adequately supervised
2.20 Documentation of Collections
Museum collections should be documented according to accepted professional standards. This documentation should include a full identification and description of each item, its associations, provenance, condition, treatment and present location. Such data should be kept in a secure environment and be supported with retrieval systems providing access to the information by the museum personnel and other legitimate users.
2.21 Protection Against Disasters
Careful attention should be given to the development of policies to protect the collections during armed conflict and other man-made and natural disasters2.24 Collection Conservation and Restoration
The museum should carefully monitor the condition of collections to determine when an object or specimen may require conservation-restoration work and the services of a qualified conservator-restorer. The principle goal should be the stabilisation of the object or specimen. All conservation procedures should be documented and as reversible as possible, and all alterations should be clearly identifiable from the original object or specimen.
2.26 Personal Use of Museum Collections
Museum personnel, the governing body, their families, close associates, or others should not be permitted to expropriate items from the museum collections, even temporarily, for any personal use.

FUNDS:
I cheked out what about funds in my museum. Just as I said before, there is no way to exist Museum without government refinance. For example (information given to the public) income of the museum from itself activity is 300,000 pln, dotation: 1,900,000 pln (ca. 6,3 times more, while only salaries for workers needs ca. 1,000,000 PLN or even more!). So without government help/duty Museum would be ruined, while it can't survive alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluErf

But lets face it, Museums are not passionate collectors who will take care of their collection with all the loving care they can spare. If the weapons are like our children, Museums are like orphanages. It may not be the best place, but at least some decent care is dished out by the Museums.

Dear BluErf, in the light of ICOM statute and passion of so many people to survive in hard museum conditions, your words seems to be a little harmful. In the light of all of this, Museums should be the ONLY place to keep objects (of course it is not so in reality). Museums definitely are not "orphanages". I feel the same passion as you, and I love "my" objects with the same love as you, and I'm not the only one. Among the collectors and museum workers you will find the same passion but ignorance as well, so I don't think that discussion: what is better - Museum or collector's house, is really necessary!.

All the best
Michal

ariel · 27th May 2005, 06:31 PM

I agree with Michal.
Museums and private collectors fulfill the same role and have certain advantages and disadvantages.
1. Private collectors are (ideally) dedicated amateurs with passion for deep research into a specific area.
Disadvantages: most are not wealthy and cannot acquire the best examples; most are working people and have only limited time on their hands; most do not have professional background and cannot assure proper storage; most cannot offer professional protection (anti theft and anti-damage by the elements); most cannot publish and disseminate their knowledge; most do not assure perpetuity of the collection (my son will sell or give away my swords 15 minutes after I am dead), most do not belong to an established network of mutual loans, visits, access etc
2. Museums, on the other hand, even the "below the average" of them, have better resources, institutional memory and can hire professional people as curators of a specific field (Impressionists, Mayan sculpture, political cartoons of Central Africa, and - yes! - South Indian swords). I would completely disagree with the notion that a dedicated private collector is in any way superior to the dedicated, trained, museum-appointed curator of a particular field.
I also am willing to bet that far, far more valuable swords were destroyed by irresponsible, lazy,well meaning but ignorant or just too poor collectors than by all the small-time museums in the world. We just do not know about them and can see only pitiful pics of the damaged museum objects. It's a "man bites dog" story all over again.

The bottom line, both models of historical preservation and research are , ideally, valuable and complementing each other. Let's not forget that both were in existence for hundreds of years . Where would Rawson, Elgood, Stone, Blair, Tarassuk, Astvatsaturyan, van Zonneveld and all the other authors of the books on which we are relying in our amateurish hobbies get their materials if not for the museums?

B.I · 27th May 2005, 08:05 PM

the intention of the original post was always in favour of museums as a whole, and i found it hard to write in fear that it may become ammunition against the institutions.
i know many of the museums here, and the curators are as passionate as any collector i have met. the museum in question was the same, but their problem was time. they dont have funds to taken on new staff, and so the whole museum is run by a small core of curators who do a tremendous job, given that they only have 24 hours in a day.
how many private collections have you seen piled on top of each other, or stored badly. when you visit a friend, when are you asked to sign documents and wear gloves before picking up a weapon.
the original statement was an unfortunate circumstance that cant be helped. we have a large 'hoard' of weapons, borne from many donations over many years. these cant be disposed of, and so all they can do is their best to keep them in storage, along with everything else.
i cannot begin to stress how much money and care was put into building the reserve storage of the major museums, and i would hate for anyone to think these pieces are kept in old boxes under a table.
the museum in question had all these pieces in another place for some time, until a proper place could be found for them. now they are in a controlled environment, but it will take a while before they have time to open all the boxes and attemopt to converve the pieces, beofre putting them away again.
with the amount of pieces they have, it would be a permanent job for a team, and once they finish, i'm sure they would have to start again.

BluErf · 28th May 2005, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolviex

Dear BluErf, in the light of ICOM statute and passion of so many people to survive in hard museum conditions, your words seems to be a little harmful. In the light of all of this, Museums should be the ONLY place to keep objects (of course it is not so in reality). Museums definitely are not "orphanages". I feel the same passion as you, and I love "my" objects with the same love as you, and I'm not the only one. Among the collectors and museum workers you will find the same passion but ignorance as well, so I don't think that discussion: what is better - Museum or collector's house, is really necessary!.

I apologise for unwittingly hurting curatorial staff who are passionate about what they are doing. A very sorry.

Though my post may seem anti-Musuem, it is actually not. I was trying to put forth a balanced view. I agree pieces fall apart while in Museum collections and in private collections. As Ariel points out, both paths have advantages and disadvantages. We might also say if not for the private collectors, where would the Museums get their pieces (or donated collections).

The last para from my previous post -

" All things are impermanent; all things that are made will eventually be unmade. It is the natural way of things. Clinging on otherwise is probably not going to change much, but it would certainly add more worry lines and white hairs to ourselves. We do what we can and let the rest take its natural course. "

- is actually meant for both private collectors and curatorial staff. The gist of the message is "do our (collectors and curatorial staff) best with what we have and let it be", and of course be happier. That's the most important part.

Hope this clarifies.

tom hyle · 28th May 2005, 09:34 AM

Sorry, Wolviex; I think the orphanage comparison was very accurate. Museum curators may (I say "may"; it is certainly not required) be passionate, concerning usually only a certain specialized area, and not usually every thing under their care. Moreover, the importance of that passion is considerably diminished, as, acting within a social institution, they are not allowed to act upon that passion, but must act according to rules and plans laid down by the group. This takeover of human activity from politics to production to interpersonal relations by the concepts and institutions of specialization/professionalism is not a minor issue, nor is there a single area of our lives to which it is not relevant. If you have a doctor in your family and one not, otherwise equal, who do you go to? Right. Why? Because he cares; the other is merely making a rules-bound social/economic transaction. Yes, people can care about their jobs and the affects on others/the world, but they don't HAVE to, and many don't. In a good orphanage the kids always get all their shots and plenty to eat, which is more than they'd get in many poor families, but (even assuming all orphanages being good ones) is that a substitute for love and family? Most would not say so. So the care and preservation of musea staff with, as has been pointed out, more to take care of than they properly can and impersonal rules about how to do it, is not the same as that of a loving individual. Heck, the ideal situation for a sword, where it most fulfills its spirituality and functionality, where it most interacts as it was meant to, and the only place where truly proper care is available, is to be owned by a person whose only sword it is, and who loves, respects, and depends upon it.......
Also, as usual when promoting control by social institutions, the wealth and power that can be brought to bear that so exceeds that of the individual is the promoted value, but there is inevitably (INEVITABLY) a loss of the personal, the passionate, and indeed, the real. It is only people who live with swords, for instance, as swords, who can really know them. In a museum you cannot do this. Try sharpening up one of the swords to do some test cuts (let alone because it wants to be sharp and ready to kill); how would your boss like that? Now, maybe if you could submit a paper, before and after, with all the proper tribal seals and such, and measure and quantify everything until you strip it of all spirit and feel, then maybe you'd be allowed.........as for private owners being less able to care for swords A/ that's known as life; some would rather live life in the world than in the various prisons of safety offered by society.....and B/ private owners are MORE able to properly care for swords, because we are able to treat them as swords, something musea and academic collections very rarely do, and indeed, try to prevent.
Don't take it like a personal insult; to say many professionals don't care and that the forces of professionalism and social institutionality can be counter to passionate stewardship are just facts of the world. These facts do nothing to discredit the good workers, though I can see where they might dishearten one somewhat. Social institutions, for good or ill, or whatever combination, are what we're stuck with, and will be increasingly stuck with: That much is clear. So I do not argue for stripping and destroying social institutions, but they have a condemnable way of making their way the only way, and of shutting out the individual, and I don't care to stand by and watch that justified.
And I will never get over those humans in England throwing the rennaissance swords into the melter because they'd studied them enough and had no room for them. That was not love.....I bet they'd say they hated doing it. I bet they'd say they hated HAVING to do it, but we don't have to do anything but die, and it's when we let Master/social institutions tell us how to live we somehow forget that.

26th May 2005, 11:34 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	You Know // probably OT But .. This may sound silly but this discussion of museums and preserving the past brings to mind the great science fiction novel by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle , The Mote In God's Eye . The book is about an alien race that cannot control its population increase and their society goes through regular cycles of crashes back to the stone age . In that book Museums were used as the keys to redevelopment of technology . just an OT observation ...

28th May 2005, 09:34 AM	#9
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Sorry, Wolviex; I think the orphanage comparison was very accurate. Museum curators may (I say "may"; it is certainly not required) be passionate, concerning usually only a certain specialized area, and not usually every thing under their care. Moreover, the importance of that passion is considerably diminished, as, acting within a social institution, they are not allowed to act upon that passion, but must act according to rules and plans laid down by the group. This takeover of human activity from politics to production to interpersonal relations by the concepts and institutions of specialization/professionalism is not a minor issue, nor is there a single area of our lives to which it is not relevant. If you have a doctor in your family and one not, otherwise equal, who do you go to? Right. Why? Because he cares; the other is merely making a rules-bound social/economic transaction. Yes, people can care about their jobs and the affects on others/the world, but they don't HAVE to, and many don't. In a good orphanage the kids always get all their shots and plenty to eat, which is more than they'd get in many poor families, but (even assuming all orphanages being good ones) is that a substitute for love and family? Most would not say so. So the care and preservation of musea staff with, as has been pointed out, more to take care of than they properly can and impersonal rules about how to do it, is not the same as that of a loving individual. Heck, the ideal situation for a sword, where it most fulfills its spirituality and functionality, where it most interacts as it was meant to, and the only place where truly proper care is available, is to be owned by a person whose only sword it is, and who loves, respects, and depends upon it....... Also, as usual when promoting control by social institutions, the wealth and power that can be brought to bear that so exceeds that of the individual is the promoted value, but there is inevitably (INEVITABLY) a loss of the personal, the passionate, and indeed, the real. It is only people who live with swords, for instance, as swords, who can really know them. In a museum you cannot do this. Try sharpening up one of the swords to do some test cuts (let alone because it wants to be sharp and ready to kill); how would your boss like that? Now, maybe if you could submit a paper, before and after, with all the proper tribal seals and such, and measure and quantify everything until you strip it of all spirit and feel, then maybe you'd be allowed.........as for private owners being less able to care for swords A/ that's known as life; some would rather live life in the world than in the various prisons of safety offered by society.....and B/ private owners are MORE able to properly care for swords, because we are able to treat them as swords, something musea and academic collections very rarely do, and indeed, try to prevent. Don't take it like a personal insult; to say many professionals don't care and that the forces of professionalism and social institutionality can be counter to passionate stewardship are just facts of the world. These facts do nothing to discredit the good workers, though I can see where they might dishearten one somewhat. Social institutions, for good or ill, or whatever combination, are what we're stuck with, and will be increasingly stuck with: That much is clear. So I do not argue for stripping and destroying social institutions, but they have a condemnable way of making their way the only way, and of shutting out the individual, and I don't care to stand by and watch that justified. And I will never get over those humans in England throwing the rennaissance swords into the melter because they'd studied them enough and had no room for them. That was not love.....I bet they'd say they hated doing it. I bet they'd say they hated HAVING to do it, but we don't have to do anything but die, and it's when we let Master/social institutions tell us how to live we somehow forget that. Last edited by tom hyle; 28th May 2005 at 09:50 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27th May 2005, 06:49 AM	#3
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,280	Rick, I read part of that book and could not get into it (though I thought the idea of a Scottish space fleet interesting). There is one exception to this forboding. Here in Louisville, KY, US we have things like the Frazier Arms Museum. Although attendance is lower than what they would have liked, it displays arms and adds martial and historical re-enactments to the show. Most of the arms displayed come from the basement of the Royal Armouries in Great Britain. Although mostly European and American in focus, there is a smatering of ethnographic stuff. Some of us on this forum have visited and enjoyed. On a side note, I was originally asked to be a consultant for the museum until the original group working on the internet portion fell apart. Now I'm just another customer.

27th May 2005, 01:41 PM	#4
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	I understand how collectors feel when they see fantastic specimens that they could hardly get in the market crumble and decay with neglect in a Museum. But lets face it, Museums are not passionate collectors who will take care of their collection with all the loving care they can spare. If the weapons are like our children, Museums are like orphanages. It may not be the best place, but at least some decent care is dished out by the Museums. Moreover, collectors lose interest, get lazy and forget. A well-kept collection could as easily fall into a decrepit state when the collector falters in his passion. More often than not, collectors pass on and you know what their children do to the collection that they never cared about... All things are impermanent; all things that are made will eventually be unmade. It is the natural way of things. Clinging on otherwise is probably not going to change much, but it would certainly add more worry lines and white hairs to ourselves. We do what we can and let the rest take its natural course.

27th May 2005, 06:31 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I agree with Michal. Museums and private collectors fulfill the same role and have certain advantages and disadvantages. 1. Private collectors are (ideally) dedicated amateurs with passion for deep research into a specific area. Disadvantages: most are not wealthy and cannot acquire the best examples; most are working people and have only limited time on their hands; most do not have professional background and cannot assure proper storage; most cannot offer professional protection (anti theft and anti-damage by the elements); most cannot publish and disseminate their knowledge; most do not assure perpetuity of the collection (my son will sell or give away my swords 15 minutes after I am dead), most do not belong to an established network of mutual loans, visits, access etc 2. Museums, on the other hand, even the "below the average" of them, have better resources, institutional memory and can hire professional people as curators of a specific field (Impressionists, Mayan sculpture, political cartoons of Central Africa, and - yes! - South Indian swords). I would completely disagree with the notion that a dedicated private collector is in any way superior to the dedicated, trained, museum-appointed curator of a particular field. I also am willing to bet that far, far more valuable swords were destroyed by irresponsible, lazy,well meaning but ignorant or just too poor collectors than by all the small-time museums in the world. We just do not know about them and can see only pitiful pics of the damaged museum objects. It's a "man bites dog" story all over again. The bottom line, both models of historical preservation and research are , ideally, valuable and complementing each other. Let's not forget that both were in existence for hundreds of years . Where would Rawson, Elgood, Stone, Blair, Tarassuk, Astvatsaturyan, van Zonneveld and all the other authors of the books on which we are relying in our amateurish hobbies get their materials if not for the museums?

27th May 2005, 08:05 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	the intention of the original post was always in favour of museums as a whole, and i found it hard to write in fear that it may become ammunition against the institutions. i know many of the museums here, and the curators are as passionate as any collector i have met. the museum in question was the same, but their problem was time. they dont have funds to taken on new staff, and so the whole museum is run by a small core of curators who do a tremendous job, given that they only have 24 hours in a day. how many private collections have you seen piled on top of each other, or stored badly. when you visit a friend, when are you asked to sign documents and wear gloves before picking up a weapon. the original statement was an unfortunate circumstance that cant be helped. we have a large 'hoard' of weapons, borne from many donations over many years. these cant be disposed of, and so all they can do is their best to keep them in storage, along with everything else. i cannot begin to stress how much money and care was put into building the reserve storage of the major museums, and i would hate for anyone to think these pieces are kept in old boxes under a table. the museum in question had all these pieces in another place for some time, until a proper place could be found for them. now they are in a controlled environment, but it will take a while before they have time to open all the boxes and attemopt to converve the pieces, beofre putting them away again. with the amount of pieces they have, it would be a permanent job for a team, and once they finish, i'm sure they would have to start again.