an insight into museums and collections

ariel · 27th May 2005, 06:31 PM

I agree with Michal.
Museums and private collectors fulfill the same role and have certain advantages and disadvantages.
1. Private collectors are (ideally) dedicated amateurs with passion for deep research into a specific area.
Disadvantages: most are not wealthy and cannot acquire the best examples; most are working people and have only limited time on their hands; most do not have professional background and cannot assure proper storage; most cannot offer professional protection (anti theft and anti-damage by the elements); most cannot publish and disseminate their knowledge; most do not assure perpetuity of the collection (my son will sell or give away my swords 15 minutes after I am dead), most do not belong to an established network of mutual loans, visits, access etc
2. Museums, on the other hand, even the "below the average" of them, have better resources, institutional memory and can hire professional people as curators of a specific field (Impressionists, Mayan sculpture, political cartoons of Central Africa, and - yes! - South Indian swords). I would completely disagree with the notion that a dedicated private collector is in any way superior to the dedicated, trained, museum-appointed curator of a particular field.
I also am willing to bet that far, far more valuable swords were destroyed by irresponsible, lazy,well meaning but ignorant or just too poor collectors than by all the small-time museums in the world. We just do not know about them and can see only pitiful pics of the damaged museum objects. It's a "man bites dog" story all over again.

The bottom line, both models of historical preservation and research are , ideally, valuable and complementing each other. Let's not forget that both were in existence for hundreds of years . Where would Rawson, Elgood, Stone, Blair, Tarassuk, Astvatsaturyan, van Zonneveld and all the other authors of the books on which we are relying in our amateurish hobbies get their materials if not for the museums?

B.I · 27th May 2005, 08:05 PM

the intention of the original post was always in favour of museums as a whole, and i found it hard to write in fear that it may become ammunition against the institutions.
i know many of the museums here, and the curators are as passionate as any collector i have met. the museum in question was the same, but their problem was time. they dont have funds to taken on new staff, and so the whole museum is run by a small core of curators who do a tremendous job, given that they only have 24 hours in a day.
how many private collections have you seen piled on top of each other, or stored badly. when you visit a friend, when are you asked to sign documents and wear gloves before picking up a weapon.
the original statement was an unfortunate circumstance that cant be helped. we have a large 'hoard' of weapons, borne from many donations over many years. these cant be disposed of, and so all they can do is their best to keep them in storage, along with everything else.
i cannot begin to stress how much money and care was put into building the reserve storage of the major museums, and i would hate for anyone to think these pieces are kept in old boxes under a table.
the museum in question had all these pieces in another place for some time, until a proper place could be found for them. now they are in a controlled environment, but it will take a while before they have time to open all the boxes and attemopt to converve the pieces, beofre putting them away again.
with the amount of pieces they have, it would be a permanent job for a team, and once they finish, i'm sure they would have to start again.

27th May 2005, 06:31 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I agree with Michal. Museums and private collectors fulfill the same role and have certain advantages and disadvantages. 1. Private collectors are (ideally) dedicated amateurs with passion for deep research into a specific area. Disadvantages: most are not wealthy and cannot acquire the best examples; most are working people and have only limited time on their hands; most do not have professional background and cannot assure proper storage; most cannot offer professional protection (anti theft and anti-damage by the elements); most cannot publish and disseminate their knowledge; most do not assure perpetuity of the collection (my son will sell or give away my swords 15 minutes after I am dead), most do not belong to an established network of mutual loans, visits, access etc 2. Museums, on the other hand, even the "below the average" of them, have better resources, institutional memory and can hire professional people as curators of a specific field (Impressionists, Mayan sculpture, political cartoons of Central Africa, and - yes! - South Indian swords). I would completely disagree with the notion that a dedicated private collector is in any way superior to the dedicated, trained, museum-appointed curator of a particular field. I also am willing to bet that far, far more valuable swords were destroyed by irresponsible, lazy,well meaning but ignorant or just too poor collectors than by all the small-time museums in the world. We just do not know about them and can see only pitiful pics of the damaged museum objects. It's a "man bites dog" story all over again. The bottom line, both models of historical preservation and research are , ideally, valuable and complementing each other. Let's not forget that both were in existence for hundreds of years . Where would Rawson, Elgood, Stone, Blair, Tarassuk, Astvatsaturyan, van Zonneveld and all the other authors of the books on which we are relying in our amateurish hobbies get their materials if not for the museums?

27th May 2005, 08:05 PM	#2
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	the intention of the original post was always in favour of museums as a whole, and i found it hard to write in fear that it may become ammunition against the institutions. i know many of the museums here, and the curators are as passionate as any collector i have met. the museum in question was the same, but their problem was time. they dont have funds to taken on new staff, and so the whole museum is run by a small core of curators who do a tremendous job, given that they only have 24 hours in a day. how many private collections have you seen piled on top of each other, or stored badly. when you visit a friend, when are you asked to sign documents and wear gloves before picking up a weapon. the original statement was an unfortunate circumstance that cant be helped. we have a large 'hoard' of weapons, borne from many donations over many years. these cant be disposed of, and so all they can do is their best to keep them in storage, along with everything else. i cannot begin to stress how much money and care was put into building the reserve storage of the major museums, and i would hate for anyone to think these pieces are kept in old boxes under a table. the museum in question had all these pieces in another place for some time, until a proper place could be found for them. now they are in a controlled environment, but it will take a while before they have time to open all the boxes and attemopt to converve the pieces, beofre putting them away again. with the amount of pieces they have, it would be a permanent job for a team, and once they finish, i'm sure they would have to start again.