People Pose Preservation Dangers

Image credit for “Vase Casse” http://danslapensine.blogspot.com/

Theft is the most obvious danger to artifact preservation that people pose. As we’ve discussed previously in this blog, museum staff, volunteers, and researchers comprise an amazingly high percentage of museum thefts (approximately 90%). But mishandling can also damage artifacts, and probably a similarly high percentage of the most egregious examples can also be considered insider jobs. Now, most of us who work with collections take our ethical responsibilities seriously and are scrupulous about honesty and proper stewardship. The vast majority of professionals provide care that is in line with current conservation guidelines, in so far as training and budgets allow. Exceptional cases of mishandling, however, can be instructive, and breaking news provides two interesting examples:

• Recently, a Miami artist intentionally lifted a Chinese artist’s vase from an exhibit at an art museum in that city and dropped it on the floor, shattering the piece. He committed the destructive act in protest of the museum’s practice of only displaying international art.
• Earlier this month, a French museum employee sat on a red leather folding chair that had belonged to Napoleon and broke it.

In addition to such stories that generate media attention, many of us who have been in the museum field for awhile have heard legends and rumors about staff members taking advantage of their access to collections in ways that could damage the artifacts. For instance:

• True story: graduate students in a program at a much-venerated East coast museum spied a museum historian and registrar embracing after hours on an 18^th-century 4-poster bed sometime in the late 1960s. Since both staff members proceeded to have long careers there, and grad students kept coming, the story continued to be passed along for at least 30 years.
• Rumor: a rather large male costume and textile curator tried on women’s undergarments from the collection while working late.

These colorful examples of mishandling remind us that human nature is imperfect; that familiarity breeds complacency; and that accountability helps us all do the best job we can. Another reminder is that no matter what protections we put in place to keep artifacts safe, someone (out of thousands or more?) may put his own personal agenda above the responsibility to protect the artifact for perpetuity.

What can we do to protect  collections from insiders who may believe themselves to be exempt from usual handling limitations? One answer is to require collections work to be on a buddy system, although that guideline clearly would not have prevented the 4-poster bed scenario. In addition to being an added security measure, the buddy system has practical benefits by ensuring more man and woman power when oversize objects and large boxes may need relocation. Another answer may be to limit after-hours work in collections storage. What works at your institution? Have you tried security cameras as a solution? Or has the honor system been enough protection so far?

A C2C Badge?

A participant at C2C’s 2011 Fayetteville workshop made this badge.

One of the introductory activities we’ve been doing in our “Collections Care Basics” workshops is making badges with small copper sheets, an adhesive pin-back, sharpie pens, and fingerprints. The intended object of this exercise was to send each participant home with a souvenir lesson of the sensitivity of metals to hand oils—a persistent reminder to wear gloves whenever handling metal artifacts.

Badges are currently a hot topic of learning theory and possibly have the potential to challenge standardized learning credentials. Apparently, the C2C badge idea was ahead of its time and could serve, not only as a proper handling reminder, but also as an educational credential.

Recently, the American Alliance of Museums posted a discussion on the potential of badges for museums and described the badge programs of 2 museum organizations—one of which sees value in badges as a means to motivate audience engagement. The AAM post refers to badges both as something 3D, like those participants have produced in our workshops, and as a digital icon that participants receive and could potentially include in a signature (as many professionals now do with degrees or affiliations).

Would a badge from your institution motivate participants to be more engaged with exhibits and programs? Would an actual or digital badge or both be more effective? What types of badges might work? Institutional “Explorer” or local history “Expert” are two possibilities.

Digital badge systems have some demonstrated success as motivators in gaming arenas, in particular, and 3D merit badges have long been a part of activities like scouting. Less certain is the potential use of badges as signifiers of skill or educational credentials. If many organizations (like museums and C2C) offer badges as awards to participants for learning accomplishments, would the available multiplicity allow individual badges to have any meaning or would the quantity a person could accumulate generate the most credit?

Our organization could start offering “Collections Concepts Mastery” badges and “Disaster Preparedness” badges for participation and even distinctive ones for demonstrated skills and achievements in those areas. As a potential or actual C2C participant, would these be motivational? Would seeing this type of digital badge in an acquaintance’s email signature line heighten your respect for that person in any way? In other words, would a digital C2C badge serve as a meaningful professional credential?

Managing Touch

Handling is an unmistakable danger to collections. Not only can people break objects and otherwise introduce stress, but hand oils can corrode metals and degrade materials in other ways. Just as museums must manage other collections dangers such as light, some institutions have found ways to manage the danger of handling.

Proscriptions against touching limit a museum patron’s ability to appreciate an object, and prohibiting tactile experiences denies a level of access. For institutions that receive high volumes of visitation and for especially fragile or priceless treasures, limits are necessary for preservation. Clearly, not everyone can touch every material in most collections.

Part of the appeal for many of us working with cultural heritage collections is the privileged intimacy we are allowed to have with artifacts. We have been trained in proper handling techniques, and we keep storage doors locked, collections enclosed in archival housings, and display cases sealed. Yet, as important as it is to perpetuate collections stewardship, it is also important to strategize forms of access. We must weigh the short-term benefits of access against the long-term costs to preservation. Are there certain times when or materials for which we can grant access? Some institutions maintain separate education collections and allow visitors to handle those objects during public programs. Other institutions provide certain groups occasional opportunities to handle artifacts.

The impetus to provide museum experiences for the visually impaired has led to the creation of special touch tour programs as well as a Touchable Gallery at the Duke Eye Center. Trained volunteers staff the gallery and guide visitors in handling and learning about the objects in regularly changing exhibits. Despite the focus on handling that is part of the gallery’s mission, losses have been few and far between. Coordinator Betty Haskin (pictured above) knows of only one object broken and another stolen. The Gregg Museum of Art & Design at NCSU offers “Touch Tours” upon request. Tours allow participants to handle a combination of original objects and reproductions and also rely on music and sound in order to convey interpretive messages.

Objects’ ceremonial functions might also justify touching by certain groups at certain times. Some tribal groups have claims on specific collection materials, and there are repositories which allow them access for relevant ceremonies. This limited handling allows participants to channel the artifacts’ votive-like power, but in cases of artifacts with natural history elements, there is often mutual risk to the handlers.

How does your institution manage touch? Does it grant access for special events or to specific groups? What could a touch tour at your site include?

For more discussion on managing touch in museums, see The Power of Touch, ed. by Elizabeth Pye, Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2007.