For now and ever1

Peter van Mensch

Collecting is part of collection management, which - together with research and communication - is one of the three core functions of a museum. The development of an integrated view on collection management has led to a new approach to collecting as an instrument of collection development. This text presents an overview of the different aspects of collecting. It should be seen as a selection of building stones rather than as a finished structure. It provides no guidelines for framing collecting policies, but is meant primarily to facilitate developing a set of instruments to describe and analyse the actual practice of collecting.

1 Musealisation
Collecting may be defined as the decision to remove certain objects from the onward flow of time and to bestow upon them a permanent existence, a process also called 'musealisation'. More accurately phrased, collecting - as a form of musealisation - is bringing together objects of different provenances that had not previously been found together in the same constellation. A collection creates an idea of the past (and the present) in order to make it a possible entity for discussion in the present. It is also a gift to the generations to come, and in this respect we may speak of 'transfer of culture' to contemporary publics as well as to future societies. Culture criticism and amazement Much has been said and written on the psychology and sociology of collecting. It is impossible to give an unequivocal psychological, socio-psychological or sociological paradigm. As a social phenomenon collecting is probably too complex to understand in all its diversity. Paul Kuypers, director of De Balie, cultural centre, Amsterdam, considers the confrontation with - or rather the daydreaming into another world as a need for 'therapeutic tranquility in a strongly individualised society'. The interest in history and collecting as such is actually a kind of culture criticism. For Adriaan van der Staay, director Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, Rijswijk, it is the logical answer to the supremacy of our mid-century modernism. Others go one step further and look upon collecting as a protest against the instability of the world, against its transitoriness, against death and nothingness. On the other hand, collecting implies being fascinated by the unknown and amazed at its diversity, as well as attempting to get a grip on this unknown and

The text of this publication is the translated adaptation of the report on a series of discussions organised by the Nederlandse Museumvereniging (Netherlands Museums Association) in August and September 1992. This may explain why, besides the historical survey of the national debate on collecting in the Netherlands, the report itself is also written from a predominantly Dutch perspective, with the occasional example taken from situations in the Netherlands.

diverse quantity. Thus collecting is also a form of recording and classifying knowledge. A new phenomenon is collecting as a form of investment. This concerns almost exclusively the fine arts, and only to a lesser extent the applied arts. Although no idea of investing underlies the developing of a museum collection as such, this cannot escape its influence. Museum exhibitions and catalogues affect the market value of art, and (former) museum staff may act as investment consultants. At the same time it is becoming increasingly difficult for museums to buy works of art, while the pressure from outside to sell parts of the collection is mounting. Whatever its motivation and legitimation, collecting is no longer the domain of the initiated, the happy few; society as a whole is getting more and more involved in the preservation of cultural heritage. The sharply increased number of museum visits has been coupled with an equally sharp increase in active and passive participation in preservation activities as such. Hoarders of ephemera, once dismissed as eccentrics, are now applauded as invaluable repositories of local heritage (David Lowenthal). Like many of their fellow Europeans, the Dutch are displaying an unprecedented urge to collect: anything is collectible, the sky seems the limit. Institutionalisation Private collecting has a marked tendency to institutionalise itself. The first public museum, the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, originated from a private collection in 1677 and in the ensuing centuries many thousand museums all over the world were directly or indirectly based on collections brought together by private collectors. Even today, establishing one's own museum is the secret dream of many a collector, no matter what the collection, be it modern art or cigarette lighters. The process of institutionalising goes hand in hand with professionalisation. Rational grounds are prevailing over intuitive and spontaneous considerations to explicate legitimacy. This involves a shift in attention from the display of an object with its intrinsic qualities, via research into diversity and development, to the documentation of themes. These perspectives on collecting will differ according to time and place, but especially according to the type of museum. The differences concern primarily the function of the collection. Collecting is no aim in itself, and creating an image of the present or the past isn't either. It is not even a means, but above all a result of its orientation on one (or more) of three basic legitimations: its archival function (also called documentary function), its research function, and its public function (also called museum function). Legitimation These orientations may be supplementary, but they can also be conflicting. No museum would ever legitimise its collecting policy exclusively by its archival function. In actual practice either the public function or a combination of the archival and the research function are the driving force of the collecting policy. For most, if not all, art museums the storage room is a necessary evil. Their collecting premise is `display quality'. At the other end of the scale collections of stale air (as collected by the American national agency for oceanic and atmospheric research) have a very important scientific archival value. Where in the latter instance there is no question of public function (unless the air is contained in an object of special

historical or aesthetical value), the premise of the former need not be inconsistent with the archival function. The collection policy of technical museums in the Netherlands is strongly focused on the archival function, while an inquiry among Dutch cultural history museums in 1988 showed that these museums grosso modo have strongly public-oriented collecting policies. The themes of the presentations influence their collecting policies. In this respect natural history museums show a marked difference between the large national and the small local museums, with the medium-sized regional museums standing midway. The national and regional museums have a direct link between (part of the) collection and research. But all natural history museums, whatever their size, regularly purchase purpose-stuffed animals for thematic exhibitions. As deaccessioning after the exhibitions have ended is seen as destruction of capital, the eventual results are lopsided collections. Research collections Few museums are able to exhibit their whole collections permanently. An English survey has shown that on average some 20% of the collection is on display, varying from 1% in natural history museums to 40% in transport museums. Since the introduction of the bipartite museum model in the middle of the nineteenth century, museums have learned to live with the idea of storage rooms. At that time a clear distinction was made between presentation and storage, which automatically gave rise to the antithesis public/user collection and research/archival collection. Public collections arise from exhibitions, and may be of a temporary nature. Research collections arise from research or from preresearch initiatives. These collections retain their value even after the relevant research has been concluded. There can be quite a difference in the relation between museum research and academic research, depending on the kind of museum involved. A symposium on `Het voorwerp als historische bron' (The object as a historical source) on 26 May 1982 discussed the question as to what extent museums of history should deliberately focus on researchers as a target group. It was found that the thread linking the world of academic research and the museum ambience was rather tenuous. Historians have, also because of their university training, always been more archive-directed than museum-directed. Within the anthropological discipline the rise of non-western sociology has created museum anthropologists and institutional anthropologists, each dealing with different aspects of non-western societies. Due to the renewed interest in material culture a gradual reunion of the two now seems to materialise. In (prehistoric and classical) archaeological research there is hardly any difference between museum archaeologists and institutional archaeologists. In biology the typical museum research specialism, taxonomy, has its own distinctive place. After a period of relative neglect this specialism now appears to be up for revaluation. Just as archaeology, palaeontology is, of course, pre-eminently collection-oriented. For art museums, especially museums of contemporary art, there is an additional responsibility, which is not completely covered by the research and public functions: the responsibility for art and the artist. Public collections are, as it were, the yardsticks for the fine arts. In the same way many museums of applied art all over the world owe their existence to the express wish to improve the quality of industrial mass products.

Networks For technical and industrial heritage, museums are not the only bodies responsible for its management and care. Some companies have their own historical collections. In such cases, however, there is no guarantee of continuity. To what extent do companies have an `obligation to preserve'? Should museums feel responsible for the care and possible housing of corporate collections? There is no single answer to this question. Some museums are able to make arrangements with companies on objects that are still being used. Such `preservation plans' have, for instance, already been made by the Koninklijk Nederlands Leger- en Wapenmuseum (the Royal Dutch Army and Arms Museum) and the Ministry of Defense, and by the Nederlands Spoorwegmuseum (the Dutch Railway Museum) and the Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Netherlands Railways). The ideal situation would be for museums to develop a framework for collecting, based on a thorough study of the developments in a certain area and an inventory of its characteristic objects. But even so, museums will not be able to cover the whole field. Thus an important task is reserved for the private collector. An important group of non-museum collections is formed by the collections of universities. A nationwide survey in the Netherlands has revealed as many as 130 university collections. Some of these can be seen as object archives (e.g. instruments), whose importance lies predominantly in the fields of cultural history or the history of science. They did not come into being as collections, but resulted from `natural accumulation'. The greater part of university collections, however, are the result of deliberate collecting for teaching or research purposes, and a distinction can be made between active and passive collections. In the case of passive collections research has been concluded. They may be of current interest as reference collections, but lead a dormant existence. Active collections are still being researched or actively used for teaching purposes. Geological, palaeontological, and archaeological collections are a case apart. Many countries have museum collections as well as university collections. Relations between museums and university research institutes are problematical. Researchers regard everything as archival material and refuse to select. At the same time they do not consider themselves long-time custodians of the collections. Museums have to bear the brunt of this point of view: they do consider themselves long-term custodians, but are faced with lack of space and staff. The greatest problem with university collections is their lack of continuity and adequate infrastructure. Qua organisation the universities are not equipped for collection management while merging and/or discontinuing of departments and sections are not conducive to collecting policies either. Collections break adrift and if no solutions are found there is every chance that important scholarly or scientific material is lost. There is a striking diversity in non-museum institutions that collect fine arts, for instance in companies and art lending libraries or centres. At the moment there are probably just as many companies as museums with collections of contemporary art. Initially corporate collections were restricted to portraits and pictures of the company premises, but this field was widened after World War II. Thus corporate collections became in fact the continuation of what was formerly done by collecting executives. The development of corporate collections in the Netherlands was documented by two exhibitions: `Kunst in bedrijfsleven (Art in Business)' in 1950 and `Kunstzaken (Art Matters)' in 1988. A few collections have

managed to evolve into `real' museums. Their fortunes are, however, tightly linked to the economic position of their companies, and, like university collections, there is always the danger of these collections breaking adrift. Division and cohesion Documenting contemporary `ensembles' - such as the machines, equipment, and archives, etc. of companies and factories - entails special problems. There is only a vague borderline between objects (like equipment and products) on the one hand, and two-dimensional documentation (like drawings, invoices, correspondence) on the other. Objects generally devolve upon museums, company archives upon local or provincial archives, but what is the fate of less well-defined categories such as floor plans and blueprints? No agreement has been reached about an adequate methodology in this respect. But even if clear and definite arrangements have been made as to shared responsibility by museum and archival institution, problems may arise. Archives apply criteria for selection and classification that are different from those of museums, and this may in due course result in the two falling out of step, so that the archival institutions can no longer respond to questions from the museums. On the other hand the former may have problems with the way in which museums deal with archival material. Private collectors. Among the various collecting bodies the private collectors are a group apart. Many museums have their origins in private collections. From the museum point of view private collectors add a welcome complement to museum tasks, notably in their exploration of new collecting fields. Because of their independence, their obstinacy and sometimes because of their financial means, private individuals can assemble collections that are as yet outside the sphere of interest of the established museums. In this connection museum curators sometimes regard collaboration with private collectors as `delegating risks'. For recent developments the private sector can - and usually is expected to - act as a sieve. The art of destroying Deliberate collecting is also deliberate non-collecting. In a cynical vein one might say that collectors carefully select the objects that will disappear in time, an implication of collecting that has been described as `the art of destroying'. In the widest perspective, research into `the negative of the collection' is just as interesting as research into the contents of what has been actually collected. What, for instance, is the reason why local history museums in the Netherlands have so far paid little or no attention to women's history and the social history of all sorts of ethnic minority groups? Why is it that modern art museums pay hardly any attention to the contemporary art of non-western societies in their collecting policies? The process of musealisation itself, however, also entails a form of destruction: destroying information. This destruction involves all three levels of information: physical characteristics, significance and context. Loss of physical information can be observed in its most extreme form in natural history museums. Herbaria (botanical museums) often collect only parts of plants (it would be difficult to collect a tree in toto). Zoological museums do collect whole animals, but as a rule only a limited part is preserved (skin, skeleton).

By definition collecting means alienating the object from its original contexts. Talking about industrial archaeology the social historian Harry van den Eerenbeemt made a plea for keeping historic objects in their original setting (in situ): if the historic object is to retain its full potential for the historian, then it should be visited in its own environment, and not be broken away from its roots. As a historian Van den Eerenbeemt is afraid for loss of information due to the interpretation of the museum curator. Collecting to increase knowledge When an object is removed from its original context and put in a new - i.e. a museum - context, the result is not only loss of information. Bringing objects together in a collection can also increase insight into developments of past and present, provided the collection has an inner coherence that lends it greater value than is provided by the sum of its constituent parts. The individual objects derive (part of) their meaning from being confronted with other objects and the thematic concept of the composition and organisation of the collection. In this connection the Czech museologist Zbynek Stransky uses the word `thesaurization'. The most important instrument for ongoing development of collections has always been collecting itself. Memoranda, reports, manuals, etc., appearing in the course of the 1970s and 1980s, stressed the significance of collecting plans, aimed at filling gaps on the one hand, and updating by observing recent developments on the other. In this connection the word `quality' suddenly emerged in Dutch memoranda at the end of the 1980s. Promoting the inner coherence and the distinctive profile of the collection, based on a sharply delineated fundamental principle, was considered more emphatically than before to be the core of a collecting policy. But the growth of the collection - in other words continued collecting - may have a negative effect on the quality and the accessibility of the collection. Of all the instruments of collection management, deaccessioning - in the sense of `negative collecting' - was strongly emphasised. To optimalise collections a method of selecting was proposed that divided objects into different categories. Such a selection could be a guideline for `weeding'. Especially for art museums the term `upgrading' is used in this respect. `Upgrading' by `weeding' is, however, not unchallenged. In some leading Dutch publications of the early twentieth century the weeding option was still happily advocated, but doubt was rearing its head during a meeting of the Nederlandse Museumvereniging in 1952. `What is your opinion on museums deaccessioning objects that had previously been admitted to the collection but do no longer fit into the present museum programme? Does removal of such objects not imply that the hands of future museum directors are already tied in advance?' was the question put to the speakers on that occasion. Besides arguments in favour, the recent discussion on deaccessioning also provided strong arguments against. It would seem that in the course of the century especially those against have underpinned their arguments. Deaccessioning There may be several reasons to contemplate deaccessioning. A practical reason is creating space in the storage rooms and providing relief for registration and conservation. This is a matter of quantitatively decreasing the collection. However, deaccessioning is not only a quantitative concept. Selecting objects to be deaccessioned requires prior valuation. This has to be done in an `absolute' sense

(market value) as well as in a relative sense (their value in relation to the museum's definition of purpose). In the case of valuation in a relative sense, deaccessioning can be an instrument of a dynamic collecting policy, where parts of the collection are exchanged for objects of a higher value. The high market value of some objects may put pressure on a careful consideration of their relative value. In this connection the phrase `commercial deaccessioning' is used. There may be various reasons to refuse deaccessioning, one of them being the delicate relations with potential donors. One may wonder to what extent a deaccessioning policy may diminish their willingness to donate. In the case of objects of modern art there is also the matter of betraying the trust of the artists. Often museums buy directly and at a lower price from the artists because of personal relations. A different situation arises when a collection has been brought together on the basis of mutual agreements between museums. It should not be possible for one of the parties to make a unilateral decision to change the policy, particularly if there has been an exchange of collections. Historicity One of the most important arguments against deaccessioning is respect for the history of the collection: the historicity of the collection is injured more by deaccessioning than by accessioning. The composition of collections reflects a development of knowledge. Old collections are, in fact, an accumulation of `fossilised world views', each one covering the next, like matruskas, the wooden Russian dolls. This holds for all categories of museums, not least for art museums. Directors of museums of contemporary art do not attempt to document movements in art history systematically and encyclopaedically. On the whole they do not adhere to the `principle of representativeness', but decide either on specific artists or on individual works. Initially it is a matter of personal choice: the direct contact between the director or curator with the artists plays a significant role. On the other hand there is also the responsibility for the collection that is already there, which implies that nuclei in the collection must be developed and expanded. This procedure observes the respect for the idiosyncratic character of the collection, while also promoting its being updated. For scientific collections it is also important to research the extend of variation of a particular species, so that series of specimens are needed. Strictly speaking no duplicates exist in scientific natural history collections that can be deaccessioned. Rationalisation The tension between freedom and bondage is felt strongest in art museums. Jan Vaessen, the director of the Nederlands Openlucht Museum (Netherlands Open Air Museum), advocated the creative input of the director. He is convinced that a collection based on an explicit vision rises above a collection with a random, individual origin. Professional museological literature, on the other hand, advocates the development of rational criteria to raise a collection above the individual origin. The example of a rationalised collecting policy quoted most often is the SAMDOK project in Sweden. This collaboration of Swedish museums was started in 1977 to record contemporary Swedish society methodically and systematically by means of collections and documentation. Its starting-point is to distinguish a number of sectors in society and to divide these sectors into areas for

special study. A number of aspects from each of these areas is scrupulously documented by some of the collaborating museums. Although SAMDOK is often quoted, the Swedish example has not (yet) been followed by any other country. Growing and outgrowing Collecting leads ipso facto to a growing collection. Contrary to what has happened in the library world, little research into the nature of collection growth has been done in museums. Hardly any attention was paid to growth in the museum field anyway, until some five years ago: a phenomenon seems to qualify only for attention from the moment it is considered a problem. Obviously, until the middle of the 1980s the museum world did not feel - or refused to feel - growth to be a problem. After a number of surveys, notably the investigation into cultural history collections (by an external agency, Intomart Qualitatief), the Nederlandse Museumvereniging devoted its springtime meeting in 1988 to the issue of quality and quantity. The conclusion drawn at the end of the day was that growth had reached its limits and that solutions had to be found for better control of collections. There was no consensus as to how this should be achieved. The Intomart Qualitatief survey confirmed the data resulting from the enquiry into the state of museums in the provinces of South Holland and Limburg by Han Meeter, now a lecturer at the Reinwardt Academie. The average growth of collections is 1-10% per annum. American surveys show similar results, albeit that the percentages per museum category are widely divergent. Meeter also observed that an other factor influencing the growth rate was the museum's `stage of life': young museums with a relatively small collection can have a growth rate of 30% or more. As museums become larger, the percentage appears to become stable. In absolute figures it means that the larger the museum, the more objects it acquires. Overdevelopment During the above-mentioned meeting of the Nederlandse Museumvereniging the concept of `development and overdevelopment' was elaborated. On the whole one may assume that the practical value of a collection increases along with its growth (the `development situation'). At a given moment a point will be reached that - all resources remaining the same - marks the limit of its potential (the critical mass). Continued growth will make the collection unmanageable and will not increase its practical value; on the contrary, this may even decrease (the `overdevelopment situation'). The limiting factors are the size of the storage rooms, passive and active conservation possibilities, and adequate registration and documentation facilities. In theory it is possible to determine an optimum situation for each collection. The subjective perception of having reached the critical point will be different for each individual. In many cases the average museum staff have learned to live with the situation as it is. They have a higher level of tolerance than the interested outsider, whose amazement may turn into lack of understanding or anger at a situation that they consider unacceptable. Others may be attracted by a chaotic collection, which to them holds something romantic and mysterious, and for several artists this was a source of inspiration. For museum professionals such collections may also have a romantic appeal: discoveries may be made. In this connection the term `museum archaeology' has recently emerged in museum circles to indicate the search for lost items of the collection.

The cost of collecting The `critical mass' problem is principally a financial problem. In the second half of the 1980s the influence of the rapidly rising art prices on the collecting policies of museums received quite a lot of media attention. There was, however, little understanding of the true acquisition costs, or the long-term financial consequences of acquisitions. In 1988 the British Office of Arts & Libraries commissioned an enquiry into the costs involved in the developing and managing of museum collections. The results were laid down in a report published in 1989, The Cost of Collecting. Besides mapping the different kinds of costs it tried to gain some information as to the height of these costs and the respective differences related to the kind of collections and the type of museums. The research group itemised the following costs:
A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. B 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Initial cost of acquisition [`investment'] purchase [price of the object, auction fees, appraisal, transport, etc.] curatorial [research, documentation, etc.] documentation [accessioning, filling in inventory cards, etc.] conservation storage [creating suitable storage facilities] Operational costs for management and care curatorial functions for collections management [research, publications, etc.] documentation [updating information] stock-taking research conservation security building maintenance and repair overload administrative overload

The sum total of all costs connected with collecting and managing a collection is on average two-third of the museum's whole budget. Comparison with recent American research gave an almost similar specification of costs. The American calculations showed that objects in storage cost on average $ 120 per annum, against $ 3,000 for objects on display. Of course these are just average figures. Nevertheless, this way of costing clearly shows that external funding which only covers the actual purchase price of an object, does by no means cover the true costs involved in the acquisition.

2 Forms of preservation
Coping with the conflicting interests (archival, research and public) does not only determine the choice of objects to be collected and the way in which the collection is organised, but also the way in which information is recorded. In general the focal point is `the authentic object', but in actual practice a happy medium must be sought between the wishes ensuing from the three functions mentioned above, and conservation feasibilities. In natural history museums conservation for objects in the research collection differs from those in the public collection. As a result both collections are increasingly becoming less interchangeable, so that it is often necessary to start collecting anew for exhibition purposes. Pars pro toto

10

In a number of cases preservation of the original object is simply impossible. Large and complex objects, like shops, derricks, refineries, etc., are difficult to preserve in toto. They require alternative ways of being documented. The choice of preserving the whole object or only part of it depends on (1) practical considerations, (2) the scholarly or scientific (sub)discipline for which the collection is built, and (3) the development of research within this discipline. Conservation problems A different problem appears with materials which, for technical reasons, can only be preserved with the greatest possible effort, or not at all. This is definitely the case with audiovisual and sound archives. The situation concerning nitrate film is extremely serious, but already problems have started with the early acetate film as well. The storage life of video and sound tapes appears to be only very limited. Another problem is formed by the rapid succession of recording and playback equipment. If the original systems have been superseded by new ones, it may prove impossible to retrieve the data from some of the carriers. In this connection it was observed during the Wijenburg debates that we simply have to accept the fact that some materials are so perishable and some equipment so sophisticated, that preserving them is impossible. Therefore the actual information contained in certain objects will have to be preserved and made accessible in other ways than by preserving the object itself. But even if there is no acute conservation problem qua material, one may wonder if it is realistic to preserve certain advanced equipment. Increasingly curators and restorers of technical collections have to accept that it is impossible to understand how a device or a machine works, while in the course of time such expertise will no longer be found outside the museum walls either. Another problem is the inherent limits of the object as data carrier, and this calls for other solutions. From time to time the Department of Dutch History of the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum focuses attention on a certain aspect of society by commissioning a series of photographs. Thus particular aspects are documented that are hardly ever recorded in collections. Preservation of working exhibits An interesting issue in technical museums is the matter of `preserving working exhibits'. What is the role of the actual function of the object? Should a clock run or should it be stopped? The answer to this question has definite implications for the collecting policy. Preservation of working objects, also called operative objects, is not only a decision made in connection with the public function of the museum, but is also considered a fundamental part of conservation (`It 's better to wear out than to rust out'). Moreover, working exhibits preserve the knowledge about how the objects were used, while in some cases their products even bring in a little money. On the other hand, using them actually implies using them up. That is why some museums have dual collections: a display collection, that can be used up and a reserve collection to be preserved. Another alternative is the use of copies or models to explain how these objects work. Repairs will be necessary from time to time to keep an object operative, and this requires spare parts. But after a period of time spare parts will no longer be

11

available. They will then have to be taken from other items (`cannibalisation'). An option would be to acquire two or more identical objects at the same time.

3 Forms of collecting
There are different ways form has something to distinction can be made contemporary, and active of specifying the various forms of collecting and each contribute to the development of the collection. A between internal versus external, retrospective versus versus passive collecting.

Internal and external collecting External collecting (also called direct collecting) is the collecting method described at the beginning of chapter two, when an object is musealised straight from its original context. But many objects enter a museum collection indirectly. This route, called internal collecting (or indirect collecting), runs via private collectors, trading, and sometimes via other museums. Although the early nineteenth-century collecting trips by museum director Reinwardt yielded considerable natural history (and ethnology) collections, the Dutch museums of natural history and ethnology remained largely dependent on the private and professional collectors not connected to any museum, till late into the twentieth century. It was unusual for a museum curator to go on a field trip himself. In Dutch ethnological museums the `study-collecting-trip' phenomenon only started developing in 1965. This caused a complete change of emphasis in collecting policies. It allowed for a more differentiated representation of contemporary daily life in non-western societies. For Museums of Old Masters private collectors and the art market also play an important role. This applies to museums of contemporary art as well, in the sense that while they do have the chance of collecting externally, i.e. from the artists themselves, their choices are greatly influenced by the interplay of collectors and the art market. The way in which this influence is established is the subject of a large number of - especially journalistic - publications. Retrospective and contemporary collecting. Apart from natural history museums - which by definition have contemporary collecting where living nature is concerned - collecting policies of museums have always had a strongly retrospective orientation. With regard to contemporary matters it has always been considered imperative to allow for a `period of incubation', in order to be able to select more carefully, supported by the `wisdom of hindsight'. This is the reason why the national museums in the Netherlands were very restrained in purchasing contemporary art at the beginning of the twentieth century. The consensus was that a well-considered opinion was only possible some ten years after the artist had died, or some twenty-five years after the art object had been made. For public records and monument protection a (legal) period of fifty years has been customary for ages. The present process of `shrinking the present' has put pressure on this period; the bill for a new Public Records Act in the Netherlands has shortened this period to twenty years. The idea of observing a period of critical reflection before purchasing contemporary art has long since been superseded. The financial market structure

12

has made a well-considered, mature opinion an almost prohibitive luxury. The shrinking of the present, caused by the acceleration of the ageing process, also has its effects on other cultural history museums, especially museums of history and of technology. The life cycle of many categories of objects is so brief, that retrospective collecting is wellnigh impossible. Some museums of technology, for instance, already have existing claims on equipment that is still fully used. In other sectors of cultural heritage preservation (archives, books) there are systems of a voluntary copyright library or a dpot lgal. Suggestions have been made to demand the producing institutions (industry) to share the `burden of preservation'. In this respect private collectors also play an important part. In the first place they are more inclined to take risks. For many categories of objects they constitute the first phase of musealisation. It is the world of collectors (and traders) which then undertakes the process of critical evaluation that eventually may lead to accessioning the object into museum collections. The selection problems involved in documenting one's own culture and time also lead to a growing consciousness with respect to retrospective collecting. One such aspect is the relation between the value of data carried by the object, and the stage of its life cycle. In other words, does documenting the object imply documenting its design, its production or its consumption (reception); is the object documented in the fully developed stage of its application potential or as an object that is physically and functionally obsolete; is the object documented as originally used or in a later stage of recycling? Contemporary collecting gives an extra dimension to the deaccessioning debate. The (little) weight attached to the `test of time' as a selection criterion is inversely proportional to the criticism of future generations. How much room is available to undo mistakes? Or should `mistakes' rather be respected as a sign of the times? In American museums a partial solution to this problem has been sought by distinguishing between 'acquisition' and `accession'. Acquisition is what is (passively or actively) acquired. This is a form of first selection, followed by a second selection process, when a number of criteria are applied to see whether or not the object should be officially and definitively allowed to become part of the collection (accessioned). To a certain extent this is comparable to the forms of temporary collecting found in Dutch museums. Some ethnological museums collect specifically for exhibitions by means of fieldwork. Only a small part of the material is eventually accessioned into the actual museum collection. The rest is relegated to the education department as `use collection' (`commodity collection'), or in some cases to the museum shop, to be sold. Museums of contemporary art often organise exhibitions based on loans from the artists themselves or sometimes from the commercial art galleries, but only a limited number of the objects involved find their way to the permanent collection. Active and passive collecting Active collecting means that the initiative is taken by the museum; when the initiative to transfer objects to the care of the museum is taken by others, it is called passive collecting. Active collecting (like purchasing, fieldwork, loans, or commissions) provides better opportunities to steer collection development than passive collecting (donations, bequests), but active collecting is expensive in terms of money, expertise and time. An enquiry into the state of museums in the province of Limburg showed that on average 40% of the collection had been

13

actively acquired. There appeared to be a marked difference between large and small museums: an active policy proved to be far more difficult for the small, private museums than for the large, mostly local government, museums. The former had acquired 35% of their collections by purchases, loans, fieldwork, and commissions, as against 75% of the latter. Actually, the word `passive' is to a certain extent misleading. A museum can stimulate donations and bequests in many ways. Important donations are often the result of good relations with Friends or other supporters. For the major art museums an active purchasing policy has proved a stimulus for donors. Purchasing Purchasing enables a museum to have an active collecting policy. However, developments in the art market make this increasingly difficult for art museums. Museums have become heavily dependent on serendipity, but even so their own financial means prove to be insufficient. The suggestion made by one of the speakers at the 1991 autumn meeting of the Nederlandse Museumvereniging, that a few museums might jointly purchase an expensive object, was hardly considered a feasible alternative by the participants. What does happen is increasing prior consultation, to prevent Dutch museums from bidding against each other at auctions. Inadequate means have led to all kind of initiatives, especially to the formation of funds. Some museums receive special funding from Friends organisations, museum shops, etc. Others try to set up a purchasing fund by selling parts of their collections. In the private sector there are several funds that support museums in their collection development. In the Netherlands, central government has also established a foundation for this purpose, besides a purchasing grant scheme for contemporary art. Donation and bequest Art museums, especially in their initial stage, have always been heavily dependent on the initiative and generosity of private benefactors. Not only individual works of art, but whole collections have been donated or bequeathed to existing museums or have become the original core of newly founded museums. In the Netherlands, central government has always played a modest role. During a symposium organised by the Mauritshuis, The Hague, in 1990, the government was blamed for its continuing unwillingness to create a favourable tax environment promoting private collection development and donations to museums. An arrangement such as the 'acceptance en lieu', which permits the donating of works of art instead of paying death duty, does not exist in the Netherlands. In other museum sectors such problems do not play an equally prominent role, but private donors are still very important. The increased value of art and antiques has led to a decrease in the number of donations, especially on a local level. The fact mentioned above, that 65% of the collections of small museums in the province of Limburg consist of donations and bequests, reveals the vulnerable situation of this museum category. Moreover, there is a trend among the youngest generation of non-art collectors nt to donate their collections, but to establish their own museums.

14

However, there are often drawbacks attached to donations and bequests. In the past, objects have repeatedly been accepted that have not struck root in the collection in the course of time, objects that have remained 'mavericks', or in hindsight do not meet the desired qualitative criteria. In a number of cases a donation was accepted with the underlying idea that it might be the core for a new expansion of the collection, but developing an active policy based on passive acquisition has not always proved successful. The donation of a group of objects may also be accepted because it contains some good and useful items. In such cases many museums consider deaccessioning advisable and permissible, provided the donation is not encumbered with restrictions. Loans In view of what has been said above it will cause no surprise that the importance of loans to complement a museum's own collection has strongly increased. On the whole it is a matter of temporary loans for exhibitions. Concomitant to the increase in the number of exhibitions is an increase in interlending, which is not without problems. Joost Willink of the Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst (Netherlands Office of Fine Arts) has summarised the problems in the Dutch quarterly Museumvisie. A major problem is the cost of insurance. Central government has tried to help by creating a long-awaited `indemnity scheme' for the national museums. An additional problem is that ever higher demands are made on transport and accompanying couriers, also by insurance companies, which greatly raise the costs involved. Another new phenomenon is that lenders often require some financial compensation, so that the interests of lender and borrower are becoming increasingly divergent. A solution might be the exchange of loans, but this leaves a large number of especially small museums in the cold, since they have `nothing' to offer in exchange. They lack what is called in the United States `borrowing power'. Besides, the smaller museums (but they are not the only ones) are faced with ever higher conservation requirements made by the lenders and/or the insurance companies. During a meeting of the art museums section of the Nederlandse Museumvereniging in June 1982 another problem was discussed. It appeared that certain art museums did not want to lend works of art for theme exhibitions, arguing that the visual experience of a work of art would be impaired by emphasising an iconographical aspect. Apart from temporary loans museums often also have long-term loans to supplement their permanent or semi-permanent displays. Loans can upgrade an exhibition, but a museum depending too much on such loans is in a very vulnerable position. Loans, from private individuals as well as from other museums, can at a certain moment be revoked. An extreme example of what might happen occurred when the Maritiem Museum Prins Hendrik asked for all their loans back (for registration and conservation purposes). As a consequence the local history museum Gesigt van `t Dok, in Hellevoetsluis, had no option but to close the museum as there was hardly anything interesting left to show after the Maritiem Museum had revoked its loans. The Amsterdam Rijksmuseum only accepts loans for a period of at least two years, with a guaranteed right of first refusal if the objects were to be put up for sale. Fieldwork

15

Fieldwork as a form of external collecting plays an important role in archaeology, ethnology and natural history museums. For these museums it is the only way of obtaining sufficient documentation and context information. Moreover, doing fieldwork is, in fact, the only way of becoming familiar with the area of research. A problem may arise when collections brought together by fieldwork fall under the care of the museums via the mechanism of internal collecting. Notably in the fields of archaeology, biology and geology there are bodies that do fieldwork and consequently amass collections without having any preservation duties. The follow-up has not always been equally well organised. Collecting by fieldwork entails a number of specific ethical (and legal) problems, more than other forms of acquisitions. In a number of cases, for instance with regard to fieldwork abroad, this form of external collecting is difficult or even impossible for ethical or legal reasons. In such cases internal collecting is the only possibility, but this causes ethical and legal problems of a different kind (illicit trafficking). Collecting premises Besides the typology of collecting forms mentioned above, another typology can be made, depending on the premises of collecting. These premises will depend on the characteristic features of the collection. As a detailed description of such a typology is outside the scope of this publication a brief list may suffice. A distinction can be made between: collecting masterpieces, systematicencyclopaedic collecting, chronological-evolutionary collecting, ecological collecting, and thematic collecting. Collecting masterpieces is especially seen in art museums, more particularly in museums of modern art. Many museums focus on a few artists or a few art movements. Although the artists are seen as representatives of a certain movement, or a movement as representative of a certain period, the underlying idea is not to give a complete picture of art production in a certain period. The museum's collection is rather seen as an indicator of artistic quality than as an encyclopaedic research collection. Systematic-encyclopaedic collecting is typical of the traditional natural history museums, which want to document the immense variety of forms in living nature and to make them accessible for research. Geological/palaeontological and archaeological museums add to this a chronological perspective. In cultural history museums it is especially the museums of technology that have from the very beginning been focused on documenting development, especially in the sense of cultural progress. Ecological collecting wants to record material and functional connections. It is the starting-point of what has been called `the new collecting' in museums of natural history, ethnology, folklore and technology. In the cultural historical ambience this manifests itself in collecting complete workshops and interiors. The ultimate consequence of the ecological premise is functional preservation `in situ'. Finally there are museums that have opted for a thematic premise. This is especially the case with cultural history museums in the more limited sense of the word, which are increasingly choosing this approach. Based on historical research they select some relevant themes that are further developed in the collection.

16

4 Ethics and collecting

The debate on the ethics of collecting (and deaccessioning) can boast a long tradition. The first official code of ethics of the International Council of Museums was concerned with collecting. This ICOM Ethical Acquisition Code (1970) was for the greater part adopted in the later ICOM Code of Professional Ethics (1986). Preservation responsibility The Code of Professional Ethics requires a museum to `adopt and publish a written statement of its collecting policy'. Museums are expected to restrict themselves to objects that are relevant to the purpose and activities of the museum, while they should also refrain from acquiring objects of which it will be clear in advance that they are difficult to store, conserve or exhibit. With regard to the last issue the ICOM Ethical Acquisition Code is more specific. It also states that the museum should not acquire objects that are not relevant to the purpose of the museum, but distinguishes between the public task, the research task and the archival task. In other words, the exhibitry factor as such is no standard in itself. In addition this Code mentions the possibility of collecting objects in order to exchange them with fellow institutions later on. None of the existing codes of ethics mention the responsibility of museums as possible shelters for objects that have not yet found their eventual (museum) destination. A plea for such a task has inter alia been made by Van den Eerenbeemt within the framework of industrial archaeology. The `breaking adrift' of historical and scientific material when factories and research institutes are being closed, demands quick action. A form of temporary shelter makes it possible to determine the importance of the collection, or parts of it, and to look for a place where the objects might find their proper niche. There is a restriction of preservation responsibility in the case of loans. The code of ethics of the American Association of Museums, published in 1978, stated that museums need not undertake the care of loans at any cost. Although loans may considerably raise the quality of a collection, museums should realise that exhibiting an object may strongly influence the market value of an object. Moreover, lending objects to a museum may be a way out for the owner to save on the cost of conservation, security, and insurance. Negative effects of collecting The 1986 ICOM Code assumes that museums should play a leading role in the efforts to halt the continuing destruction of the world's natural and cultural treasures. The collecting policies of museums should not lead to the disturbance of meaningful contexts. This applies to the threat to ecosystems by collecting plants and animals, as well as to the disturbance of archaelogical findspots by excavating. A specific situation occurs when objects with an important cultural or cult meaning are collected. The ICOM Code does not pronounce upon this matter, but it is in accordance with the spirit of the Code that museums should be aware of the special meaning that certain objects have for certain communities.

17

The ICOM Code is explicit in stating that the illicit trade in objects encourages the destruction of cultural and natural heritage. Museums should therefore discourage the illicit market by refusing to accept objects (either through commercial channels or as donation, bequest, loan or in exchange) without valid proof of provenance. During a meeting on the subject of ethics organised by the Nederlandse Museumvereniging in February 1991 Harrie Leyten, curator of the Amsterdam Tropenmuseum, has qualified this viewpoint. In his opinion it is imperative in certain cases to withdraw objects from the illicit market in order to safeguard their survival or their availability. In such cases museums can act as short- or long-term temporary custodians for a community that is somehow not able to look after its own heritage. A current subject of discussion is the ethics of collecting biological material. There are two vital questions: (1) is it still justified to collect plants and animals in view of the present threat to biodiversity (the diversity of life on earth), and (2) does collecting and exhibiting biological material show enough respect for nature? But the discussion about these two aspects did not go beyond merely drawing attention to the existing dilemmas and the complexity of the issues instead of developing new approaches. A certain difference of opinion - a difference of approach, at any rate - could be observed between the representatives of the large scientific institutions and the smaller, more public-oriented museums. There is an area of tension between the principle of nature conservation and the principle of animal protection. Where a scientific institution may work from the premise that non-endangered populations will suffer little from collecting activities, an educational museum with local connections will be much more tied to its supporters' perception of their environment (which is often interpreted politically). It is a problem that arises with regard to collecting (in this case a euphemism for killing) rather than exhibiting. Dead animals, especially if well mounted, are accepted fairly easily by the public. But do we still need them for the story we want to bring across? The discussion on ethics raises the question whether the required information could not be conveyed in other ways than through conserved plants and animals. Would it not be sufficient if only genetic material were collected? This brought forth a unanimous `No'. No `gene bank' can ever replace the museum, for the complete organism and its variations are wanted. Only a small part of DNA is expressed, and since we do not know the processes involved, preserving only the genes will not be sufficient. Professional co-operation It is expected of museums that they are aware of each other's spheres of interest when formulating their collecting policies. Museums should appreciate each other's scope of collecting, and avoid collecting material that is important for other museums without prior notice. This applies especially to field study. Plans for field studies and collecting should be discussed in advance with all museums and/or university institutions with similar or overlapping interests in the area or country where this is to take place. The 1970 ICOM Code had the additional proviso that in the case of fieldwork abroad, the material - after being processed - should be put at the disposal of the authorities of the country of origin, to be placed in a national or regional museum. Return and restitution

18

When UNESCO appointed an `Intergovernmental Committee of promoting the return of cultural property to its country of origin or its restitution in case of illicit appropriation' in 1978, a distinction was explicitly made between `giving back' i.e. `return', and `restitution'. Restitution means the transfer of objects that can be demonstrated to have illegally left the country to whose cultural heritage they belong (belonged). Return is used when ownership of objects has indeed been transferred within the existing terms of the law, although there may be misgivings as to the moral justification of the transfer. The committee was appointed after the UNESCO `Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' in 1970. Many western countries,(including the Netherlands) have not yet signed this convention. This makes the voluntary acceptance by museums of the principles as explained above, of the utmost importance. It applies to collecting and deaccessioning policies alike.

5 Seventy-five years of national debate in the Netherlands

According to the 1976 government memorandum Naar een nieuw museumbeleid (Towards a new Museum Policy) it is the task of central government to draw up guidelines for a collecting policy and to `further a satisfactory allocation of tasks between the different museums and to locate and remedy any shortcomings in our collections.' New areas of collecting must be recognised in time: interconnection as an issue of national care. At last, after more than half a century, central government recognised its responsibility in this field. As early as 1918 the Nederlandsche Oudheidkundige Bond (Dutch Archaeological Society) had expressed its concern about the lack of interconnection. In its memorandum Over hervorming en beheer onzer musea (On the reform and management of our museums) the society advocated a reallocation of the collections, based on the view that all public collections should be seen `as one large collection, of which a logical and useful distribution should be attempted'. The Rijkscommissie van Advies inzake Reorganisatie van het Museumwezen hier te Lande (The National Advisory Committee on the Reorganisation of Museums in this Country) joined this point of view in its 1921 report. The committee considered the existing order of Dutch museums a `living organic whole'. This idea of a national connection, taken up anew after sixty years, was to culminate in the concept of the `Collectie Nederland' (Integrated National Museum Collections of the Netherlands) in 1990.

19

Collecting and deaccessioning A more intensive involvement of the government in museums, as expressed in its memoranda Naar een nieuw museumbeleid, Museumbeleid (Museum policy), and Kiezen voor kwaliteit (Opting for Quality) in 1976, 1985, and 1990, did not lead to overall guidelines or the implementation of an effective allocation of tasks. What it did help to stimulate was a process in which attention was slowly but steadily focused on the preservation tasks of museums. National and regional enquiries into the state of museums yielded alarming figures with regard to the care of collections. The limits as to how much museums could grow seemed to have been reached, also in view of the restricted financial means. Besides increased attention for conservation and registration this led to a public debate on decreasing the collections. While the concept of deaccessioning was still unknown in the memorandum Naar een nieuw museumbeleid, the memorandum Kiezen voor kwaliteit made a critical review of existing collections a cornerstone of its policy and provided a detailed procedure on weeding collections. The concentrated attention on deaccessioning parts of the collection from the media and politicians somewhat diverted the attention from opinion forming on collecting, a process that had received a special impetus in the 1980s. Themes from the debate The opinion forming on collecting received a special impetus from a series of exhibitions and manifestations round the phenomenon of mass culture in the Haags Gemeentemuseum in 1981. Apropos of this exhibition the historical section of the Nederlandse Museumvereniging devoted its meeting in April of that year to the post-1945 collection policy. In June the Haags Gemeentemuseum itself organised a meeting with a discussion programme on `Mass Culture and Museum Policy', while the quarterly Museumvisie devoted most of its (extra large) fourth issue of that year to `The new collecting in museums'. During the meeting of the historical section a working party was established to research the problems of `contemporary collecting'. A theme issue on `Contemporary Collecting' of Museumvisie in 1984 published the findings of this `Collecting Policy for Contemporary Objects' working party, which in May 1985 published its final report De verbeelding van het heden (Representing the Present), in which the necessity of a phased approach was advocated, based on co-operation and specialisation. In the early 1980s the spotlight 'suddenly' focused also on private collecting. Several articles appeared in which private collectors were portrayed as examples of the `new collecting', i.e. collecting of everyday objects of usage like cigarette lighters, beer cans, number plates, jelly moulds, corkscrews, piggybanks, etc. Several museums organised exhibitions of such private collections, and in June 1986 private collectors `even' got their own museum in the north of the country: the Verzamelmuseum (Collections Museum) in Stadskanaal, now in nearby Veendam. In the same period the collecting policies of art museums were also elaborately discussed in a number of publications, in professional journals and in numerous articles in dailies and weeklies. The most important points of discussion, besides the issue of deaccessioning, were twofold: how could museums of modern art present a clear image of themselves to the world, and the limited purchasing budgets of museums. The increased attention for the collecting policies of museums of modern art was partly due to the fact that quite a few new directors were appointed in the middle 1980s. The discussion on policies in general, and

20

collecting policies in particular was, however, to quote one of the new directors, Wim Crouwel of the Boymans-van Beuningen Museum in Rotterdam, a topic far more discussed in the press than among museum directors. Another topical theme of the 1980s was the phenomenon of growth. The theme of the 1988 spring meeting of the Nederlandse Museumvereniging was the dichotomy between quality and quantity. It was suggested at this meeting by Jan Jessurun, Head of the Cultural Heritage Directorate of the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, that museums might do well to slow down their collecting and devote more attention to consolidating what they had. This viewpoint was again emphasised by the Minister of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs himself, during his speech to the General Conference of the International Council of Museums in The Hague (28 August 1989). In his farewell speech as Director of the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum on 18 September 1989, Simon Levie replied to this by warning that too much attention for conservation and restoration at the cost of collection development would eventually turn against the museums. He made a plea for larger acquisition funds, having on a previous occasion compared the present means to an `infamously low tip'. Finally it should be mentioned that in the second half of the 1980s the interest in the history of collecting rapidly increased. This was expressed on the one hand by an interest in the meaning of patronage for the arts, on the other hand by a number of publications and exhibitions on collecting in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. An example of the former is the study by Bram Kemper, professor of cultural sociology at the University of Amsterdam, on patronage and the art market, while the latter is reflected in an exhibition in the Amsterdams Historisch Museum in 1992, `De wereld binnen handbereik' (The world within reach). The research for the exhibition `Hollandse Meesters uit Amerika' (Dutch Masters from America) in the Mauritshuis in The Hague (1990-1991) was the impetus for a symposium on `The art of collecting' on 26 October 1990, where art collecting in Europe and America in the past was compared with more recent developments on the art market. Opting for quality The government memorandum Kiezen voor kwaliteit was published in 1990, together with the Delta plan for the preservation of cultural heritage and the memoranda Bedreigd cultuurbezit (Cultural Heritage in Jeopardy) and Vechten tegen verval (Fighting Decay). Quality had now become the keyword, together with the term `collection policy'. The combination of the two allowed the development of the concept of `selection' in the sense of establishing priorities. Small-scale quality assessment (the individual museum) can also promote largescale quality improvement if museums exchange parts of their collections. The starting-point should then be the integrated national museum collections, the `Collectie Nederland'. `Collectie Nederland' The ideal of an integration of national collections was already strongly advocated in the 1919 and 1921 memoranda. Integration should be accomplished by `exchange'. The proposed reallocation of all Dutch museum holdings has never been realised. The subject was discussed again at the National Museum Day on 10 May 1952, when Prof. Hendrik Engel, director of the Zologisch Museum in Amsterdam gave a survey of the situation in natural history museums. His report

21

closely corresponds to the established structure of natural history museums as formulated in the memorandum Een zaak van leven en dood (A matter of life and death) published by the then Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Work in 1982. This memorandum was the first to deal with the different museum sectors based on the government memorandum Naar een nieuw museumbeleid. Its major point of departure was a geographically based structure, with regard to collecting policy as well as target group orientation. Such a logical structure was less obvious for the other sectors. It was decided to choose for a structure that would combine the maintaining of major existing collections with a regional distribution of facilities for public services. Notably art museums had to make a choice: to continue broad-based collecting or to specialise. In fact the `broad-based' option amounted to deciding in favour of the dissemination-of-culture ideal. For contemporary art there was also the fear of museums outside the Randstad - the conurbation of Western Holland - of being considered regional, i.e. parochial, and of not being taken seriously. As a result innovative acquisitions were scarce and it was often the same artists whose works were bought. Despite the various consultative bodies there was very little coordination qua collecting policies.

22

Exchange In the course of the 1980s the idea of opting for specialisation became increasingly stronger, provided specialisation would be based on an overall museum vision. Exchange of parts of the collections should create a kind of decentralised national collection. In its government memorandum Kiezen voor Kwaliteit central government explicitly decided on the whole existing order of museums as the frame of reference for its museum policy. The policy of the Minister of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs is based on museum functions instead of on separate museum institutions and encompasses all institutions and collections. It wants to upgrade the overall quality of Dutch museum collections, for instance by promoting collection movement (exchange, loan, donation) and by influencing acquisition policies through targeted subsidies. For some categories of museums (e.g. the museums of natural history and the museums of technology) decisions have always been made within a wider, European framework. In view of the coming European integration one might speak of a `Collectie Europa' (Integrated European Museum Collections). Working towards specialisation without aiming at a monopoly seems to be the museum stance at the moment. The question remains if this should be accomplished by exchange of parts of the collections and - most important - if so, should this mean transfer of control or transfer of title. Suggestions of an `exchange mart' were made by several parties, including the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs. Lately the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum has contributed to a more clearly delineated structure of the `Collectie Nederland' by the transfer of parts of its collections to other museums. The collection of musical instruments was transferred to the Haags Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, its carriages and sledges to the Nationaal Rijtuigmuseum (National Museum of Coaches) in Leek, the bookbindings to the Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Royal Library) in The Hague, and its militaria to the Koninklijk Nederlands Leger- en Wapenmuseum in Delft. A loan/exchange agreement was made with the Mauritshuis in The Hague, with the understanding that the Rijksmuseum would focus on Spanish and Italian masters, while the Mauritshuis would concentrate on Southern Netherlandish and German works of art. An important extramural collection of art is housed at the Rijksdienst Beeldende Kunst, which manages different kinds of collections. Within a period of four years the works of `Cultural Value' (predominantly work made by artists with a -discontinued - government allowance) will be distributed among social non-profit organisations like art-lending centres/art libraries, hospitals, etc. By an active distribution approach works of `Special Cultural Value', i.e. works of museum standard quality, will as much as possible be accommodated in museums and related institutions. By a targeted loan policy the Rijksdienst promotes `profile collections' - distinctive, representative collections - (early Italian painting in the Bonnefantenmuseum in Maastricht, still lifes in Het Prinsenhof in Delft, landscapes in De Lakenhal in Leiden and eighteenth-century painting in the Rijksmuseum Twenthe in Enschede). Basic collections and profile collections By now a collection paradigm has been developed in the museum world: a basic collection supplemented by a specialisation (a profile collection). This has been most fully implemented in botanical gardens (`decentralised national botanical

23

collection'). A comparable model has been introduced by Edy de Wilde in the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven. In the botanical gardens model the basic collection has a predominantly educational function. The most important groups of plants are on display or, in the case of a modern art collection, some works of art from the modern classics. The profile collection adds an extra dimension to the collection. This collection is related to the museum's scholarly or scientific function, or based on its research tradition, a special link with donors, etc. In natural history museums there is growing opposition to the geographical paradigm. A regional collection is partly of regional origin, but may be of national importance. Curators of regional and local museums do not consider it necessary that scientific importance ipso facto implies national preservation, i.e. preservation in a national scientific institution. Moreover, there is a strong wish among regional museums of scientific profiling through a collection of high quality. The question is especially apparent in the case of a thematic specialisation without a regional/local foundation. Should mere chance be the criterion to keep or not to keep? At any rate the premise for specialisation and reallocation should be that collections remain, or are deposited, in institutions with the relevant knowledge and expertise, in order to keep the collections `alive'. Jan Vaessen does not advocate the idea of a `Collectie Nederland', and thematic specialisation. He considers it impossible and utterly undesirable. Instead of aiming at total harmonisation, the policy should be directed at a deliberate proliferation of perspectives. In other words, no exchange of parts of collections, but the actual confrontation of different visions on the present and the past. National debate The cultural-political choices made in the government memorandum Kiezen voor kwaliteit led to a debate on the preservation of cultural heritage in De Balie, Amsterdam on 14 March 1991. This debate saw a connection between the current interest in the preservation of cultural heritage and the debate on modernism versus post-modernism. The emphasis on preservation of cultural heritage was seen as expressing a post-modernistic ideal. One of the participants, Adriaan van der Staay, even considered the idea of the culture-generating museum to be the tail-end of modernistic thinking. In a post-modern period, as he put it, museums will be especially judged according to their successful preservation of the culture of the past for the public. This added weight to the statement made by Jan Vaessen, that an intellectual discussion on collection development is lacking in the Netherlands. Challenged by this statement, and trying to provide some compensation for the disproportionate attention for deaccessioning, the Nederlandse Museumvereniging decided to resume the thread of the early 1980s debate. During August and September 1992 leading members of the museum profession, archival staff members, university researchers and private collectors were invited by the Nederlandse Museumvereniging to join in a debate on collecting. It was hoped that the individual participants and the report on the debate would provide a new stimulus for active reflections on collecting policies. The debate was the overture to the `National Collecting Year', as declared by the national association of private collectors. The National Collecting Year happened to coincide with the 75th anniversary of the report by the Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond (now the Koninklijke Nederlandse Oudheidkundige Bond), in which ideas were developed on the collecting policies of museums in a national context. Much of what was said at

24

the time still applies. This does not imply that nothing has changed in the meantime. The revival of interest in collecting as a culture-generating stimulus results from a spectacular vitality developed by the museum institution as such over the past decades.

25

Bibliography
As this publication is made for a non-Dutch readership most references to sources in Dutch have been left out. They have been included in: Peter van Mensch, Voor nu en later (Nederlandse Museumvereniging, Amsterdam 1993). G.G. Bank, 'Determining the Cost: Architect George Hartman's Formula', Museum News 66, 1988, (5): 74. Bedreigd cultuurbezit (Ministerie van WVC, Rijswijk 1990). A.M. Bevers & M.E. Halbertsma, Behouden is kiezen. Over het verzamelen, selecteren en wijzigen van museale collecties (Ministerie van WVC, Rijswijk 1991). M. Conforti, 'Expanding the Canon of Art Collecting', Museum News 68, 1989, (5): 36-40. B. Lord, G. Dexter Lord & J. Nicks, The Cost of Collecting. Collection Management in UK Museums (London 1989). M.C. Malaro, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections (Washington 1985). P. van Mensch ed., Professionalising the muses (Amsterdam 1989). P. van Mensch, 'Museums in the Netherlands: an "embarrasment of riches"', Museum 1989, (162): 120-123. Museum collecting policies in modern science and technology. Proceedings of a seminar held at the Science Museum, London, 3 November 1988 (Science Museum, London 1991). G. Nooter, 'Ethics and acquisition policy of anthropological museums in The Netherlands', in: P. Kloos & H.J.M. Claessen eds., Current anthropology in the Netherlands (Rotterdam) 156-164. B. Nystrm & G. Cedrenius, Spread the responsibility for museum documentation a programme for contemporary documentation at Swedish museums of cultural history (SAMDOK, Stockholm 1982). S. Pearce, Museums Objects and Collections (Leicester 1992). G. Rosander ed., Today for tomorrow. Museum documentation of contemporary society in Sweden by acquisition of objects (SAMDOK, Stockholm 1980). L. Rosenbaum, 'The Anxious Acquisitors', ARTnews 88, 1989, (3): 144-151. V. Sofka ed., Collecting today for tomorrow. ICOFOM Study Series 6 & 7 (Stockholm 1984). Special issue 'Collecting: A New Canon for the '90s', Museum News 68, 1989, (5). Special issue 'Naar een nieuw verzamelbeleid', Museumvisie 5, 1981, (4).

26

Special issue 'Eigentijds verzamelen', Museumvisie 8, 1984, (2). E. Stavenow-Hidemark, Home thoughts from abroad. An evaluation of the SAMDOK Homes Pool (SAMDOK, Stockholm 1985). Z.Z. Stransky, 'Metologicke otazky dokumentace soucasnosti', Muzeologicke sesity 1974 (5): 13-43. W.E.Washburn, 'Collecting Information, Not Objects', Museum News 62, 1984, (3): 12-15. F. Waidacher, Handbuch der Allgemeinen Museologie. Mimundus 3 (Vienna 1993).