HISTORY OF STEEL IN EASTERN ASIA EXHIBITION NOW ONLINE

A. G. Maisey · 4th January 2007, 01:59 AM

Thank you Mabagani for your undertaking to forward material to me that will give me more insight to this matter.

I look forward to recieving it.

David · 4th January 2007, 03:26 AM

Braulio, i think it is time for you to put your cards on the table. I have tried hard to understand all sides of this issue, but inspite of our PMs you haven't made this any easier or clearer for me. I do understand and respect your desire not to mention names and air dirty laundry, but it is time for innuendos to end and facts to be made straight. I and others have asked you time and again to get specific with a complete list of the mistakes apparent in the exhibition. The best you have been able to tell me is that you sent a list to Ian. Now you have apparently sent a list to Alan. I can see no reason why these corrections need to be some big secret that is passed around behind closed doors. If you are truly concerned about this supposedly false information being accepted or passed on as facts then come foward and put your money where you mouth is. If you are worried that these mistakes somehow slight the Filipino perspective then speak up. If you feel that somehow your people have not gotten a fair hearing, that the history presented is somehow skewed and distorted, then by all means, set us straight. Hopeful you will agree that this would be right ON topic, so why not share this information with the whole community?

MABAGANI · 4th January 2007, 03:45 AM

check your pm

David · 4th January 2007, 04:22 AM

Braulio, you should really be able to say it here in the public forum.

VANDOO · 4th January 2007, 03:24 PM

I THINK WE HAVE DONE AS MUCH WITH THIS TOPIC AS CAN BE DONE AND ITS TIME TO LOCK IT DOWN AS IT WOULD SEEM THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE MAY HAVE MADE ANY CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEGE WAS WHEN WE WENT OFF TOPIC. UNFORTUNATELY GREVIENCES ARE VERY SELDOM ENDED BY DISCUSSION AND THE EXHIBIT IS OVER AND CAN NOT BE CHANGED. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SENT AND MISTAKES WILL EITHER BE CORRECETED OR NOT AND THANKS OR APOLOGYS WILL EITHER BE SENT OR NOT "END OF STORY"
TIME TO MOVE ON AND HOPE THE CATALOG WILL BE COMPLETED AND AVAILABLE IN FUTURE. IF ALL THE MISTAKES ARE LISTED HERE IN THIS POST WE CAN MAKE THE CORRECTIONS TO OUR PERSONEL COPYS WHEN THEY ARRIVE. PEACE DUDES!

A. G. Maisey · 4th January 2007, 09:08 PM

Thank you Mabagani for your attempt to forward your promised data to me.

I apologise for failing to ensure that my inbox was able to accomodate your message.

My inbox is now empty.

David · 4th January 2007, 09:42 PM

Alan, in the PM Mabagani sent me he asked me to retract the statement in my post were i stated that he had sent you infomation (please consider it retracted), saying that you had misread his intended remarks, and i in turn, yours. Apparently he has sent you nothing. I also read his post to mean that he was senting you info, so i am no so sure if it was a mis-readinding as much as a mis-stating. Regardless, i thought you would want to know. Why he informed me of this misunderstanding and not you as well i am not sure.

Mark · 4th January 2007, 09:54 PM

Hopefully we have reached a point in the discussion of whatever inaccuracies there are in the Philippines section article and descriptions in which everyone has been heard, expressed their opinions, and to some extent agreed to disagree. I, too, see no reason why they couldn't have been posted here, but obviously that isn't going to happen.

Yet, it seems that the controversy surrounding the organization of this exhibition will not go away, despite repeated attempts to explain and correct the misconceptions of people not directly involved in the process. I am glad that Rick has taken the time to directly address and rebut what are being said about alleged mismanagement of the exhibition, but I want to make a couple additions to Rick's comments.

First, let me make it absolutely clear that there was NO cancelled "first attempt," nor was the Museum's seriousness about the project ever legitimately in question. The Museum was forced by the Macao government to delay the opening of the exhibition by six months. The Museum's desire was to have the exhibition open in October 2005, coinciding with the Asian Games in Macao. The Macao city government, over a year into the project, decided they didn't like this idea and made the Museum postpone the exhibition by six months (not cancel). This was communicated immediately to all the contributors, with a full explanation, more than six months before the original opening date, well before even the first pre-exhibition deadline came up. I personally travelled to Macao in March 2005 to meet with the Museum Director and staff and received the explanation first-hand. I wrote up a report of my trip, which was proved to all the contributors. It is here, by the way. So there was no "second" attempt at the exhibition, because the preparations for the exhibition were never stopped, or cancelled. There WAS a change in the leadership of the Philippines Section, however, which evidently engendered an enormous amount of resentment and bitterness in some quarters, resulting in the withdrawal of most of the original contribitors and a huge set-back for the Section. It is hardly appropriate, in my opinion, to now sit and sling mud at the people who remained with the project throughout, and at those who stepped up after the set-back and re-built the Section. Correcting errors of fact is fine, but condemning the entire process and everyone involved is not.

A second point is about the chronology of the exhibition, specifically about the contributor who went completely silent in the last weeks before the final deadlines, and was “stuck” with shipping expenses after not having his pieces exhibited. This seems to be the basis for one of the central criticisms of how the Museum handled the organization of the exhibition.

First, it is critical to understand what the process was at the final stages of the exhibition preparation. The catalogue would consist of photographs of every piece in the exhibition, with an accompanying caption, plus an introductory article for each section. Every piece had to be unpacked, catalogued, and photographed by the Museum, then each display had to be arranged and the pieces mounted. None of this can be done without the pieces in hand. Every piece of text had to be translated into two other languages (Chinese and Portuguese), both for the exhibition display, and for the catalogue. All needed to be done by the opening date of the exhibition (May 12, 2006).

Prior to shipping, the Museum had to arrange for insurance for the pieces during shipping, and while in the possession of the Museum. Thus, photographs, descriptions, and insurance values had to be provided to the Museum well in advance of the shipping date. Also, shipping arrangements had to be negotiated with a carrier (a special billing account was set up with Federal Express), requiring at least some idea of the final number of pieces that would be shipped and displayed.

This all required a strict schedule, and specific deadlines for each stage in the process. The schedule and deadlines were communicated to all the participants early on in the process, and again when the “new” organization of the section began in November of 2005.

As critical deadlines approached, one contributor did not respond to several attempts by a number of persons to contact him. The deadline for the descriptions of each piece (December 31, 2005) went by, with no word. The deadline for the draft article (February 15, 2006) passed, still no word. The shipping date (March 28, 2005) came and went, and still no word. While there was a list of pieces he was contributing, no descriptions of the pieces had been provided (I don’t think insurance information had been provided either, but I could be wrong on that). No one was sure that the pieces would get shipped (for all we knew he was in the hospital, or had a family emergency, or his collection had been stolen – any number of possiblities).

As the days passed after the shipping deadline, other contributors stepped in and offered additional pieces in order to fill in the gaps left in the collection. Others also stepped in to try and complete a partial draft of the article that was on hand.

He was left messages & e-mails expressly saying not to ship his items to Macao, as they had been replaced and would not be used in the exhibition.

He finally surfaced April 10, almost two weeks after the March 28 shipping deadline, informing us that he had shipped his pieces four days earlier (which was still over a week after the shipping deadline). He paid for his own shipping rather than use the billing account set up with FedEx by the Museum (it had lapsed by that point anyway, as its purpose had been fulfilled). Furthermore, the replacement pieces had already arrived in Macao and were being processed for the exhibition (including the translations of the descriptions). He had shipped his pieces over a week past the deadline, against instructions, and at his own expense rather than using the billing account the Museum had set up with FedEx.

I do not mean to chastise or discredit him by saying any of this (I want to keep his name out of it in fact). He DID have an explanation for his silence, with which no one argued once he offered it. Part of the problem right around the date he shipped, for example, was that he was having internet connectivity problems, so he couldn’t e-mail his waybills to Macao and let anyone know via e-mail that he had shipped until a few days after the fact. However, the practical reality was that repeated attempts to contact him by e-mail, phone and PM, for several weeks, went unanswered, and the preparations had to move ahead without him. It was unfortunate, but it was just too late for him to participate as a contributor to the collection.

He was informed, once it was known that he had shipped anyway, that his pieces couldn’t be used, and that the Museum couldn't pay for their shipping (because for one thing the Museum told him not to ship them, and for another shipping expenses had been arranged under a special billing account with FedEx, so there wasn’t any mechanism or budget in place to refund individual shipping charges).

So, yes, his pieces were not exhibited, and he was stuck with the shipping bill. This was unfortunate, but it was a result his own failure to communicate, and his own failure to follow the Museum's instructions, not the fault of the Museum. He was still acknowledged as a contributor to the exhibition, however, as he did make valuable contributions to the project.

As Rick said, it might have been better if those who withdrew from the exhibition for various reasons had stayed engaged. Their knowledge and experience, if not pieces from their collections, would have been invaluable. However, they chose not to. If the exhibition suffered as a result, it is hardly fair to blame those who stuck with it, even more so those who stepped up and filled in the holes that were left in the Section by those departures.

4th January 2007, 01:59 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thank you Mabagani for your undertaking to forward material to me that will give me more insight to this matter. I look forward to recieving it.

4th January 2007, 03:26 AM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Braulio, i think it is time for you to put your cards on the table. I have tried hard to understand all sides of this issue, but inspite of our PMs you haven't made this any easier or clearer for me. I do understand and respect your desire not to mention names and air dirty laundry, but it is time for innuendos to end and facts to be made straight. I and others have asked you time and again to get specific with a complete list of the mistakes apparent in the exhibition. The best you have been able to tell me is that you sent a list to Ian. Now you have apparently sent a list to Alan. I can see no reason why these corrections need to be some big secret that is passed around behind closed doors. If you are truly concerned about this supposedly false information being accepted or passed on as facts then come foward and put your money where you mouth is. If you are worried that these mistakes somehow slight the Filipino perspective then speak up. If you feel that somehow your people have not gotten a fair hearing, that the history presented is somehow skewed and distorted, then by all means, set us straight. Hopeful you will agree that this would be right ON topic, so why not share this information with the whole community?

4th January 2007, 03:45 AM	#3
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	check your pm

4th January 2007, 04:22 AM	#4
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Braulio, you should really be able to say it here in the public forum.

4th January 2007, 03:24 PM	#5
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	I THINK WE HAVE DONE AS MUCH WITH THIS TOPIC AS CAN BE DONE AND ITS TIME TO LOCK IT DOWN AS IT WOULD SEEM THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE MAY HAVE MADE ANY CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEGE WAS WHEN WE WENT OFF TOPIC. UNFORTUNATELY GREVIENCES ARE VERY SELDOM ENDED BY DISCUSSION AND THE EXHIBIT IS OVER AND CAN NOT BE CHANGED. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SENT AND MISTAKES WILL EITHER BE CORRECETED OR NOT AND THANKS OR APOLOGYS WILL EITHER BE SENT OR NOT "END OF STORY" TIME TO MOVE ON AND HOPE THE CATALOG WILL BE COMPLETED AND AVAILABLE IN FUTURE. IF ALL THE MISTAKES ARE LISTED HERE IN THIS POST WE CAN MAKE THE CORRECTIONS TO OUR PERSONEL COPYS WHEN THEY ARRIVE. PEACE DUDES!

4th January 2007, 09:08 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thank you Mabagani for your attempt to forward your promised data to me. I apologise for failing to ensure that my inbox was able to accomodate your message. My inbox is now empty.

4th January 2007, 09:42 PM	#7
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Alan, in the PM Mabagani sent me he asked me to retract the statement in my post were i stated that he had sent you infomation (please consider it retracted), saying that you had misread his intended remarks, and i in turn, yours. Apparently he has sent you nothing. I also read his post to mean that he was senting you info, so i am no so sure if it was a mis-readinding as much as a mis-stating. Regardless, i thought you would want to know. Why he informed me of this misunderstanding and not you as well i am not sure.

4th January 2007, 09:54 PM	#8
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Hopefully we have reached a point in the discussion of whatever inaccuracies there are in the Philippines section article and descriptions in which everyone has been heard, expressed their opinions, and to some extent agreed to disagree. I, too, see no reason why they couldn't have been posted here, but obviously that isn't going to happen. Yet, it seems that the controversy surrounding the organization of this exhibition will not go away, despite repeated attempts to explain and correct the misconceptions of people not directly involved in the process. I am glad that Rick has taken the time to directly address and rebut what are being said about alleged mismanagement of the exhibition, but I want to make a couple additions to Rick's comments. First, let me make it absolutely clear that there was NO cancelled "first attempt," nor was the Museum's seriousness about the project ever legitimately in question. The Museum was forced by the Macao government to delay the opening of the exhibition by six months. The Museum's desire was to have the exhibition open in October 2005, coinciding with the Asian Games in Macao. The Macao city government, over a year into the project, decided they didn't like this idea and made the Museum postpone the exhibition by six months (not cancel). This was communicated immediately to all the contributors, with a full explanation, more than six months before the original opening date, well before even the first pre-exhibition deadline came up. I personally travelled to Macao in March 2005 to meet with the Museum Director and staff and received the explanation first-hand. I wrote up a report of my trip, which was proved to all the contributors. It is here, by the way. So there was no "second" attempt at the exhibition, because the preparations for the exhibition were never stopped, or cancelled. There WAS a change in the leadership of the Philippines Section, however, which evidently engendered an enormous amount of resentment and bitterness in some quarters, resulting in the withdrawal of most of the original contribitors and a huge set-back for the Section. It is hardly appropriate, in my opinion, to now sit and sling mud at the people who remained with the project throughout, and at those who stepped up after the set-back and re-built the Section. Correcting errors of fact is fine, but condemning the entire process and everyone involved is not. A second point is about the chronology of the exhibition, specifically about the contributor who went completely silent in the last weeks before the final deadlines, and was “stuck” with shipping expenses after not having his pieces exhibited. This seems to be the basis for one of the central criticisms of how the Museum handled the organization of the exhibition. First, it is critical to understand what the process was at the final stages of the exhibition preparation. The catalogue would consist of photographs of every piece in the exhibition, with an accompanying caption, plus an introductory article for each section. Every piece had to be unpacked, catalogued, and photographed by the Museum, then each display had to be arranged and the pieces mounted. None of this can be done without the pieces in hand. Every piece of text had to be translated into two other languages (Chinese and Portuguese), both for the exhibition display, and for the catalogue. All needed to be done by the opening date of the exhibition (May 12, 2006). Prior to shipping, the Museum had to arrange for insurance for the pieces during shipping, and while in the possession of the Museum. Thus, photographs, descriptions, and insurance values had to be provided to the Museum well in advance of the shipping date. Also, shipping arrangements had to be negotiated with a carrier (a special billing account was set up with Federal Express), requiring at least some idea of the final number of pieces that would be shipped and displayed. This all required a strict schedule, and specific deadlines for each stage in the process. The schedule and deadlines were communicated to all the participants early on in the process, and again when the “new” organization of the section began in November of 2005. As critical deadlines approached, one contributor did not respond to several attempts by a number of persons to contact him. The deadline for the descriptions of each piece (December 31, 2005) went by, with no word. The deadline for the draft article (February 15, 2006) passed, still no word. The shipping date (March 28, 2005) came and went, and still no word. While there was a list of pieces he was contributing, no descriptions of the pieces had been provided (I don’t think insurance information had been provided either, but I could be wrong on that). No one was sure that the pieces would get shipped (for all we knew he was in the hospital, or had a family emergency, or his collection had been stolen – any number of possiblities). As the days passed after the shipping deadline, other contributors stepped in and offered additional pieces in order to fill in the gaps left in the collection. Others also stepped in to try and complete a partial draft of the article that was on hand. He was left messages & e-mails expressly saying not to ship his items to Macao, as they had been replaced and would not be used in the exhibition. He finally surfaced April 10, almost two weeks after the March 28 shipping deadline, informing us that he had shipped his pieces four days earlier (which was still over a week after the shipping deadline). He paid for his own shipping rather than use the billing account set up with FedEx by the Museum (it had lapsed by that point anyway, as its purpose had been fulfilled). Furthermore, the replacement pieces had already arrived in Macao and were being processed for the exhibition (including the translations of the descriptions). He had shipped his pieces over a week past the deadline, against instructions, and at his own expense rather than using the billing account the Museum had set up with FedEx. I do not mean to chastise or discredit him by saying any of this (I want to keep his name out of it in fact). He DID have an explanation for his silence, with which no one argued once he offered it. Part of the problem right around the date he shipped, for example, was that he was having internet connectivity problems, so he couldn’t e-mail his waybills to Macao and let anyone know via e-mail that he had shipped until a few days after the fact. However, the practical reality was that repeated attempts to contact him by e-mail, phone and PM, for several weeks, went unanswered, and the preparations had to move ahead without him. It was unfortunate, but it was just too late for him to participate as a contributor to the collection. He was informed, once it was known that he had shipped anyway, that his pieces couldn’t be used, and that the Museum couldn't pay for their shipping (because for one thing the Museum told him not to ship them, and for another shipping expenses had been arranged under a special billing account with FedEx, so there wasn’t any mechanism or budget in place to refund individual shipping charges). So, yes, his pieces were not exhibited, and he was stuck with the shipping bill. This was unfortunate, but it was a result his own failure to communicate, and his own failure to follow the Museum's instructions, not the fault of the Museum. He was still acknowledged as a contributor to the exhibition, however, as he did make valuable contributions to the project. As Rick said, it might have been better if those who withdrew from the exhibition for various reasons had stayed engaged. Their knowledge and experience, if not pieces from their collections, would have been invaluable. However, they chose not to. If the exhibition suffered as a result, it is hardly fair to blame those who stuck with it, even more so those who stepped up and filled in the holes that were left in the Section by those departures.