2010.26

Yes, yes, I know. Some of my peers may be thinking, "Jess, you're an educator... why are you always ranting about accession numbers, relative humidity, exhibition planning and other things that are outside your chosen realm of museum work?"

Well the answer is that I simply enjoy museums as a whole. I see most functions of the museum as being interrelated. If the art is not cared for and understood, then how can I be expected to educate the public about it? What do I say when a kid asks me, "Why is it so cold in here?" or "What are those little numbers for?" or "Why can't we touch anything?" I think it's important to know about all aspects of the museum if I am to speak confidently as an educator and representative of the museum.

On that note; today I was working with some labels.

As a part of the 125th Anniversary Project, labels need to be fabricated to accompany the repro paintings that will be installed around Metro-Detroit. Thus, I was charged with making a draft of the text for these labels (which will later be approved by a curator).

We have selected 40 paintings to be reproduced, so Michelle and I went into the museum's database (The Museum System, or TMS-- which I must say, is a lot cooler than ARGUS, which is what I used at the history museum) and printed out the information on each of our 40 pieces. This document contains all of the information that one would find on a wall label, but it's in a much different format. So my job today was to reformat all of the information into labels that mimic those used in the actual DIA galleries.

This would have been fine, if I had any idea what format the DIA uses for their labels. I looked on our website and found nothing, so I had to sneak down into the galleries. The DIA is closed on Mondays and Tuesdays, so all of the lights were off, and the galleries were technically "closed", but I have a little ID badge that says "Staff" so just let them try and stop me!

I managed to snap a quick picture of the first label I saw. It was for this work of art:

I've come to really love this painting over the last two months. I don't recall ever seeing it before, but now I spend a few minutes looking at it every day as I wait for the elevator. I can see it from the third floor balcony and it has grown on me.

Anyway, I used this label as a template, eliminating the interpretive text below the tombstone information.

It's not a pretty picture, but it served the purpose of showing me how to format my labels. I thought I was being pretty clever.

So with my example established, I began rearranging the information about each of the 40 paintings. As I was going through the list, I was struck by a few entries that I found particularly interesting.

The first piece ever accessioned by the DIA (Detroit Museum of Art, at the time) was Reading the Story of Oenone, 1883

The accession number is 83.1... which means the museum bought the painting the same year it was made. What was so great about this painting that the DIA decided this is what will start their collection? And why not a great classic masterpiece? Why a contemporary (for the time) piece? I find this very interesting.

There were several others that the DIA bought shortly after their completion.

A Day in June was purchased in 1917, just four years after it was made. I can't help but think that perhaps the Detroit Museum of Art began as a rather progressive institution, willing to invest in controversial impressionist paintings and contemporary artists.

Every art history student I've spoken to hates this painting:

But it's a Detroit treasure. Visitors love it and it may very well be the most visited and most recognized painting in the museum. I think its only competition would be the Van Gogh self portrait. So I was a little surprised that it was only accessioned in 1954. That seems so recent! As a citizen that has patronized the DIA for many years, it is difficult to fathom that The Nut Gatherers has not always been at the DIA. I mean, there was a time in my parents' lifetime when they could not go see the Nut Gatherers. I mean... my dad would have been 2 years old when it was accessioned, but still!

In the early 90's, it seems like a there was a change in the collections policy. Granted, I am looking at an extremely small sample from the collections database, but around 1993, suddenly the credit lines (list of people who gave money to purchase-or donated--an artwork) grew from one or two lines to some that are a whopping 15 lines of text! Dozens and dozens of donors are suddenly being listed on labels.

I have a theory on this.

Perhaps, as the museum's collections policy became more refined, the DIA began to deaccession donated works and sell them (of course, putting the resulting funds into an account exclusively for the purchase of more art). As the account was used to pay for new art, ALL of the names of ALL of the people who contributed must then be present on the label.

Of the 40 works on this list, those with the longest credits were accessioned in 1977, 1993, 1995, and 2002.  To me, that points to a more recent change in the collections policy and some deaccessioning and redistribution of funds.

And speaking of  deaccessioning and redistribution of funds... have you heard about the drama with the Custer flag?