Framing the Collection and the Message: Who Chooses?

I look forward to Steven’s book on whether museums still need objects. I continue
to be delighted and sometimes surprised at people’s powerful responses to stuff.
Recently I chatted in the museum (NMAH) about the Chinese Exclusion Act
illustrating the issues with a pitcher depicting Bret Hart’s poem Heathen Chinee and
a parlor sculpture with similar iconography. Crowds of people pressed forward to
carefully investigate these objects. Similarly, this occurred when we brought out
Earl Shaffer’s backpack used to complete his trek along the Appalachian Trail in
1948. Totally different types of things, but a high curiosity about what they said and
meant.

History museums, particularly, are inundated with “stuff” and besieged with
requests from the public to put more of their stuff in them, and out on view. How,
what, and whether we continue to collect is an important consideration for the
future of history museums. Art museums too are engaged in this dialogue.

An article in the Sunday May 31, 2009 NY Times Art & Leisure section entitled
“Framing the Message of a Generation” by Holland Cotter stimulated some ideas
on the issues of collecting in history museums. The article focuses on two art
exhibitions that presented the work of mid 20th century artists. The author questions
how the selections for the art museum’s permanent collections were made. Not
surprisingly, he posits that what is collected today, and by who will frame future
perspectives and will write the cultural history of tomorrow.

Less monies for purchase, collection storage and upkeep of collections, fewer
curators to research objects for purchase or donation, the proliferation of late 20th
and 21st century objects and the museums in which they are put, and lack of
coordinated planning on collecting initiatives among museums indicate that
collecting the country’s patrimony faces challenges.

Questions regarding the efforts of collecting are numerous; however, my

wonderings focus on the process, the energy, and the activity of this issue.
Colleagues have used the term abcollorative (use of widespread expertise within
and/or across organizations such as museums, libraries and academe) to define the
way collecting decisions might occur. I would ask whether museums need to
broaden this to include a coordinated input from the general public and those
outside defined organizations. How this might take place requires a considerable
investment of thought.

Some institutions have applied abcollorative techniques. In 2007 the National

Library of New Zealand and the British Library built a digital collecting methodology
to collaboratively harvest online material. Some state-wide collecting initiatives
that include non museum personnel have been put in place as well. With the
advance of online capabilities, the sharing of collection initiatives and
methodologies, with other organizations and the general public, could now be
feasible. Yet the organization and management of a collection clearing house on a
large scale is daunting. How might history museums and institutions confront these
issues? Is it best done on a local, state or national level? What institutions or
organizations should take the lead in developing, and researching options and
models, putting forth criteria, and disseminating the results?

Here are some additional questions related to the collecting issue that colleagues
might respond to:

Are there exemplary, broad base collecting initiatives, standards, and

methodologies that one could refer to?

Could history museums have agreed upon criteria, checklists, and a collections
clearing house in place to systematically collect across gender, ethnicity, and
generation to cut out redundant collecting?

Do collecting initiatives impact what the public sees in history museums?

Do collecting initiatives have an impact on the vitality of history museums?

Do collecting initiatives have an impact on exhibitions in history museums?

Models:

By event: Nine Eleven History Dot Net. The Museum of the City of New York and the
National Museum of American History sponsored the online database for 9/11
collecting among history museums and libraries.

Statewide: The Gay Ohio History Collecting Initiative as it relates to the Ohio
Historical Society’s collecting initiative focused on underrepresented groups. Article
about the process in the Journal of Museums and Social Issues- Left Coast Press, Inc.
vol. 3, Spring 08. Steven may know more about this.

International Digital Collecting: In March 2007 the National Library of New Zealand
and the British Library built a web curator tool supporting the collection, selection,
harvesting and assessment of online material by collaborative users in a library
environment to preserve the world’s digital heritage. They collect political party
websites, dating/friendship and social networking blogs, recreational and
professional list serves and trading and content sharing related to ecommerce.

Nationwide efforts: Several years ago the Smithsonian Institution and AAM
convened a two day conference on the topic of collecting policies for twenty or so
selected institutions nationwide. The session focused on creating effective policies.
AAM published a Guide to Collections Planning, 2004

Urban encyclopedia models – The Encyclopedias of Cleveland, Chicago, New York

City, and that proposed for Philadelphia all show the power of collaborative,
institutional efforts to collect data. Perhaps object collecting initiatives have
something to learn from this activity.

Solutions:
AAM’s Center for the Future of Museums might find this an initiative they could
sponsor

AASLH might find this in their mission

Museums initiate partnerships with a small number of like organizations to focus on

particular collections where information sharing is most useful and needed