posted 05-15-2008 08:58 AM            

Having had a lot of fun at the January Christie's auctions showing what silver I thought I'd like for the Museum's collection to my Friends of Decorative Arts (to no avail, I might add)...I wondered:

posted 05-15-2008 01:22 PM            

First, silver of the area. If silver was or is manufactured in the “catchment area” of the museum, I would expect the museum to have representative examples and to be the home of some expertise.

Second, some well chosen items to complement (or be complemented by) other collections: silver to match furnishings, or jewellery and accessories to match costumes for example, in order to put silver in the context of how and by whom it was used. Typical modern items might well be added to this side of the collection whether for exhibition now or in the future as they become history.

Third, silver with local connections. The tea set used by “x” or the cup presented to “y” can be used to illuminate local history as well as helping to spark interest.

Fourth, some examples of excellence, chosen for the quality of workmanship and design, whether ancient or modern, from home or abroad. I don’t think this category needs any other theme.

Finally, I can’t expect every museum to have the sort of collection that covers the history of silver, national and international, from the earliest times to the present. It is perhaps more interesting to come across some sort of more specialist “collection within a collection”. This might have started with a donation/legacy or, I suppose, might reflect the particular interest of an individual curator building on what was already in the main collection, but it seems to me valuable to have at least one topic within silver which can be presented in some detail. And it doesn’t have to be a local topic. The point would be to move from broad brush to detail in relating one item to another.

I guess I have either stated the obvious or missed the point. And if I am really honest, what I most want to see is a museum collection based on my particular obsession, but I think one devoted solely to silver spoons might be a turn-off for your wider audience.

posted 05-15-2008 03:17 PM            

As to what a museum should do, my personal -- and selfish -- desire is for institution to make a real effort at putting what they do have on line, open for study. Winterthur's large research collection, for example, is on the other side of the country and I have no reasonable hope of seeing it in person. I can mail my contacts there with a question and, if they have time, they can pull a record and, if available, a picture of something and mail it to me, but is a tiresome process and I dislike the imposition, as I have little to offer in return. I know such programs aren't cheap, but neither is a big piece of Tiffany or whoever these days and there's every chance that it will ultimately draw and serve a larger audience than a static display.

posted 05-15-2008 10:19 PM            

It's of course the question behind any museum collection, and made all the more difficult as museums are increasingly cast into the role of entertainers rather than educators and guardians of the Cultural Patrimony.

Agphile offered a great response. I would also underscore the need to collect new and recent work -- to keep the collection alive over time, but also to offer new interpretations and understanding of existing material.

I like to see things in museums that I expect to see, but also things that push me a bit, even if I don't know it at the time...pieces that expand my knowledge. Maybe an artist/maker, or a form, or work of a period that I wasn't previously familiar with.

I think a strong collection goes wide -- in terms of the breadth of its holdings -- but also on occasion goes deep: has a few focus areas that become the definitive collections of those genres...the 'must see' collections that become part of the museum's 'brand'.

Agphile also mentioned something that is worth exploring: collecting silver that somehow relates to or augments another collecting area or another department. Maybe it relates to other ADA departments. Or maybe it relates to something unexpected. For example, in the case of Newark, maybe it relates to the natural sciences. (I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that part of your museum's mission.) That could translate, for example, to expressions of nature in silver.

(BTW--I enjoyed the Christie's Jan auction,too...it was simply a great exhibition.)

posted 05-16-2008 05:58 PM            

It almost sounds like I'd paid you two for the replies. Our biggest problem is real estate...not having permanent galleries (yet) for silver as a medium is a sore point--but something we will be able to address once we raise the funds to complete (begin) our Signature Project. The online issue is timely and I couldn't agree more. This applies to more than just our silver collection--if it's not on view, it really ought to be on line. Alas, the fundamental mission of scholarship and education is very clearly secondary today (not gone, by any means, just shunted to the back).

My gut reaction is to agree on the entertainment trend...and yet the real culprit in our case might be marketing. I realize that we spend far more money on advertising today than we do to expand the educational value of our website Unless you're the Met, and even they spend a fortune on advertising, you really have to advertise to get attention. The education potential of our website--of which we're painfully aware--is less important to the institution than getting people in the door (and paying to advertise to make that happen).

posted 05-16-2008 07:00 PM            

In the past it was to conserve, educate, research and entertain. Probably the first two being primary. Today with political correctness, anti-elitism, the tendancy to try to avoid responsibility by every party and the demands of marketing and image as goals in themselves things are not so clear cut.

posted 05-17-2008 12:25 AM            

Many collectors have told me the story of giving a collection or an item to the museum. And that it was never displayed. Some have been philosophical, others angry. A recent donations permanent area would help. And might bring in more donations.

There have been many times when a museum curator marveled at something I had in my booth. And then said something to the effect that his museum would never, ever display silverplate. Couldn't explain why, just that it was never done. Very annoying.

Hayes KS has one of the largest fossil collections in the world. Really, out in the back of beyond, there it is. For no clear reason, there was also an 1847 Vintage punch ladle mixed in one of the cases. I offered an identification of it and just got an icey stare from the curator.

posted 05-17-2008 11:44 AM            

We do in fact have a plan to unveil an "internet museum" in 2009 as part of our centennial. This would involve making our collection database, ARGUS, accessible through a specific internet module, allowing for searches and images, etc. So, it's going to happen, sooner or later, but the associated costs are staggering when you add it up...

If you'll all recall, I once had a more-or-less complete inventory of our American silver collection on line, with a "mini gallery" of silver (related to my 2005 exhibition, Style, Status, Sterling)...I am hoping that will be back online soon; but it was never a top priority to get these collection-related pages back on the new website--marketing and membership pages (as well as current exhibition pages, I have to admit) were the front-burner issues.

Our mission statement, which is revisited every ten years, does in fact focus on maintaining a collection and education. But the practical realities of that are, like most museums, driven by marketing. It's not so much admissions money, because that really doesn't amount to all that much, relative to our budget; but body count--justifying our existence by showing how many people have come through the door.

One of the two main reasons we are trying to raise $235 Million for a new building, is so that we can have (a) more permanent exhibition space, including space for curators to do funky little scholarly shows that most people won't care about, and (b) a large space in which to mount glamorous popular big-audience exhibitions. We have the smallest changing exhibition space of any museum in our budget level in the USA, and that's for us, the crippling factor for us.

posted 05-27-2008 10:40 AM            

To over simplify how museums operate; they are institutions that gather, document, archive and exhibit. From dictionaries:

quote:

---

Museum: an institution devoted to the procurement, care, study, and display of objects of lasting interest or value; also : a place where objects are exhibited

Museum: an institution dedicated to preserving and interpreting the primary tangible evidence of humankind and the environment.

---

Historically, museums tend to be thematically or locally isolated. Even so, occasionally, they share items or a touring exhibit.

Museums collections are forever expanding. Often this is impacted by budget & real estate issues. As budgets get tighter & real estate becomes more expensive, this translates into diminishing storage and exhibit space. And as the collections grow, then proportionally less of a collection is seen by the public. This is usually followed by economical rationales for deaccessioning significant portions of what was once considered important enough to be in the collection.

It is clear that museums must put existing collections online. This will enable more of the world to see and appreciate things that are hidden away. Especially if what is in storage will not be exhibited for many years (if ever). It will also keep collections virtually intact even if they are physically no longer together.

Each institution is approaching their online exhibiting effort somewhat uniquely. Before too many institutions roll out divergent standards, I feel it is import for a basic uniform cataloging standard to be set. This way individual collections become a part of big virtual collection.

Anyone who has used a search engine has witnessed the promise of a global information catalog but at the same time has had to suffer the intrinsic problems caused by inefficient and non uniform information cataloging/indexing. For the wild free form side of things on the Internet this may work but it doesn't improve or support study or scholarly investigation.

Even if a private collection is given to a museum, realistically, the institution (even if it has unlimited wealth) can't collect and archive everything. But in a virtual world it becomes more possible.

There is nothing better than seeing a collection in person. But when it is not possible to personally see an exhibition then seeing proper documentation (cataloging, photographs, etc) is a reasonable alternative.

Another alternative that complements the electronic documentation is "visible storage". "Visible storage" is where collections are displayed in a much more compact fashion, in glass-walled storage rather then in a gallery presentation. Objects in the glass-walled storage are organized in much the same manner as they are in closed storerooms, for example by medium and type; "coin silver", "pewter objects" or "bronze sculptures." Each item is identified by its accession number. This number can then be used for locating information about the object in the online catalogue at one of many computer terminals that usually adjoins the viable storage.

Visual storage also allows for small focused exhibitions as well as rotating more of a collection into the public's view.

The Henry Luce Foundation has provided several institutions with the impetus and means for creating Visual Storage Study Centers. There are several institutions in the NYC area with Luce Study Centers, so if you can, be sure to visit.

Many individuals would like to keep their collections intact. Some may consider the option of donating to a museum to keep their collection together. But the collector may not have the financial means to become a donor because their wealth is in the collection. Donating the collection may create a tax deduction of little value if there is minimal income against which to deduct. A lack of wealth outside of the collection would preclude the potential donor from providing the perpetual funding with which the museum could maintain the collection.

But donating a collection for virtual storage could prove to be a more viable option for all. The tax/financial/business mechanics of how to make such a donation are many and varied, and would be best discussed in a different thread. Let's just look at the immediate benefits. Documenting a collection and integrated it into the museum's virtual collection provides something for all. The collector gets to see their collection remain intact for perpetuity. The Museum expands and compliments its holdings without significantly increasing physical overhead and maintenance costs. Future generations and scholars, the world over, will now have access to what otherwise might never have been accessible. And if some or all of the collection is able to be physically included in visual storage then oh so much the bettered.

More another day......

posted 05-27-2008 11:12 AM            

But it creates another problem. Once items which never normally see the light of day are accessable to everyone on-line, and all , as far as we know is recorded for study, why keep the articles ?

I would hate to be a curator faced with the task of deciding which aricles must be kept and which sold (sorry, "deaccesssioned" ). Not only the legal and moral issues involved in selling someones bequest, but what is not regarded as significant now........

Also what should be recorded. A holographic image is in my opinion the answer. A friend of mine , June Swan was the curator of the Boat and Shoe Museum in Northampton UK, (Northampton was to the footwear industry in England what Detroit is to the American Car industry) . She is "the" world expert on footware and has, personally, the biggest archive of notes on shoes I have ever seen. if June saw a pair of shoes, she drew it ,photographed it and measured it. But she failed entirely to note the width of the latchet straps on shoes in the late 17th and 18th century. An omission which now causes us great embaressment as we could then relate buckle chape sizes and co-relate our dating system. So perhaps we cannot dispose of the "surplus"

I have a friend with a large and valuable collection of pre 1700 silver. So valuable that it lives in a bank vault and he has a wonderfully illustrated data base of it at home - and he has not seen any of his pieces for years - and cannot afford to add to it.
Should he sell and justkeep the data base ?

Personally I like to be able to play with my toys and not just see their pictures !

posted 05-27-2008 03:44 PM            

Online collections are great, and the wave of the future; however, a virtual object is not an object. Maintaining an online database of objects of a certain type for some scholarly reason is a great idea--but it is not a museum. Winterthur has a huge collection of PHOTOGRAPHS of objects it does not own, but which are labeled/signed or otherwise documented to be by a specific craftsman/shop/company. This, if put online, would be a tremendously useful research tool, but it would not be a museum.

I can't imagine putting a collection (or part of one) online if it was not still in our possession. The shoe strap comment above underscores the point that, once the object is gone, its usefulness as a research tool is limited by the information that was kept. Now, the only reason we have ever deaccessioned is due to relevance (mission) or quality/condition. We have sold at auction some major pieces because they were not relevant to our mission. And I mean, like a Picasso, a Monet, a Cezanne (we collect American painting and sculpture). The donors who gave the pieces continue to have their names applied as donors to the purchases made from the funds thus generated (including silver). In my department, we have deaccessioned objects that were in bad condition, duplicates(not pairs or sets), or simply not good enough. An object with a great local history that is also really bad quality OR in really bad condition, is liable for disposal. Very few histories are sacred, but all histories are studied carefully to determine how important they are. Because I collect at all levels (i.e. popular, inexpensive objects as well as so-called masterpieces) for cultural reasons, my driving reasons to eliminate something are condition and relevance. Because our furniture collection is largely American, and because the non-American furniture we have is entirely mediocre, I have been dispersing the foreign furniture unless there is a compelling historical reason to keep it. We had a bunch of 19th century French reproduction furniture from a rich New York family; most of it is gone, because it has no compelling history and no relevance. We have kept a few of the best things that we use in the Ballantine House.

To word it a little more harshly: just because someone donated a revered ancestor's piece of crap does not mean that we need to keep it forever. Our error was in accepting the gift in the first place. Objects are accepted for kind-hearted but wrong-headed reasons. It has taken every museum a long time to learn that this is bad, and things are disposed of from collections to correct past mistakes. If you want a museum to treasure your gift, then only give them treasures--by whatever measurement they define treasure.

In terms of silver, I have no interest in deaccessioning anything in our collection. Silver doesn't really take up much space, so I'm happy enough to store it all, and I'd love to put it all on line someday. There are some random silver things that we were given in the past that, in careful thinking, we perhaps should not have accepted. In particular I think of a group of Dutch sugar shovels from the 19th century that are largely irrelevant and not particularly fascinating in themselves. But they don't take up much space. I cannot imagine quite how they'd ever be compelling to scholars, but then I'm ignorant enough to know that I won't do anything now. They might just represent NJ interest in Dutch heritage. On the other hand, we also have a group of Hester Bateman silver collected by a Newark gramde dame in the 1920s-40s, and which came to us in the 1950s. I would never consider getting rid of that, because it documents something important (silver collected in Newark, the fascination of elite American women with Hester Bateman, etc.), even if the silver itself is not earth-shaking. If they had come from some random collector and if we had no other English silver at all, then I might think differently. This is where the deaccessioning issue gets very delicate.

If a collector owns a great group of things (lets say silver things) and cannot afford to give them away, then he/she should keep them as a legacy for his/her family, or sell them at auction, after demanding a beautifully illustrated and researched catalogue. That's a great way to document a collection that will be dispersed. (Come to think of it, too bad auction houses don't keep virtual catalogues of things they've sold by category online!).

posted 05-27-2008 10:48 PM            

Whatever we think the mission of a collection should be, Museums need our help. We can help with our money and we can help with our time.

I, personally, would love to see collections online.. I love silver and would be thrilled to help museums catalogue, describe, measure, weigh, clean, photograph, or do any work that would advance the cause.