"Junk/derelict" artists/photographers

robertmacdowell · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:52 pm

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

Let's re-emphasize: This is stuff either shoved away in the back, or still "off-site" somewhere. You've made an attempt to keep it out of the public eye, and they STILL go back and find it and shoot it.

It sounds like there are two choices here:

1) when you get a piece in free for possible restoration or for parts, start cutting it up as soon as it arrives lest it clutter your place, and suffer the anguished cries of people that accuse you of "destroying historic pieces,"

2) Never, ever accept another potential artifact unless it comes fully restored already, with an endowment to keep it that way.

Your two proposals amount to a "scorched-earth" policy which plainly is focused on thwarting art photographers and to hell with preservation. Since when it is the mission of a museum to go to war with culture? Try this:

3) Learn to live in the world you're in. Stop calling these people (the photographers/artists) criminals just because it's conceivable to make a minor property offense out of their actions. Recognize their activities as a purpose your museum serves: they are constituents. Figure out how to accommodate them. (Yeah, and I don't want to hear naysaying on this one.)

4) Buy yourself a better damn fence. Your sense of privacy/possession/indignity is writing checks your current fence can't cash.

5) Stop taking stuff you can't store securely! Don't bring a vulnerable unit unless you are willing to bump something less vulnerable from your secured storage.

6) If you can't store it, help it go to some other suitable museum. (I've used that one very effectively.)

7) Rally a program to repaint one unit per month. Your prep and paint quality decides how long the artistes are defeated. Flickr will tell you where to start.

Quote:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I start to see now why some museum directors/administrators/presidents burn out.......

The surest thing to burn people out is rapaciously clinging to a wrong idea: a "Sacred Cow". It puts your organization in a pitched battle with reality.

The Buddhists call this "Pushing a river". Being out of sync, and not in flow, with the actual reality around you; and as a result standing in defiance in a fight which is unwinnable, futile, and conflicting with your higher purpose.

Such a fight has perilous risks, not only for the organization but also for the physical and mental health of the practitioners. That's why you are so angry about this. It's not about the art photographers. It's about your passion being askew from your purpose.

That is true for all who take on historic equipment without the means to care for it. They run around desperately Jensening everything they can get, filling their file cabinet with bills of sale as if that means saved, and frantically ignoring the truth. They dismiss their lack of creating a place to save it as "Well if we did that, we'd have to let some pieces go." While they let all pieces go.

Les Beckman · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:25 pm **Posts:** 6469

robertmacdowell wrote:

6) If you can't store it, help it go to some other suitable museum. (I've used that one very effectively.)

I'd amend number 6 by adding:

And if the item was DONATED to you, don't hold out for renumeration just because the income would help some other project. A donated item should be donated to another suitable group or museum!

Les

Jack Powell · **Joined:** Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:12 pm **Posts:** 112

[quote="Les Beckman"]

And if the item was DONATED to you, don't hold out for renumeration just because the income would help some other project. A donated item should be donated to another suitable group or museum!

Les[/quote]

No. Just the opposite. You have fiduciary and ethical obligations to maintain your museum's collection in perpetuity; you violate these by throwing away an asset (i.e. cash) that would help pay for doing so. You do not have those same obligations to an item you've already deaccessioned (notwithstanding the fact that in this business, giving something away for free may be the only way a "new home" can be induced to take it on, if it's in particularly tough shape or has high movement costs).

Of course, if the terms of the original gift were to require that the artifact be donated, rather than sold, to someone else if your museum decides it no longer wants it, that's another matter. However, you probably shouldn't be accepting donations with such strings attached to begin with.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:15 pm

The above are all worthwhile considerations and debate for others.

But just for the record, they don't actually apply to the specific example that started this thread. I'll explain later.

robertmacdowell · **Posted:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:45 am

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

But... they don't actually apply to the specific example that started this thread. I'll explain later.

Noted. That will be interesting.

Les Beckman wrote:

And if the item was DONATED to you, don't hold out for renumeration just because the income would help some other project. A donated item should be donated to another suitable group or museum!

Not even donated to you. "Artifact X under the gun!!!!" Museum Y pays to move it to Museum Z.

George Jackson Churchward wrote:

No. Just the opposite. You have fiduciary and ethical obligations to maintain your museum's collection in perpetuity; you violate these by throwing away an asset (i.e. cash) that would help pay for doing so. You do not have those same obligations to an item you've already deaccessioned (notwithstanding the fact that in this business, giving something away for free may be the only way a "new home" can be induced to take it on, if it's in particularly tough shape or has high movement costs).

I think it's much more situational than that.
- A nonprofit doesn't have any obligation at all to maintain its collection in perpetuity, unless you have donor covenants binding a particular piece, but even those can be lanced with a trip to the courthouse. Its obligation is to fulfill its mission. It would be very unusual for that mission to actually require keeping every piece.
- It is mandatory to periodically/continuously reassess your collection against your mission.
- A duty to civic obligations (e.g. eviction off city property; eyesore regulations etc.) would override a commitment to keep everything.
- There is no obligation to squeeze maximum cash out of every asset, not even for a for-profit company. That's why donations are tax-deductible for for-profits.
- Nonprofits are specifically allowed to donate assets to other nonprofits.
- Nonprofits are barred from giving a bargain to private individuals/for-profits. It is called "inurement" and the tax is 225%. (no misprint)
- I can imagine several instances where a stakeholder (e.g. city, landlord or neighbor) could force deaccession.
- The care a nonprofit has for an artifact would definitely be a factor.

Quote:

Of course, if the terms of the original gift were to require that the artifact be donated, rather than sold, to someone else if your museum decides it no longer wants it, that's another matter. However, you probably shouldn't be accepting donations with such strings attached to begin with.

In that case, send your donor our way :) We get those all the time, they are no big deal. And, again situationally, there is damn good reason for that sort of covenant.

Imagine a beautiful observation car, last of its kind, that's still fairly original. The private market (acting as a force of nature, like the vandals) has a 6-digit hunger to turn the rare artifact into a fully Amtrak-ready PV, gutting its historic fabric for HEP, generator, bedrooms and kitchen where none should be, so that some rich white puke can entertain CEO's. The current owner might say "Over my dead body, and then some." Fair enough.

o anderson · **Posted:** Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:13 am

robertjohndavis · **Joined:** Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:10 am **Posts:** 2499

I stopped to check out Rutland coach #707 at Keeler Bay a few years back when the Mrs. and I were island hopping and wine tasting (yes, you can do both those things in Vermont).

Pics aren't worthy of art house, mostly draft gear, trucks, metal work... that sort of thing. Some are here: http://www.robertjohndavis.com/blog/?p=247

For the proverbial person with a few dollars and a dream, this could be a museum piece. Alas, that could be said of quite a bit of wooden Rutland rolling stock awaiting a similar fate.

Rob

PS: <snark> Yes, I broke the commandment that thou shalt not point thy lens at any railroad object not restored to Smithsonian standards, but let those who have never done such a thing cast the first water bottle at ye railfans from a passing a locomotive.</snark>

"Junk/derelict" artists/photographers

Who is online