Art in the library: Should academic libraries manage art?

Art in the Library: Should Academic Libraries Manage Art?

by Jane Kemp

This article discusses the

current role of some academic

libraries as art managers and

the potential for librarians

expanding this role. As trained

collection managers for print

and non-print media, academic

librarians are well positioned to

manage campus art collections.

/ane Kemp, Associate Professor,

Circulation-Reference Librarian Supervisor,

Fine Arts Collection, Luther College Library,

Decorah, Iowa 52101-1060.

162 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

J ohn Cotton Dana, pioneer librarian and museologist, personified the close relationship which has

existed between the library and museum worlds since both institutions came into existence. As director of the Newark Library and Museum at the beginning of the 20th century; he advocated the princi- ple that both books and objects should be collected and preserved for use by the public.’ Until his death in 1929, he was simultaneously librarian of the Newark Library and director of the Newark Museum, both units housed in the same building.2 The Museum reopened in its own building in 1926, described at the time as “‘the museum that was born and raised in a library.“‘3

With the 21st century only six years away, libraries and museums represent a spectrum of collecting institutions which are increasingly more alike than unalike. No where is this trend more obvious than in colleges and universities that strive to manage their permanent art collections. A significant pattern is developing whereby academic libraries are increasingly being called upon to manage and supervise art collections for their campuses. The pattern has precedent since the management of campus art collections has been part of the mission of some libraries for many years. Libraries have managed art due to long- standing, purposeful design; assignment by default, growing out of recognition that an unplanned but enlarging art collection needed care; and recent transfer resulting from the cutback or closure of campus art museums and galleries. In effect, academic librarians have acted in a museum staff capacity, performing the roles of reg- istrar and occasionally curator with excel- lent results. Is this a growing trend? And, more importantly, is it a trend that should be welcomed or even encouraged?

Two case studies, described when the Midstates Chapter of the Art Libraries Society met in May 1993, illustrate this trend. The theme chosen for the meeting was “Art in the Library.” Steve Mecks- troth, Fine Arts Librarian at Illinois State University and meeting convener, has had a personal reason to be vitally interested in the topic; his library received 2,000 pieces of African art to house and manage when the university’s museum was closed due to budget cuts4 Meckstroth was in the process of cataloging the objects, preparing new exhibits from the collection, and ensuring proper storage. Other objects from the museum “that had grown and survived for 120 years in a museum environment are now being dispersed across the campus,” according to Dr. Marcia D. Young, former Co-Director and Cuarator of Exhibits for the museum.5

‘A significant pattern is developing whereby academic libraries are increasingly being

called upon to manage and supervise art collections for

their campuses.”

Mel Klatt, Director of the Elmhurst College Library, provided the keynote address for the meeting. His library not only displays the Elmhurst College collection of permanent art but his staff also manages the collection and has made rec- ommendations for new acquisitions. The resulting collection of over 100 objects includes 25 works by artists referred to as Chicago Imagists. Klatt said this arrangement, begun in 197 1, was in the process of changing as a curator had recently been hired as a member of the art department to fill preservation and acquisition roles.6

The library will still house and exhibit the art under the new arrangement.

The Illinois State University and Elm- hurst College case studies were aug- mented during the Association of College and University Museums and Galleries mini-conference held before the American Association of Museums annual conference in Ft. Worth later in May 1993. At this conference on museums and the cur- riculum, several speakers noted that museums on their campuses, containing a variety of materials including art, were being closed due to budget shortfalls. The objects, as at Illinois State University, were to be dispersed to various units across the campus, including the library.7 Collections tended not to be sold since legal restrictions on deaccessioning objects restricts such action. The fact that colleges and universities are reviewing their commitments to campus museums has also been noted in the media.’

History of Art on Campuses Almost all colleges and universities

have acquired works of original art some time in their history. Although art collecting in early America was generally considered superfluous and wasteful, by the time of the Civil War campuses were acquiring portraits, Old Masters, copies of Old Masters, landscape paintings, repro- ductions in the form of engravings or plas- ter casts of famous works of art, antiquities from the ancient world, and artifacts or curiosities from non-western cultures.9 Higher education was seen as incomplete if the development of aesthetic taste in students was neglected. By the 187Os, when the teaching of the theory and history of art was initiated into university and college curricula, collegiate collections took on a more scholarly character.l’ Long established pedagogical theory has maintained that intimate contact with original works is necessary both for the study of studio art and art history.” Thus, the campus art collection evolved from being considered mere furnishings to become an intrinsic component of the overall educational process, part of the institution’s commitment to cultural enrichment for its constituency.

In 1992, over 250 college and university art museums existed in the United States, compared with 115 in 1932.12 Although the number of college and university art museums mushroomed since World War II, with many institutions building complete museum facilities to house their art, still many colleges, in par- ticular, can claim only limited exhibition

space on campus. l3 A profile of campus art museums and galleries published in 1981 noted that only one out of four art museums were located in a college with the remainder located at universities. l4 Thus, the colleges are the institutions found most often struggling with collections of original art which are not maintained by professional staff in a museum or gallery designated for that purpose. These collections often exist in limbo, with no one person or department responsible for their care, are lodged in departments where personnel are unable or unwilling to assume responsibility, or are located at colleges with a weak commitment for their management.’ 5

The Association of College and Uni- versity Museums and Galleries, in 1986 and 1991, surveyed current issues in university art museums but they targeted larger institutions with established art museums.16 Thus, the question of how some small liberal arts colleges manage their art collections arises.

Findings Only three colleges had no fine art col-

lections (6.2%). Twenty-one colleges had free-standing museums or galleries while another 11 reported that their art departments managed the collections. Ten colleges stated that the library of their institution was responsible for managing the art collection either alone or in cooperation with another administrative unit. At six of these colleges, the library has sole responsibility; at the other four, the management is shared between the library and another unit. Miscellaneous arrangements were made at the three remaining colleges. Generally, the more affluent colleges (as measured by the size of their endowments or total education program spending per student) had art museums or galleries whereas the less affluent placed various academic or administrative departments in charge.18 At two of the most affluent colleges, the library was wholly or partially responsible for management of the art collection.

“The colleges are the

institutions found most often

struggling with collections of

original art which are not

maintained by professional

staff in a museum or gallery

designated for that purpose.”

Survey of Colleges A one-page survey centering on this

question but also addressing personnel, size, budgets, and management policies, was mailed to 54 small liberal arts colleges during the fall, 1992. Twenty-five of the colleges were included in the 1992 US News & World Report survey, “National Liberal Arts Colleges” category, “Best Small Colleges” list. Another 10 colleges were listed in the same survey under the heading “Quartile 1.“t7 The final 20 colleges were those that my institution, Luther College, often compares itself to on a number of variables. (One college appeared on two lists; hence, the total number surveyed was 54 colleges instead of 55.) The largest college had an enroll- ment of 3,300 while the smallest regis- tered 1,000 students. Forty-eight of the questionnaires were returned for an 88.9% return rate.

“Ten colleges stated that the library of their institution was responsible for managing the

art collection either alone or in cooperation with another

administrative unit.”

Collection Sizes. The total number of pieces in the art collections of the colleges surveyed showed ‘considerable range. While one respondent supervised approximately 30,000 objects, 11 respondents had fewer than 500 works in their collections. Most colleges appeared to have no idea about the exact size of their collections since their respondents men- tioned collections of “several thousand” or said they were “large,” gave approximate or round numbers or simply answered “unknown” (see Table 1). At colleges where the library was involved in the management of the art, the figures were similar (see Table 2).

Supervisory Arrangements. Super- visors assigned responsibility for managing the collections occupied varied positions with an assortment of titles. Eleven museum directors were listed along with eight gallery managers. Ten art departments were also given with various members of the department, including the chair, listed as the individual responsible for the collection (see Table 3). Where the

July 1994 163

Table 1 Collection Size (All Colleges)

.

Size (Number of Objects)* Number of

Respondents

Exact, Round or Approximate Numbers

20,000 - 30,000 10,000 - 19,999 5,000 - 9,999 3

2,000 - 4,999 500 - 1,999 ! 15 - 499 11

Vague Responses several thousand 2 hundreds/several collections 1 large 1

Unknown 3

No Answer 2

Total: 45

*Note: Answers to the question about the number of pieces in the collections were mostly given in approximate or round numbers.

Table 2 Collection Size

(Colleges Where Libraries Supervise or Share Supervision of Collections)

Size (Number of Objects)* Number of

Respondents

Exact, Round or Approximate Numbers

- 30,000 1 - 8,000 1

500 - 5,000 3 200 - 499 3

Unknown 1

No Answer 1

Total: 10

Table 3 Individual Assigned Responsibility

for Collection (All Colleges)

Individual Number of

Respondents

Director, Museum 11

Art Department 10

Director, Gallery Manager 8

Librarian 7

Curator 3

Vice-president 2

Collection Manager 1

College Archivist 1

No Answer 2

Total: 45

Table 4 Individual Assigned Responsibility

for Collection (Colleges Where Libraries Supervise or Share

Supervision of Collections)

Individual Number of Respondents

Special Collections Librarians 4 (3 shared supervision with art department)

Library Director (1 shared supervision with art department)

Collection Manager (housed in library)

Curator 1 (supervised by library director)

College Archivist r (supervised by library director)

Total: 10

library was the administrative unit respon-

sible for managing the collection, several position titles were used to indicate who supervised the art. One college listed a curator (supervised by the library director) while another answered that a collections manager supervised the collection which was housed in the library. In all other cases, the library archivist, library director, or special collections librarians were listed as supervisors. At four of these libraries, the librarians were assisted by members of the college’s art department (see Table 4).

Staff Credentials. The credentials of 19 of the individuals administering the art collections were in the field of art. Of the remaining collection supervisors, 15 had doctorates in unreported areas or in a mis- cellaney of subjects and only one person had a degree in museum studies. Ten respondents reported no one individual was responsible for supervising the collection or listed no credentials. Interestingly, none of the respondents who indicated a librarian was in charge of the collections listed the MLS as the credential of the supervising individual. l9

At the 10 libraries which supervised art, respondents indicated that the library had accepted the charge of supervising the art collection with varying degrees of commitment. The commitments ranged from one library which had an endowed curator position to other libraries where art management was clearly an add-on to reg- ular library duties. As one special collections librarian respondent noted, “Parts of the fine arts are my responsibility by default, parts are my responsibility by design, and parts are the responsibility of the art department. No one individual has either the responsibility or resources to support the art collections.”

Funding. In 40 colleges, funds were set aside for management of the art collection. The departmental budgets which contained these funds were often not named although the art museums and galleries tended to have defined budgets. In answer to the question whether additional funds were allotted for the purchase of new works, 18 responded in the affirmative (40%) while 23 answered in the nega- tive (51.1%) and four (8.9%) did not answer the question. At colleges where the library had responsibility for managing the collection, two had acquisitions budgets and seven had none; one did not reply to the question.

Management Policies. When asked if management of the collection was guided by a written management policy,


19 colleges stated that they did have such a policy and 22 did not; three colleges were in the process of preparing a policy and one did not answer the question. Two colleges where libraries supervised or shared supervision of the collections had management policies and seven did not; one reported that a policy was currently in preparation.

Implications of Findings Should the added responsibility of art

management for an academic library be viewed as a positive opportunity or an unwanted burden? Given the opportunity, should academic librarians approach this new role as an expansion of their mission to collect, preserve, and make accessible parts of our culture? Three questions need to be answered before making this deci- sion: (1) Do the library and the assigned librarians have a genuine interest in the visual arts? (2) Are adequate resources available to the library, e.g., staff and space, to manage an art collection? and (3) Do the library and assigned librarians rec- ognize the necessity of becoming knowl- edgeable about visual arts collection management procedures? A summary of the common characteristics shared by museums and libraries argues that library professionals are well positioned to assume an art management role if the answers to these questions are affirmative. Both libraries and museums are collecting institutions. They have the same mission, collect and protect a part of our culture. While museums have unique collections libraries have a high degree of duplication between institutions. Yet, both have the same goals.20 Second, both institutions are leaders in information management. Both seek to make their collections accessible through cataloging and use manual and automated methods to process data. Libraries are certainly ahead of museums in using automation to document their collections but museums are fast catching up by developing standards for describing their collections, automating their catalogs, and exchan ing information with other institutions. ” Third, libraries and museums are dedicated to educational programing. While academic librarians are accustomed to teaching responsibilties at the reference desk, doing bibliographic instruction, supervising student assistants and conducting research, their counter- parts in museums do much the same work. In a campus setting, both art and library collections can be considered teaching or study collections. Fourth, both institutions are sensitive and aware of conservation

and preservation issues. While academic librarians are familiar with rare book and manuscript collections, museum personel are trained in the care of objects. Each presents similar challenges and expectations for a controlled environment. Fifth, the circulation of works is a part of the work of both institutions. While libraries circulate materials in quantity, museums loan objects or arrange for exhibitions and con- tinually circulate some works from their collections. The hilosophies and procedures are similar. g

Conclusion As the 21st century approaches, the dif-

ferences between these two worlds will become obscured and continue to fade. The library, on most campuses considered a neutral force supporting the whole of campus life, presents a way for the art collection at a college to be more than “a p.s. attached to the art department,” as one survey respondent wrote. It is often excel- lently positioned to exhibit works as well as maintain them. Academic librarians are particularly well equipped to assume reg- istrarial duties including cataloging of objects, documenting collections and planning for their proper maintenance and storage. They can also assume some cura- torial responsibilities, researching objects and providing information for brochures or catalogs. Many resources are available to assist them as they embark on meeting these new challenges.23

“A summary of the common characteristics shared by

museums and libraries argues that library professionals are well positioned to assume an

art management role if the answers to these questions are

affirmative.”

Librarians who choose to assume these responsibilities cannot expect to enjoy and become genuinely committed to their new role unless they also have a heartfelt commitment to art and celebrate the relevance and benefits of art on today’s campus. Over 50 years ago, Alfred Neumeyer wrote that “the college art gallery repre- sents part of an intellectual and humanistic setting” for a campu~.~~ More recently, Edith Tonelli spoke of the old question of “the conflicting missions of the preservation of culture and the education of the

public” within art museums and asserted that the new question emerging in the decade before the 21st century will be about the “role and influence of the art museum in defining western culture and a challenging of its traditional approach to the presentation of diverse cultural artifacts to expanding an interdependent world communities. “25 The future of our institutions will be the better for an expanded interpretation of our traditional library roles, thus acknowledging the con- tinuing change and enlarging scope of education.

Notes and References 1. Edith A. Tonelli, “The Art Museum,” in The Museum: A Reference Guide, edited by Michael S. Shapiro and Louis W. Kemp (New York: Greenwood Press, 1990) pp. 35-36. 2. Richard Grove, “Pioneers in American Museums: John Cotton Dana,” Museum News 56 (May-June 1978): 38-39. 3. Ibid., p. 88. 4. Steve Meckstroth, “Art in the Library,” Artbeat; The ARLIS/Midstates Chapter Newsletter 6 (Spring 1993): 2. 5. Marcia D. Young, “Our Heritage at Risk: The Closing of the University Museum (1861- 1991),” ACUMG Newsletter IX (May 1993): 10. 6. “The Elmhurst College Art Collection,” undated pamphlet. 7. Campus museums being threatened to close were at Oregon State University and the University of Southwest Louisiana. 8. Charles Harrison, “Some Colleges Review Commitment to Museums and Art Collections,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 25 (April 10, 1991): A28. 9. Jean C. Harris, Collegiate Collections: 1776-1876 (South Hadley, MA: Mt. Holyoke College, 1976), p. 8. 10. Ibid., pp.l5-17. 11. Andrew C. Ritchie, The Visual Arts in Higher Education (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 102-103. 12. Blanche C. Sloan and Bruce R. Swinbume, Campus Art Museums and Galleries: A Profile (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1981) p.10.; The Ojkial Museum Directory, 23rd ed. (New Providence, NJ: Bowker, 1992) pp. 1643- 1647. 13. Ritchie, The Visual Arts, pp. 95-96. 14. Sloan, Campus Art Museums, p. 25. 15. Letters accompanying my completed survey forms corroborate this point. One art department respondent noted, “As you may be able to tell by the responses to your questions, the situation with our permanent collection is far from ideal.” A special collections librarian replied that “In short, our college, like many others, is just now beginning to grapple with the problems inherent in discovering-almost suddenly-that we have a large fine arts

July 1994 165

collection accumulated through gifts over many years.” 16. Association of College and University Museums and Galleries, Current Issues in University Museums 1986 (Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University, 1986) pp. i-iii.; Association of College and University Museums and Galleries, ACUMG Survey 1991 (unpublished preliminary results, 1991). 17. “America’s Best Colleges,” US News & World Report 113 (September 28, 1992): 116, 120. 18. 1992-97 Planning Resource Book (Decorah, IA: Luther College, 1992) p. 1II.E.; “America’s Best Colleges,” p. 117. 19. The number of FIE staff/students assigned responsibility for the collection could not be accurately ascertained. I received such diverse answers that no conclusions could be drawn. Respondents mixed FTE’s with student assistants and staff so the range of answers was inconclusive. 20. Werner Gundersheimer, “Two Noble Kinsmen: Libraries and Museums,” Rare Books and Manuscripts Librarianship 3 (Fall 1988): 91-92. 21. Bobs M. Tusa, “An Overview of Applications of Automation to Special Collections: Rare Books and Art Collections,” Information Technology and Libraries 12 (September 1993): 344, 346.

22. Peter Homulos, “Museums to Libraries: A Family of Collecting Institutions,” Art Libraries Journal 15 (1990): 11-12. 23. Dorothy Dudley, Irma Wilkinson, and Others. Museum Registration Methods. 3rd ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1979), which serves as a basic and informative reference manual for museum professionals. A new edition is expected in 1995. Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1992), which documents the educational role of museums. Marie C. Malaro, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985), which examines legal issues museum professionals are likely to encounter. Professional Practices in Art Museums (New York: Association of Art Museum Directors, 1992), which includes guidelines for governance and policies for university and college museums in Appendix C. 24. Alfred Neumeyer, “The Function of the College Art Gallery,” The Museum News XVII (March 15, 1940): 6. 25. Tonelli, “The Art Museum”, p. 50.


Documents

Art in the library: Should academic libraries manage art?