Posts: 1265
Registered: May 99

posted 05-18-1999 09:47 PM            

---

This question is another pet bone to gnaw on of mine, because I've had a difficult time getting gifts of silver over the past nineteen years. Partly it's because I'm not the Met, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, etc. They seem to be gift sponges. But all envy aside, I wonder why more dealers (and not just in silver) don't give more things to museums. I don't necessarily mean major things, and I don't mean to every museum. But, if you work up a business relationship with a museum over time, and they become good occasional customers, why not throw in a nice gift now and then--even if only as an incentive to continue the purchasing? Obviously a dealer can't start giving things away to every museum in the world (I'm not that stupid). Is there a fear that such apparent favoritism would chill a business relationship with another institution? But, if I buy a pricey piece of hollowware for five figures, then why not toss in a good serving piece as an end-of-year gift? A good write-off and a public service.

Am I merely naive? Or merely greedy?

IP: Logged

Posts: 4121
Registered: Apr 99

posted 05-19-1999 12:36 AM            

---

This is not strictly to your point, which I believe is fairly taken and a good one. There are many "minor" or out of fashion items that a dealer or collector could add to a museum's holding at little loss to themselves, but with the possibility of very good returns in the form of research material for an institution. On the other hand, as a donar of items myself, I can attest that gifts are often valued for what they cost, ie nothing. Of the last five objects I gave to various museums, one piece was shortly damaged beyond repair by carelessness, one was sold off within 6 months, and a third was "misplaced." I do not mean to cast a wide net here; there are many fine institutions that recognize generosity and cherish it. The actions of a few, however, can have a chilling effect for the many. I for one will think long and hard before giving again.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1265
Registered: May 99

posted 05-19-1999 09:49 PM            

---

Ouch! I pity the museum that is that careless with its donors. Museums should never accept gifts they don't really want or can't really use (even for research) just to please a donor--although all too often a curator (or a director) will accept something lesser in the hopes of getting something better. I make it a policy not to do that, especially since I find it's a great way for a smaller museum to get stuck with second-rate goods while bigger museums get the good stuff (from the same donor). However, if you're going to take in secondary things, conscious that they might be dispensed with some day (and this is neither illegitimate nor unethical; every museum should upgrade and thin its collections--carefully and with an eye to historical significance and donor wishes); you had better make sure you keep track of the donor and the objects while you have them. (Do you like that run-on sentence?)I'm sorry you got burned by a careless institution, but it suggests to me that the gifts were not really wanted in the first place. If you want to give something to a museum, make sure your intentions are sincere (i.e. is it really useful and relevant to them; not just damaged goods or dead stock that you can't otherwise unload--there may be a reason); and make sure the museum's acceptance is sincere.

If I can't tell my director why I want something, she won't let me accept it.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4121
Registered: Apr 99

posted 05-20-1999 03:53 PM            

---

I had assumed that you were not speaking of the 'through the front door' sort of gift institutions receive. I have worked in a museum and know very well the nature of that beast and the delicate handling it sometimes requires. The items I gave - an 1873 Gordon platen press, a variant version of a early San Francisco city scape engraving, and 4 yards of original William Morris fabric - were each offered with deliberation to museums whose collections they would realistically augment and each was accepted with what I took to be genuine desire. Not glorious gifts perhaps, but not without worth either, especially in light of means as modest as mine. But my intent was not to turn this into a personal rant; rather I wished to point out that many collectors and dealers regard museums with a certain amount of suspicion these days. They are not naive; they recognize that institutions must occasionally make hard choices and that a certain amount of guile is a necessary component of doing any business. But too often it seems the changes are arbitrary and capricious, more the result of embracing some new theory or seating a new regime, than an effort to strengthen the collection. And so too the security of its holdings. Can a collector be expected to give freely when there is a chance that the object given may disappear or be harmed, not by an act of malice, but by inattention and disregard? An institution has the right, of course, to do as it pleases within the limits of its charter, but as it does so, it must also recognize that its behaviors, even over its holdings, can have powerful consequences when it comes to encouraging future donations. Too often this seems to go unnoticed.

I bow to no man in the running on of sentences)

IP: Logged

Posts: 3
Registered: Aug 99

posted 08-29-1999 10:48 PM            

---

I have read with great interest the dialogue between the curator and gift-giver. Similar concerns over the ultimate disposition of a gift have troubled me as well. I have thought about the idea of lending to a museum. I've seen many things in museums marked as loans, or even "on permanent loan". It seems that this might be a way to allow others to study an object without binding the museum to any significant financial or moral obligations. Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas about loans to museums?

IP: Logged

Posts: 40
Registered: Apr 99

posted 08-30-1999 08:51 AM            

---

Loaning is a great way to help a musuem fill in holes when they are doing an exhibit. It is impossible many times for a museum to have in its own collection everything for every exhibit. My personal experience with loaning items to museums has only been positive. In regards to donations, most museums will be fairly honest about their specific needs and will try to let you know if they can't use an item. Also, as a suggestion, get to know the musuem and its curators.

Ben Randolph

IP: Logged

Posts: 1265
Registered: May 99

posted 08-31-1999 01:30 PM            

---

Loans are a very loaded topic for museums. Of course for a specific exhibition a museum solicits and welcomes loans, from private people and from other institutions. However, "permanent loans" are not considered very desirable any more to a museum, except under very peculiar circumstances (such as a statue or work of art that belongs to a city, but is placed in perpetuity in a museum in that city; however this still doesn't mean that the city can pull the object out and sell it someday).

On the other hand, permanent loans that become bequests upon the death of the lender are common now, because they are promised gifts. But a simple loan means that the lender retains title, and retains control.

I can think of a number of big museums who have had things on "permanent loan," only to have important objects reclaimed by heirs (or bought from the estates of the lenders).

What any individual museum's needs are depends upon their particular mission, and, quite candidly, upon the personal quirks of its curators and director. Being a curator is more objective now than it once was, but collections are definitely colored by the likes and desires of their keeper.

Ultimately, there's no way to resolve the museum/donor tension. Museums are not flawless, and curators can be as stupid and greedy (or careless and inconsiderate) as anyone. The difference is that our mistakes live on for a long time (even forever) in the records of the museum.

IP: Logged

Posts: 3
Registered: Jul 99

posted 10-11-1999 01:11 AM            

---

Just a couple of comments on this thread. From what I have seen many institutions have not considered antique American silver worthy of inclusion in their collections. An exception would be the comprehensive collection that the Dallas Museum of Art developed over a fairly short period of time (15 years?) and, for the most part, in a very financially responsible manner (they were buying short and fast, before prices "jumped," at a time when most other institutions weren't giving it a thought. Prior to the Dallas taking a lead role I think many institutions didn't see the value in post colonial or Federal American silver.

Another reason I think many individuals resist giving silver to institutions is that historically (and maybe even culturally) silver is the last property to leave a family (along with the good jewelry). I mean think about it, ever since there has been revolution the need for portable and convertable wealth was always present - enhancing the need to hold on to this type of property. I think that over time this has become ingrained in us as a part of our human condition.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1265
Registered: May 99

posted 10-20-1999 10:00 AM            

---

Nothing to add to that, but that your points are very well taken.

IP: Logged

All times are ET