Month: February 2013

In the Legal and Ethical Considerations in Museum Acquisitions, the author, Marilyn Phelan, shows the reader some of the issues that Museums face when bringing in new works into their collections. From sovereign nation’s customs laws to artworks looted during wartime and genocide. Phelan mentions that museum officials have been involved, both directly and indirectly, in the illicit trade in looted antiquities. When I read this section in the book, I asked myself why would a museum official, either knowingly or unknowingly, participate in trade that many museum goers would view as both illegal and unethical? I do not doubt that there are a large variety of answers for this question, but I came to the conclusion that some museum officials participate in the illicit trade in order to maintain and expand their organizations collection(s). When an individual or group has amassed a collection of items that is both a sense of pride and accomplishment, that individual or group does not want to lose it. This relates to the issues raised within the readings, Jewish artwork looted during the Holocaust and the remains of Native Americans. There are laws that have been enacted that attempt to help the victims that have been affected by those issues. In some cases museum officials work with both the victims and the law to see that the wrongs committed in the past are fixed during their present lifetime. Unfortunately, in other cases victims walk away empty-handed.

Authors such as Phelan help to shine a light on the illicit trade in looted antiquities to their peers when they write on the subject. I imagine the entire process of proving rightful ownership, on either the part of the museum or other party, is both a long and sometimes difficult process.

Pardon my tangent: this post will mostly be about the readings relation to the field of Archives. I realize the authors were writing about museums, but I saw many connections to my field of work and I hope someone would appreciate how these topics are utilized in other fields.

First, I very much enjoyed the first article about repatration. I’m all for museums giving back the collections they acquired immorally – even if they were acquired over century ago. I’m shocked to hear that some museums resisted the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act – I imagine it couldn’t have been many. There are few ways the United States Government can work to right the wrongs committed to the Native American Tribes through the history of this country, the repatriation act was clearly one way to do so.

The second article about deaccessioning hit very close to home for me. Archives throughout the country face the same problem of what to do with materials that you don’t feel belong with the collection. I would like to point out that the author mentions museums wanting to deaccession items to sell them on the market and gain revenue. I don’t think that is allowed by any state institution in Idaho. I remember hearing something about our university library discontinuing its book sale for that reason. Then again- the university sells land on occasion… I’m not sure what the law says there.

The article also mentions some other outside elements affecting collection development. This can be true for many repositories of cultural goods. Museums, Libraries, Archives, Cultural Centers; these places tend to be the attic of communities. The leaders responsible for public donations and community relations may, from time-to-time, accept  material that doesn’t quite fit the collection development plan, but accepting the gift is the right thing to do for community relations. Too much of this, however, can lead to shelves filled with objects or documents that do not fit any scope of vision for the collection as a whole. It takes skill to navigate those waters.

Marilyn Phealen’s article on the legality of international trade also brings up important questions. While there are some gray areas that force each case to be examined thoroughly, I agree whole heartedly with Phealan’s quote from the U.S. Code of Uniform Commerce: “one who purchases property from a thief, no matter how innocently, acquires no title to the property.” (page 421) This should be the ethical backing for any decision of ownership.

I enjoyed all the articles and I am glad that our reading began with the Monroe and Echo-Hawk article. This article set a good tone for the following articles, and the ideas within them. Monroe and Echo-Hawk state valid points that pertain to how museums conduct themselves and how they have conducted business in the past. The average visitor to a historical or natural history museum probably has never heard of the Antiquities Act, or knows what it entails. Like the innovative work done by Fred Wilson in his “Mining the Museum” exhibit, I think part of museum interpretation should include (in a creative interpretation like Wilson’s or in straightforward text), how the object was obtained and its varied contexts. Therefore, museums could be even more progressive by addressing the context of the objects ascension, for example mentioning the Antiquities Act of 1906, as well as, that Native Americans were not recognized as a person under the law until 1879, and not granted citizenship until 1924.

Adding these concepts and historical facts to museum interpretation allows for the polysemic classification that Cameron discusses in her article. According to Cameron, “An object’s meaning and its classification, is not self-evident or singular, but is imposed on the object depending on the position and aims of the museum.” (227) I believe this is the most important concept brought up by the readings, and is a concept that ties all of this week’s readings together. As Corrin points out in her article, colonial history is not addressed in historical displays, which begs the question of, what is the true position and aim of a historical museum when it ceases to encompass a complete cultural and historical context in displaying their objects?

In the world of the 21^st century, it would seem inconceivable that museums would have collections that actually need to be given back to their proper owners.    I was not surprised that certain institutions before 1990,  when the Native Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 was passed had probably not returned to Native American families the remains of their loved ones.  I know the article was written 23 years ago, but one has to wonder if certain museums have returned these remains or if by the status that certain institutions have obtained, they might have felt above the law.  Another question this Act might propose is that if the artifact mentioned is older, as to say, 9000 years, who has the right to claim the body?  Do the Native American Indian tribes as the case of the Kennewick Man, claim the bones or does the institution, whose property it was on can claim it?  The body was found on Corps of Army Engineers property, so they want to claim it.  Five Native American Tribes want to claim it. The courts eventually appointed the University of Washington to safeguard the property even though the Army Corps of Engineers claim ownership.  Many legal quandaries exist, and really this man should be laid to rest with his descendants.  One wonders how or if through law, or how and why this legal conundrum could be affected at all by the ICOM Code of Ethics.

The article on deaccessioning, seemed that on the institutional level when the institution was finished with the artifact, they needed to part with it in a timely manner.  Selling the artifact as a collectible would be one way for a museum to make money.  There is always someone willing to add a piece to their collection that would be pleasing esthetically to them as collectors.  Museums and collections today have a momentous task to be moving and to remain fluid to keep the public’s appeal.  Proper and correct implementation procedures of deaccessioning would greatly enhance the institutions image and would secure additional funds to be more viable as an instrument to serve the public.

The movement for digitizing and electronically cataloguing collections has grown greatly.  These new methods can be seen in larger museums that are using this new paradigm shift to scanning, using digital photography and new other new techniques.  This makes the publics experience more memorable.  Institutions are using these techniques to make “virtual exhibits” on the web.  New innovations can be adapted and used in the museum to inspire and educate a broader audience.

Through modern media the need for the “wow factor” has to be presented to the public. We,  as future public historians have to be able to mine this feeling.  Public historians need to be able to go outside the bubble and be able to look at something that would be beneficial and intriguing to your audience.  The article, “Mining the Museum: An Installation Confronting History”, gives us a very good checklist to engage and evaluate how well the exhibit performs and if interpolates the present with the past, and meld them together to work. If this procedure does indeed work well, then it certainly captures that “wow factor” that is needed.

The chapters we read this week discussed the history of the museum and how it has changed over time.  Cameron talked about the issue of what a museum is.  Should it be a solemn place where material culture is displayed?  How do we use new technologies to display the past?  How do we involve the public in a learning experience?  He asks the question should a museum be a temple or a forum and he answers by stating that there needs to be a reform that places importance on the forum aspect.  He also discusses the social responsibilities that museums have toward the public.  He argued that museums have to “create an equality of cultural opportunity.”  If museums become temples, then only those interested in temples will go to them, he argues.  Nina Simon continues with this theme of reform and reaching out when she wrote about the principles of participation on page 335.  She discussed how participatory experiences can “create new value for the institution, participants, and nonparticipating audience members.”  This brings to mind a couple of examples for me.  The first is the Museum of Tolerance in LA.  Visitors are invited to take part in WWII events and given a card with the picture of a Jewish child on it.  At the end the participant finds out if the child survived.  Telling someone about the atrocities committed in WWII is one thing.  Giving them the chance to connect with a person who was alive at the time who possibly did not survive brings to life the realities of that particular event.  The second example that spring to mind is Zoo Boise.  This educational institution has a wonderful environmental program.  At the gate you are charged for admission and an environmental fee.  This fee is one dollar.  For that dollar you are given a token which you then take to an area where the pictures of three endangered species are placed with some information about the animals.  You get to choose which bucket you drop your token into and the zoo donates to that cause.  It is a way to inform the public about the environment, animals, and conservation.  Fun, educational, and entertaining.  The big three.