 |
 |
I understand Anna Greening being perturbed by a colleague suggesting a change in long standing practice within her organisation, but I don't see the problem with what her museum colleague has said (perhaps because I also work as a curator as well as an archivist(!) and am all too aware that there are commercial as well as historical values attached to many of the items offered to collections). My worry is that if you are against the idea of external valuations in principal that you may as a result end up exploiting the generosity of a donor, however innocently, by effectively concealing from them the fact that their material has a value to people other than your institution. Although we all dearly wish important material which may incidentally be of financial value to be available to researchers through our collections, no one would wish to acquire material in a way that might appear underhand to others due to lack of openness as to that financial value. Perhaps Anna Greening has had her hackles raised by the use of the word 'ethics' in this context., perhaps 'good manners' might be a less emotive term? In my opinion, and I stress this is only my opinion, if someone wishes to donate material, it's only right that you do your utmost to let them understand what they are gifting you, so their choice is an informed one. Obviously, none of us here know the full context of the argument in question, but I have to say from what Anna's told us, I see no real problem with her colleague's position, perhaps she should discuss it further with him or her subsequently? Ian Potter %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%