Jump to content

Cultural property documentation

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crystal Stein (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 24 April 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. The documentation of cultural property is a critical aspect of collections care. As stewards of cultural property, museums collect and preserve not only objects but the research and documentation connected to those objects, in order to more effectively care for them. Documenting cultural heritage is a collaborative effort. Essentially, registrars, collection managers, conservators, and curators all contribute to the task of recording and preserving information regarding collections. There are two main types of documentation museums are responsible for: records generated in the registration process--accessions, cataloging, etc. and information regarding research on the object and its historical significance. Properly maintaining both types of documentation is vital to preserving cultural heritage.[1]

Brief History

Practices for recording information about museum collections began developing in the late eighteenth century. Early collection control systems evolved from library prototypes, borrowing the idea of a sequential numbering system and accession ledgers to connect objects to information about them. In the mid 1900s, formal registration training programs began appearing, and standards for documenting cultural collections were established. It was not until the late 1990s when computers became commonplace that any other major breakthroughs occurred in the documentation and object tracking methods of museums.

Cataloging standards

Adhering to cataloging standards while creating and maintaining documentation is necessary for uniformity and accessibility. "Standards not only promote the recording of information consistently but are also fundamental to retrieving it efficiently. They promote data sharing, improve content management, and reduce redundant efforts. In time, the accumulation of consistently documented records across multiple repositories will increase access to content by maximizing research results. Ultimately, uniform documentation will promote the development of a body of cultural heritage information that will greatly enhance research and teaching in the arts and humanities."[2] Standards can dictate processes like numbering and measuring, as well as data entry methods like choosing which categories of information to include (metadata sets), which words to use (thesauri and authority lists), and how to format data content.

Numbering/ Marking

Numbering and marking an object (usually with the object's accession number) is part of the initial cataloging process, which also includes standard procedures for measuring, photographing, and examining the condition of objects. Marking an object with its accession number (or temporary number if the object will not become part of the permanent collection) is how the object is identified and linked to its documentation. In order to track museum collections, to differentiate between permanent, loan, and subsidiary collections, and most importantly to provide access to the documentation of objects in the collection, it is vital that a systematic numbering scheme be used and that each unique number is marked or tagged on the objects and prominently noted on all documentation associated with the objects. There are many ways to mark objects with their numbers. Depending on the type of object and desired permanence of the mark, some of the preferred methods include: archival quality paper tags with pencil, barrier coat with ink or paint, adhered labels, labels sewn with cotton tape, Reemay, or Tyvek, pencil directly on object (recommended for paper and photographs mostly), and Bar codes/RFID technology.

Categories and Authority Lists

Another way of controlling collections information to promote accessibility is utilizing standard formats of required data elements and preferred terminology when describing and documenting works of art, architecture, and cultural artifacts, as well as images of these things.[3] There are numerous guides available for determining which descriptive information is necessary to an object file and how to format that information for ease of accessibility--Categories for the Description of Works of Art (CDWA), Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO), etc. There are also a number of authority lists and thesauri available to documentation professionals, which can be very helpful in choosing preferred terminology in describing cultural objects. The Getty Research Institute has created comprehensive vocabularies, including The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), The Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN), The Cultural Objects Name Authority (CONA), and The Union List of Artist Names (ULAN). Other valuable tools for professionals documenting cultural property are the CAMEO and American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works' Lexicon Project, which are collaborative efforts designed to define and standardize terms used in the description of objects and materials used to conserve objects.

Types of documentation

A comprehensive object file contains many different types of documentation, following the object through its life cycle. Some of the various events or facets of an object's life that require documentation are listed below:[4]

Accessions

Acquisition, formally accessioning object[5]

1. Initial Custody Agreement

[6]

2. Transfer of Title

Could be a sale or a Deed of Gift

3. Donor and Provenance Questionnaires

Provenance[7]

Inventories

[8]

Loans & Exhibitions

1. Loan Agreement

2. Condition Reports

[9]

3. Packing instructions and shipping receipts

Diagrams


Conservation Treatment

1. Proposals

Part of pre-treatment documentation[10]

2. Examination

3. Reports

Part of post-treatment documentation

4. Photographs

Before, actual state, and after


Curatorial/ Art Historical Information

Context of object


Risk Management

1. Insurance

Track copyright for legal purposes


Deaccessions

Discussion of each step of consideration, value of object, why it's no longer appropriate for collection[11] [12]

Documenting Contemporary Art

Requires non-traditional approach[13]


Systems

[14]

CMS

DAM

Preservation

Archives

Backup

Data transfer

Sharing and dissemination

See Also

References

  1. ^ Reibel, D. (2008). Documentation. In Registration Methods for the Small Museum, 4th ed. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
  2. ^ Baca, M. et al. (2006). Cataloging Cultural Objects: A Guide to Describing Cultural Works and Their Images. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
  3. ^ Harpring, Patricia. (2009) Cataloging Cultural Objects. Retrieved April 18, 2015. http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies.pdf
  4. ^ Longstreth-Brown, Kittu & R.A. Buck. (2010). Types of Files. In R.A. Buck & J.A. Gilmore (Eds.), Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, (pp. 150-154). Washington, DC: AAM Press.
  5. ^ Malaro, Marie C. (2012). The Acquisition of Objects--Accessioning. A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections, (pp. 57-113). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
  6. ^ Buck, Rebecca A. (2010). Initial Custody and Documentation. In R.A. Buck and J.A. Gilmore (Eds.), Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, (pp. 38-43). Washington, DC: AAM Press.
  7. ^ Daly, Karen D. (2010). Provenance Research in Museum Collections. In R.A. Buck & J.A. Gilmore (Eds.), Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, (pp. 62-77). Washington, DC: AAM Press.
  8. ^ McCormick, Maureen. (2010). Inventory. In R.A. Buck & J.A. Gilmore (Eds.), Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, (pp. 300-306). Washington, DC: AAM Press.
  9. ^ Demeroukas, Marie. (2010). Condition Reporting. In R.A. Buck & J.A. Gilmore (Eds.), Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, (pp.223-232). Washington, DC: AAM Press.
  10. ^ Appelbaum, Barbara. (2010). Documentation and Treatment. In Conservation Treatment Methodology, (pp. 379-417). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  11. ^ Morris, Martha & Antonia Moser. (2010). Deaccessioning. In R.A. Buck & J.A. Gilmore, Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, (p. 100-108). Washington, DC: AAM Press.
  12. ^ Malaro, Marie. (2012) The Disposal of Objects--Documentation Needed to Support Proposed Deaccessions. A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections, (pp. 248-272). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
  13. ^ Schlemmer, Mark B. (2010). Documenting Contemporary Art. In R.A. Buck & J.A. Gilmore (Eds.), Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, (pp. 78-84). Washington, DC: AAM Press.
  14. ^ Quigley, Suzanne & P. Sully. (2010). Computerized Systems. In R.A. Buck & J.A. Gilmore (Eds.), Museum Registration Methods 5th Edition, (pp. 161-183). Washington, DC: AAM Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_property_documentation&oldid=659013190"