Dear All
As someone who has just recently left working in a museum after 4 years I
would like to very strongly point out that I NEVER had an experience where
the financial value was given any importance other than to do with matters
of indemnity/insurance. The historical and intellectual value of the
object and/or archive collection was the primary motivator. Undoubtedly
there will be those rotten apples in the barrel who will put financial
value first, probably because its the only thing they understand. However,
to just apply a blanket assumption that all those working in museums take
this inappropriate view unlike us whiter than white archivists is wrong.
It is also potentially damaging given that we are now moving to a political
climate where will be working more closely with our curatorial colleagues.
Elizabeth Oxborrow-Cowan
----------
> From: isobel watson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Valuations for potential archival donations
> Date: 07 September 2000 15:22
>
> If a mere user, and occasional donor, may enter this discussion, may I
say
> that Anna's museum colleague's suggestions is one of the most depressing
> things I have heard for some time, bar anecdotal evidence that the
> political masters of certain local authorities may be tending to think
along
> lines which focus on the monetary rather than the historical value of
their
> collections.
>
> To a consumer and observer, this seems just one more (but quite chilling)
> instance of the gulf between the mind-sets of the archives and museums
> professions, all the more sinister because it is the latter that seem to
> find it easier to get the public to take notice of what they do and what
> they want to do.
>
> How ironic that cross-domain integration is so advanced at the Fawcett
> Library. Archivists as a profession are going to have to take a strong
lead
> in reminding the other sectors that without the underpinning of the
> objective archival record the true value or understanding either of
museum
> artefacts or of the research in published books is questionable.
>
> (And why should donors be assumed to be able to afford valuations
anyway?)
>
> Isobel Watson
> Friends of Hackney Archives
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anna Greening" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>;
> <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 06 September 2000 14:13
> Subject: Valuations for potential archival donations
>
>
> > Here at The Fawcett Library we are at the cutting edge of
> > mixed-media administration with librarians, museum
> > professionals and an archivist on the staff.
> >
> > At our Collections Management Group this morning, one of my
> > museums colleagues expressed the opinion that it is
> > unethical to take in material without a prior
> > external valuation by the donor.
> >
> > I have always muffled commercial valuation in decent
> > obscurity unless for a very good reason - insurance,
> > acquisition by purchase, or in lieu of tax (something which
> > has not come my way).
> >
> > What do colleagues think?
> >
> > Anna Greening
> > Archivist
> > The Fawcett Library
> > London Guildhall Library
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|