Idiot politician's scheme to get the Lindisfarne gospels back up north
Edgar De Blieck
Lindisfarne gospels moved permanently to the north of England. This populist
move is clearly the thin end of the wedge, and will hopefully be resisted by
MPs with the national interest in mind.
National treasures must be protected in the most suitable place, in this
case the British Library. To remove important or unimportant manuscripts
from valuable collections is no innocent act. The BL is a national
repository for treasures of importance to the nation. If anyone wants to
consult its manuscripts, they may do so in London. From the point of view of
research it is much more important to preserve intact the BL's collection
than to accede to the philistine whimsy of a populist, publicity-seeking MP.
An adequate motorway runs between Gateshead and London: serious researchers
find that they are only an hour or two from Britain's finest collection of
books.
Edgar de Blieck.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3509195.stm
Inger E Johansson
"Edgar De Blieck" <Debl...@btopenworld.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:c1gdao$g19$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Edgar,
while I sometimes think that we in Europe tend to accept that too many
artifacts found in districts of a country to be placed in the capital city's
national museums,
I in this case as in many other case when we are discussing old handwritten
books and document can't see why we shouldn't have those in central
archieves and museums where they are easier to protect not only against
thieves but also against fire, too high resp low percentage of mist, too
high resp too low temperatures etc etc. In other word I think you are right.
Inger E
>
>
Edgar De Blieck
> easier to protect not only against
> thieves but also against fire, too high resp low percentage of mist, too
> high resp too low temperatures etc etc. In other word I think you are
right.
>
> Inger E
> >
Even if another home were purpose built with even better security, the BL is
bigger than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't take a brick out of the great
wall of China because it would look good on the mantelpiece. The Lindisfarne
plot is sheer vandalism of the worst sort.
EDEB.
Inger E Johansson
Agreed
Inger E
>
> EDEB.
>
>
Paul J Gans
>EDEB.
I'd like to widen the issue. On the issue I'm all for keeping
the Lindesfarne Gospels in the BL because, frankly, the British
Government has, over time, the best record in the entire world
for preserving the past. Not perfect, but far better than the
French, and lightyears beyond the Spaniards, etc.
That said, the wider issue is, I think, this. The concentration
of the preserved past in a relatively few museums makes them
a target for destruction by terrorists. Especially those
who hate western Civilization.
If, for example, two airliners had been flown into the
Metropolitain Museum of Art here in New York, we'd have
lost a measurable fraction of the art of the world and
a larger fraction of the history of the western world.
Even greater losses, especially of manuscripts, could happen
if the BL or the British Museum were attacked.
The attack doesn't even have to be of human origin. There
have been large earthquakes in the northeast of the US in
the past thousand years (but not since 1500) and here in
New York we do not build earthquake-proof museums.
What I'd seriously consider is dispersal. This would be
one hell of a lot more expensive than the present method,
but a lot safer in the long run. It would be expensive
because the material would have to be maintained under the
same very expensive curatorial and physical care that is
used now, only spread over more venues. And it would make
life harder for scholars.
---- Paul J. Gans
Soren Larsen
news:c1ilsu$dtj$1...@reader2.panix.com
>> [snip]
>
>>> easier to protect not only against
>>> thieves but also against fire, too high resp low percentage of
>>> mist, too high resp too low temperatures etc etc. In other word I
>>> think you are right.
>>>
>>> Inger E
>>>>
>
>> Even if another home were purpose built with even better security,
>> the BL is bigger than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't take a
>> brick out of the great wall of China because it would look good on
>> the mantelpiece. The Lindisfarne plot is sheer vandalism of the
>> worst sort.
>
>> EDEB.
>
> I'd like to widen the issue. On the issue I'm all for keeping
> the Lindesfarne Gospels in the BL because, frankly, the British
> Government has, over time, the best record in the entire world
> for preserving the past.
Lets rephrase that:
The British government has a somewhat OK record in
preserving the past compared to some other countries.
>Not perfect, but far better than the
> French, and lightyears beyond the Spaniards, etc.
>
> That said, the wider issue is, I think, this. The concentration
> of the preserved past in a relatively few museums makes them
> a target for destruction by terrorists. Especially those
> who hate western Civilization.
>
> If, for example, two airliners had been flown into the
> Metropolitain Museum of Art here in New York, we'd have
> lost a measurable fraction of the art of the world and
> a larger fraction of the history of the western world.
>
> Even greater losses, especially of manuscripts, could happen
> if the BL or the British Museum were attacked.
snippage
A valid consideration!
And large collections has a tendency to mean less than the
sum of the items.
Each manuscript or item would likely recieve much more
scholary attention if they were located in their area of origin.
World heritage items will of course recieve adequate attention
no matter where they are located and I agree with Edgar that
taking the Lindisfarne gospels as hostages in a north vs south
populist move is despicable.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Sheila J
>
> What I'd seriously consider is dispersal. This would be
> one hell of a lot more expensive than the present method,
> but a lot safer in the long run. It would be expensive
> because the material would have to be maintained under the
> same very expensive curatorial and physical care that is
> used now, only spread over more venues. And it would make
> life harder for scholars.
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Paul: I'm hugely in favour of conservation. I've volunteered at
museums and run military museums for years.....
BUT....one of the joys of museums is public access and education. If we
disperse all our historical assets, then we are making it more and more
difficult for the average person to have the benefit of this same history.
Is just having 'history' more important that making it accessible?
I'm not sure about the answer.
Paul J Gans
Having it is more important than easy accessibility. It is
easy to debate until it is gone. All we need now is a major
fire in a museum to see the truth of that -- say during a
Vermeer show. Whups, there go all the Vermers left on earth.
I've had the misfortune to see two such fires on a small scale.
One was at a small museum at the University of Illinois that
housed, among other things, three Rembrant drawings. You'll
never see them again.
The other was in Edward Hopper's workshop. Hopper was a
major American painter of the middle of the 20th century.
He lived and worked on the northern edge of Washington
Square Park. After his death, his top-floor workshop
(with skylights) burned in a fire, taking with it a number
of his unsold paintings and a number of his unfinished
ones.
I watched under the misapprehension that Hopper's house was
next door. It was only the next day I found out how wrong
I was.
The house has been rebuilt (I can see it from my office window
right now) but the Hoppers have not been repainted... ;-)
But I would want the collection accessible. There's no reason
why they could not be. New York has almost a dozen major art
museums and scads of smaller ones. One can spend a day at
any of them. The Met, on the other hand, is so large that
one cannot see the entire displayed collection in any sort
of few days -- and most of their collection is in storage
so *nobody* among the public sees it.
--- Paul J. Gans
Matthew Harley
> The HoC will soon debate the idiot scheme of Joyce Quin MP to get the
> Lindisfarne gospels moved permanently to the north of England. This populist
> move is clearly the thin end of the wedge, and will hopefully be resisted by
> MPs with the national interest in mind.
Actually they belong in Ireland!
http://www.irelandseye.com/irish/people/saints/aidan.shtm
Matt Harley
D. Spencer Hines
Typically, when it comes to TERRORISTS, the Default Gansian Position
[DGP] is ALWAYS a DEFENSIVE Strategy rather than an OFFENSIVE Strategy.
It's the way Gans's mind works.
It is also quite characteristic of the so-called "Liberal" mindset.
Solely -- "How can we defend ourselves against the bad guys" rather than
"How can we catch them and kill them or bring them to justice BEFORE
they have a chance to hit us"---- a PREEMPTIVE Strategy. And that's why
we can't trust them with the levers of power in Washington.
Further, before he posts idle, defensive gibberish about dispersing the
collections of the Metropolitan [Gans couldn't even spell it correctly]
Museum of Art to "many more venues" ---- Gans should clear his anserine
ideas with the museum's Board of Directors -- and round up the private
financing for them. Perhaps NYU can kick in several million dollars, as
soon as Gans makes a pitch to NYU's Trustees.
Adelante!
Gans is more fun than ever these days and just gets flakier as he
approaches his 71st birthday on May Day. [Deucedly Appropriate for a
radical-chic Greenwich-Village Marxist].
"But I would want the collection accessible. There's no reason why they
could not be. New York has almost a dozen major art museums and scads
of smaller ones. One can spend a day at any of them. The Met, on the
other hand, is so large that one cannot see the entire displayed
collection in any sort of few days -- and most of their collection is in
storage so *nobody* among the public sees it."
P. Jonathan Gans
-------------------
Hilarious!
Now, let's watch Gans sell that idea to the folks who control the Art at
the Met and those who control the FUNDING ---- PRIVATE funding. The
TAXPAYERS should not be required to fund one penny of this loony scheme.
MANY museums do not display everything they have ---- including the
Smithsonian and the MOMA. If Gans wants to display it all let him and
his buddies PAY for it.
How Sweet It Is!
Marvelous Entertainment!
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c1ilsu$dtj$1...@reader2.panix.com...
|
| I'd like to widen the issue. On the issue I'm all for keeping
| the Lindesfarne Gospels in the BL because, frankly, the British
| Government has, over time, the best record in the entire world
| for preserving the past. Not perfect, but far better than the
| French, and lightyears beyond the Spaniards, etc.
|
| That said, the wider issue is, I think, this. The concentration
| of the preserved past in a relatively few museums makes them
| a target for destruction by terrorists. Especially those
| who hate western Civilization.
|
| If, for example, two airliners had been flown into the
| Metropolitain [sic] Museum of Art here in New York, we'd have
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:c1ilsu$dtj$1...@reader2.panix.com
>> Edgar De Blieck <Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>> easier to protect not only against
>>>> thieves but also against fire, too high resp low percentage of
>>>> mist, too high resp too low temperatures etc etc. In other word I
>>>> think you are right.
>>>>
>>>> Inger E
>>>>>
>>
>>> Even if another home were purpose built with even better security,
>>> the BL is bigger than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't take a
>>> brick out of the great wall of China because it would look good on
>>> the mantelpiece. The Lindisfarne plot is sheer vandalism of the
>>> worst sort.
>>
>>> EDEB.
>>
>> I'd like to widen the issue. On the issue I'm all for keeping
>> the Lindesfarne Gospels in the BL because, frankly, the British
>> Government has, over time, the best record in the entire world
>> for preserving the past.
>Lets rephrase that:
>The British government has a somewhat OK record in
>preserving the past compared to some other countries.
Well, let us just say that some countries have a
very bad record. I'd not like to entrust some
of the most interesting and valuable artifacts to
them.
[snip]
>> If, for example, two airliners had been flown into the
>> Metropolitain Museum of Art here in New York, we'd have
>> lost a measurable fraction of the art of the world and
>> a larger fraction of the history of the western world.
>>
>> Even greater losses, especially of manuscripts, could happen
>> if the BL or the British Museum were attacked.
>A valid consideration!
>And large collections has a tendency to mean less than the
>sum of the items.
Yes and no. At least most places with a large collection
have the proper storage environment and expert curators,
restorers, etc., to take care of them.
>Each manuscript or item would likely recieve much more
>scholary attention if they were located in their area of origin.
I'm not sure of that. Scholars generally operate on very
small budgets. Having to go from place to place doesn't
help very much. I was thinking more in terms of "local
dispersal", such as spreading things out in New York a
bit.
>World heritage items will of course recieve adequate attention
>no matter where they are located and I agree with Edgar that
>taking the Lindisfarne gospels as hostages in a north vs south
>populist move is despicable.
I'm not sure world heritage items will recieve adequate
attention no matter where they are stored. The problems
of the Hermatige in St. Petersburg are well-known. And
look what happened to the Iraqi antiquities. The
current figure there is that about 15,000 items were lost
from the main museum in Baghdad alone.
And then there were the statues of the Buddha blown up
by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And that's just two examples.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>http://www.irelandseye.com/irish/people/saints/aidan.shtm
Nah. That's the other one. Lindisfarne and St. Cuthbert
forever!
---- Paul J. Gans
Sheila J
any given time. Often, it is because of space restriction but the
conservation of the artifacts is also a consideration. (Too much light,
too much moisture, etc....)
I've also seen amazing artifacts not displayed purely due to a lack of
manpower to catalogue and prepare for display. Museums DO NOT recieve
the proper funding. A big pet peeve on my part.
Sheila J
>
>>The British government has a somewhat OK record in
>>preserving the past compared to some other countries.
>
>
> Well, let us just say that some countries have a
> very bad record. I'd not like to entrust some
> of the most interesting and valuable artifacts to
> them.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>If, for example, two airliners had been flown into the
>>>Metropolitain Museum of Art here in New York, we'd have
>>>lost a measurable fraction of the art of the world and
>>>a larger fraction of the history of the western world.
Iraq has been a tragedy.....
>
> Yes and no. At least most places with a large collection
> have the proper storage environment and expert curators,
> restorers, etc., to take care of them.
>
>
>>Each manuscript or item would likely recieve much more
>>scholary attention if they were located in their area of origin.
>
Scholarly attention, perhaps. But what about the mum with the 4 kids
wanting to expose her child to some history?
You have no idea what it meant to me to be able to take my children to
the British Museum and the Imperial War Museum.
It has fostered a love of history that we would never have been to
duplicate, even in our history-heavy household. (How's that for an
aliteration!) But I'm not sure we would have been able to do that if
those collections had been spread around England. And what a huge
tragedy that would have been. Children are the future conservationists
and curators of tomorrow, after all.
Has anyone read 'Who killed Canadian History' by Jack Granastein?
>
> I'm not sure of that. Scholars generally operate on very
> small budgets. Having to go from place to place doesn't
> help very much. I was thinking more in terms of "local
> dispersal", such as spreading things out in New York a
> bit.
>
>
>
>>World heritage items will of course recieve adequate attention
>>no matter where they are located and I agree with Edgar that
>>taking the Lindisfarne gospels as hostages in a north vs south
>>populist move is despicable.
>
>
> I'm not sure world heritage items will recieve adequate
> attention no matter where they are stored. The problems
> of the Hermatige in St. Petersburg are well-known. And
> look what happened to the Iraqi antiquities. The
> current figure there is that about 15,000 items were lost
> from the main museum in Baghdad alone.
Ooopss...should have read down first....
>
> And then there were the statues of the Buddha blown up
> by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
>
> And that's just two examples.
War has probably been responsible for destroying more of our world's
history than anything...
Greedy looters probably comes second...Does anyone know the stats off
hand...? (she asks saving herself a trip to google.....)
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
Todd A. Farmerie
> Edgar De Blieck <Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>
>
>>>easier to protect not only against
>>>thieves but also against fire, too high resp low percentage of mist, too
>>>high resp too low temperatures etc etc. In other word I think you are
>>
>>right.
>>
>>>Inger E
>>>
>
>>Even if another home were purpose built with even better security, the BL is
>>bigger than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't take a brick out of the great
>>wall of China because it would look good on the mantelpiece. The Lindisfarne
>>plot is sheer vandalism of the worst sort.
>
>
>>EDEB.
>
>
> I'd like to widen the issue. On the issue I'm all for keeping
> the Lindesfarne Gospels in the BL because, frankly, the British
> Government has, over time, the best record in the entire world
> for preserving the past. Not perfect, but far better than the
> French, and lightyears beyond the Spaniards, etc.
> If, for example, two airliners had been flown into the
> Metropolitain Museum of Art here in New York, we'd have
> lost a measurable fraction of the art of the world and
> a larger fraction of the history of the western world.
>
> Even greater losses, especially of manuscripts, could happen
> if the BL or the British Museum were attacked.
There is a good historical example. With the burning of the
Customs House (is that the right name) in Dublin, the Republicans
destroyed the hated tax and land records, but also census,
probate and numerous other records for an entire nation, as the
building served as de facto PRO for Ireland.
> The attack doesn't even have to be of human origin. There
> have been large earthquakes in the northeast of the US in
> the past thousand years (but not since 1500) and here in
> New York we do not build earthquake-proof museums.
Again, most government records from San Francisco prior to 1906
are toast for this reason, although I would be more concerned
about it happening in DC than NYC from a historical documents
perspective.
> What I'd seriously consider is dispersal. This would be
> one hell of a lot more expensive than the present method,
> but a lot safer in the long run. It would be expensive
> because the material would have to be maintained under the
> same very expensive curatorial and physical care that is
> used now, only spread over more venues. And it would make
> life harder for scholars.
As far as I am concerned, every manuscript repository that values
their dual roles of conservation and providing access should be
digitizing everything in their collection as fast as their
budgets allow. (Which the PRO seems to be doing.)
taf
Paul J Gans
>Actually, most museums only display about 5-10 % of their collection at
>any given time. Often, it is because of space restriction but the
>conservation of the artifacts is also a consideration. (Too much light,
>too much moisture, etc....)
That is correct. But my point was that those undisplayed
artifacts are all gathered together. But never mind, the
chance of collections being locally dispersed is very
small.
>I've also seen amazing artifacts not displayed purely due to a lack of
>manpower to catalogue and prepare for display. Museums DO NOT recieve
>the proper funding. A big pet peeve on my part.
I do not know how things are in Canada, but in the US museums
are privately owned. The Smithsonian in Washington and a very
few others are exceptions to this.
As a result of private ownership, the art treasures in the US
are not public property, but may be treated, displayed, and
dealt with as the private owners decide.
Most Americans are unaware of the fact that in Europe most
(but not all) museums are nationally owned. Thus in the UK
the British Museum collection is the property of the nation
itself and not of one or a few individuals. And in France
museums label their displayed possessions as (to paraphrase)
part of the patrimony of the French people.
Thus visitors are allowed to photograph freely (with proper
respect to the usual prohibition of flash guns) whatever
they wish. In the US photography is often (but not always)
prohibited for fear that one will somehow sell the photos
and perhaps "ruin" the private investment in the originals.
So yes, museums are underfunded everywhere, but for different
reasons. In Europe the underfunding represents the priorities
of the Government and can be dealt with by proper voting at
elections. In the US museums are underfunded due to the lack
of private donations to museums, something I attempt to remedy
in a small way out of my own pocket, but beyond that I can
do nothing.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>>
>>>The British government has a somewhat OK record in
>>>preserving the past compared to some other countries.
>>
>>
>> Well, let us just say that some countries have a
>> very bad record. I'd not like to entrust some
>> of the most interesting and valuable artifacts to
>> them.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>>If, for example, two airliners had been flown into the
>>>>Metropolitain Museum of Art here in New York, we'd have
>>>>lost a measurable fraction of the art of the world and
>>>>a larger fraction of the history of the western world.
>Iraq has been a tragedy.....
Avoidable too. Indeed there was a promise that it would
be avoided.
>> Yes and no. At least most places with a large collection
>> have the proper storage environment and expert curators,
>> restorers, etc., to take care of them.
>>
>>
>>>Each manuscript or item would likely recieve much more
>>>scholary attention if they were located in their area of origin.
>>
>Scholarly attention, perhaps. But what about the mum with the 4 kids
>wanting to expose her child to some history?
>You have no idea what it meant to me to be able to take my children to
>the British Museum and the Imperial War Museum.
>It has fostered a love of history that we would never have been to
>duplicate, even in our history-heavy household. (How's that for an
>aliteration!) But I'm not sure we would have been able to do that if
>those collections had been spread around England. And what a huge
>tragedy that would have been. Children are the future conservationists
>and curators of tomorrow, after all.
No no. As we've both said, there is the unseen 80-90%. Clearly
another 5% of the total collection could be found to be put on
display elsewhere, but locally.
But this is beside the point. We know there is not enough money
for this. My point about dispersal is that most of the 100% of
the collection is in the same place as the 10% on display. A
fire, a natural disaster, or whatever would fix it so that
nobody, including mums with 4 kids would ever see any of it
again.
>Has anyone read 'Who killed Canadian History' by Jack Granastein?
>>
>> I'm not sure of that. Scholars generally operate on very
>> small budgets. Having to go from place to place doesn't
>> help very much. I was thinking more in terms of "local
>> dispersal", such as spreading things out in New York a
>> bit.
>>
>>
>>
>>>World heritage items will of course recieve adequate attention
>>>no matter where they are located and I agree with Edgar that
>>>taking the Lindisfarne gospels as hostages in a north vs south
>>>populist move is despicable.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure world heritage items will recieve adequate
>> attention no matter where they are stored. The problems
>> of the Hermatige in St. Petersburg are well-known. And
>> look what happened to the Iraqi antiquities. The
>> current figure there is that about 15,000 items were lost
>> from the main museum in Baghdad alone.
>Ooopss...should have read down first....
>>
>> And then there were the statues of the Buddha blown up
>> by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
>>
>> And that's just two examples.
>War has probably been responsible for destroying more of our world's
>history than anything...
Yes.
>Greedy looters probably comes second...Does anyone know the stats off
>hand...? (she asks saving herself a trip to google.....)
I doubt there are any stats. But historically you are right,
looting did most of it.
But then there was the burning of the libraries in Alexandria.
---- Paul J. Gans
Sheila J
Oh..no...no...in Canada, most museums, and at the very least all the
major ones, are all government run. Hence the sad state....just not a
priority.
D. Spencer Hines
The radical-chic Greenwich-Village Marxist -- our own Top Banana, the
Left-Wing chemist at NYU, just HATES PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of things he
insists must be PUBLICLY OWNED and paid for by the TAXPAYERS.
This is just one MORE area Gans wants to SOCIALIZE.
Amusing....
Gans is SO far out of step with REALITY in the United States -- firmly
entrenched as he is in the shattered World View of the Leftover Left.
'Nuff Said....
DSH
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c1m777$lif$1...@reader2.panix.com...
| I do not know how things are in Canada, but in the US museums
| are privately owned. The Smithsonian in Washington and a very
| few others are exceptions to this.
|
| As a result of private ownership, the art treasures in the US
| are not public property, but may be treated, displayed, and
| dealt with as the private owners decide....
| In the US photography is often (but not always)
| prohibited for fear that one will somehow sell the photos
| and perhaps "ruin" the private investment in the originals....
E. C. Lee
> In alt.history.british Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >Actually, most museums only display about 5-10 % of their collection at
> >any given time. Often, it is because of space restriction but the
> >conservation of the artifacts is also a consideration. (Too much light,
> >too much moisture, etc....)
>
> That is correct. But my point was that those undisplayed
> artifacts are all gathered together. But never mind, the
> chance of collections being locally dispersed is very
> small.
>
> >I've also seen amazing artifacts not displayed purely due to a lack of
> >manpower to catalogue and prepare for display. Museums DO NOT recieve
> >the proper funding. A big pet peeve on my part.
>
> I do not know how things are in Canada, but in the US museums
> are privately owned. The Smithsonian in Washington and a very
> few others are exceptions to this.
>
private. It varies from place to place.
> As a result of private ownership, the art treasures in the US
> are not public property, but may be treated, displayed, and
> dealt with as the private owners decide.
>
It doesn't really work that way. Even when they are public museums
they are still under the care and discretion of the museum caretakers.
The caretakers, who SHOULD be museum professionals (more and more the
musuems fates are decided by businessmen with limited knowledge of the
art itself in order to keep the place solvent), who then decide what
is best for the collection. What to show, what to buy, how to keep
the collection safe and in good condition. Occasionally there are
scandals when things are mismanaged or bad decisions are made. Of
course, it's often hushed up, so the public doesn't know too much
about it.
Libraries are public, but does the common man really *own* the books.
Public museumes do "owe" the public something. There may be an
insistance that there be "free" days where everyone has access or
"suggested" admissions. They may be considered accountable for how
they spend their money. They may recieve a small sum of public funds.
But the average Joe is not going to get a vote as to how any of the
money is specificly spent. That's up to the selected trustees.
> Most Americans are unaware of the fact that in Europe most
> (but not all) museums are nationally owned. Thus in the UK
> the British Museum collection is the property of the nation
> itself and not of one or a few individuals. And in France
> museums label their displayed possessions as (to paraphrase)
> part of the patrimony of the French people.
>
> Thus visitors are allowed to photograph freely (with proper
> respect to the usual prohibition of flash guns) whatever
> they wish. In the US photography is often (but not always)
> prohibited for fear that one will somehow sell the photos
> and perhaps "ruin" the private investment in the originals.
>
There are two main reasons for no photography. One is because part of
the funds of the museums comes from the right to sell the images, such
as in postcards from the museum gift shops. This can be true for both
public AND private museums. Another VERY important reasons is that
the light from flashes CAN damage materials, particularly in
paintings. Lighting can be so dangerous for some materials that they
are not always on display, may be covered with a black cloth that the
viewer can lift, or have lights that go on only when the view
approaches the picture. This has nothing to do with public or
private. Public museums can also limit photography.
BTW, another concern with taking the image is its misuse. The artist
or institution may want the rights of the image to also insure that
it's not shown in a way that damages the reputation of the artist or
institution.
> So yes, museums are underfunded everywhere, but for different
> reasons. In Europe the underfunding represents the priorities
> of the Government and can be dealt with by proper voting at
> elections. In the US museums are underfunded due to the lack
> of private donations to museums, something I attempt to remedy
> in a small way out of my own pocket, but beyond that I can
> do nothing.
>
A big problem with museum funding is that it's very glorious to donate
works of art or money for the aquisitions fund or for a wing with your
name on it. But who wants to give money towards the operating
expenses?
JMHO,
Eve
a.spencer3
E. C. Lee <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cfed5b.0402...@posting.google.com...
> Another VERY important reasons is that
> the light from flashes CAN damage materials, particularly in
> paintings. Lighting can be so dangerous for some materials that they
> are not always on display, may be covered with a black cloth that the
> viewer can lift, or have lights that go on only when the view
> approaches the picture. This has nothing to do with public or
> private. Public museums can also limit photography.
>
A recent visit to Abu Simbel appalled me.
Inevitably it was crowded inside the structure, possibly two-thirds USA
people.
For all the reasons you give, there is no flashlight photography allowed.
Very crudely (there must have been inevitable exceptions) the USA visitors
ignored this, the non-US visitors respected it.
Not only that, but there must have been some dozens of US-held video cameras
running, all inevitably with continuous flash panning up and down the walls.
The sole Egyptian attendant was pitiably anguished at his continual
protestations being completely ignored.
Typical remarks were "We've come this far, we gonna have those pics". The US
tour leaders did *nothing* to stop this.
If this is going on all day and every day, the effects of harsh light on
these interiors can be imagined.
It is understandable, having travelled so far, that visitors would like
their own permanent memories of such wonderful places - but we had travelled
far also! Maybe it's a US cultural thing that we can overcome but they
cannot?
Not that this sole plea will do much good. But *please* pass on and
reinforce wherever possible.
Surreyman
Paul J Gans
Well, Canadians can make it a political issue. And, of course,
nothing stops philanthropy. We have to rely almost totally
on philanthropy.
---- Paul J. Gans
Andrew Chaplin
>
> I do not know how things are in Canada, but in the US museums
> are privately owned. The Smithsonian in Washington and a very
> few others are exceptions to this.
>
> As a result of private ownership, the art treasures in the US
> are not public property, but may be treated, displayed, and
> dealt with as the private owners decide.
Canada has a mix of public and private museums, however, most are set up
as charitable institutions under the Income Tax Act so they have
authority to issue receipts for tax purposes for donations, be they cash
or artefact. The state, therefore, has an interest in how the "patrimony"
thus received is disposed of. Museums in almost every jurisdiction have
to have bylaws and committees to oversee the process of "de-accession"
and disposal of artefacts. If you set up your musuem under the local
legislation, then you can qualify for cultural funds also. The Cultural
Property Import and Export Act restricts (but in no way forbids) how any
artefact of significance is exported. From this, you can see the effect
of the silence in the Constitution Acts, 1867 and 1982, about property
rights. The museums of the Canadian Forces are further restricted by
military regulations, e.g. they may not charge admission.
I know rather too much about this because I used to oversee the financial
operations of the RCA Museum and RCA Fund, and sign thousands of tax
receipts every year. Our curator (Jodi Eskritt, MA Leeds, 1988?) was
legally authorized to appraise everything from a button to a tank. We
qualified for funding from the province of Manitoba to mount travelling
exhibits for the 50th anniversary of Normandy under the rubric "Canada
Remembers" (Sheila should remember that). My predecessors tried to use
the Cultural Property Import and Export Act to block the sale of an
Auster Mk IV artillery air observation post aircraft as the Regiment
tried to muster the money to acquire it (of the type flown by James
Doohan, "Scotty" of Star Trek notoriety, when he was a Canadian Gunner).
We could not come close to the bid and had to console ourselves with the
knowledge that the plane went to a good home in the United States.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<c1m777$lif$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
>> In alt.history.british Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >Actually, most museums only display about 5-10 % of their collection at
>> >any given time. Often, it is because of space restriction but the
>> >conservation of the artifacts is also a consideration. (Too much light,
>> >too much moisture, etc....)
>>
>> That is correct. But my point was that those undisplayed
>> artifacts are all gathered together. But never mind, the
>> chance of collections being locally dispersed is very
>> small.
>>
>> >I've also seen amazing artifacts not displayed purely due to a lack of
>> >manpower to catalogue and prepare for display. Museums DO NOT recieve
>> >the proper funding. A big pet peeve on my part.
>>
>> I do not know how things are in Canada, but in the US museums
>> are privately owned. The Smithsonian in Washington and a very
>> few others are exceptions to this.
>>
>No. There are many US publically owned institutions as well as many
>private. It varies from place to place.
There are very few public institutions. With the exception of
the Smithsonian, all the major museums I know are private.
>> As a result of private ownership, the art treasures in the US
>> are not public property, but may be treated, displayed, and
>> dealt with as the private owners decide.
>>
>It doesn't really work that way. Even when they are public museums
>they are still under the care and discretion of the museum caretakers.
> The caretakers, who SHOULD be museum professionals (more and more the
>musuems fates are decided by businessmen with limited knowledge of the
>art itself in order to keep the place solvent), who then decide what
>is best for the collection. What to show, what to buy, how to keep
>the collection safe and in good condition. Occasionally there are
>scandals when things are mismanaged or bad decisions are made. Of
>course, it's often hushed up, so the public doesn't know too much
>about it.
There would be no need for businessmen to be involved with a
public museum.
>Libraries are public, but does the common man really *own* the books.
Yes. They own them through their government.
>Public museumes do "owe" the public something. There may be an
>insistance that there be "free" days where everyone has access or
>"suggested" admissions. They may be considered accountable for how
>they spend their money. They may recieve a small sum of public funds.
> But the average Joe is not going to get a vote as to how any of the
>money is specificly spent. That's up to the selected trustees.
You mean "public" in the sense of a private museum open to the
public. I agree with what you wrote above.
>> Most Americans are unaware of the fact that in Europe most
>> (but not all) museums are nationally owned. Thus in the UK
>> the British Museum collection is the property of the nation
>> itself and not of one or a few individuals. And in France
>> museums label their displayed possessions as (to paraphrase)
>> part of the patrimony of the French people.
>>
>> Thus visitors are allowed to photograph freely (with proper
>> respect to the usual prohibition of flash guns) whatever
>> they wish. In the US photography is often (but not always)
>> prohibited for fear that one will somehow sell the photos
>> and perhaps "ruin" the private investment in the originals.
>>
>There are two main reasons for no photography. One is because part of
>the funds of the museums comes from the right to sell the images, such
>as in postcards from the museum gift shops. This can be true for both
>public AND private museums.
The Art Institute in Chicago allows photography (no flash of course).
I've a small collection of my favorite paintings from it. I am
not allowed to make any money from those images however.
At the Met in New York one can apply for permission to take
pictures and permission is usually granted (with restrictions
as to hours and equipment -- no flash of course but also no
tripods, etc.) But the point is made that photography is a
privilege and not a right.
Other museums simply prohibit pictures altogether. Lifting a
camera will bring a guard to your side.
>Another VERY important reasons is that
>the light from flashes CAN damage materials, particularly in
>paintings. Lighting can be so dangerous for some materials that they
>are not always on display, may be covered with a black cloth that the
>viewer can lift, or have lights that go on only when the view
>approaches the picture. This has nothing to do with public or
>private. Public museums can also limit photography.
We agree that flash is considered dangerous. We disagree as to
whether a publically owned (as opposed to one open to the public)
can really prohibit the taking of pictures.
I've got tons of images from the British Museum. I'd not be
able to do my course without them.
>BTW, another concern with taking the image is its misuse. The artist
>or institution may want the rights of the image to also insure that
>it's not shown in a way that damages the reputation of the artist or
>institution.
I would agree with that. I'm basically talking about private use.
>> So yes, museums are underfunded everywhere, but for different
>> reasons. In Europe the underfunding represents the priorities
>> of the Government and can be dealt with by proper voting at
>> elections. In the US museums are underfunded due to the lack
>> of private donations to museums, something I attempt to remedy
>> in a small way out of my own pocket, but beyond that I can
>> do nothing.
>>
>A big problem with museum funding is that it's very glorious to donate
>works of art or money for the aquisitions fund or for a wing with your
>name on it. But who wants to give money towards the operating
>expenses?
Nobody. The same applies to Universities. We have the Silver
Center for the Arts and Sciences (the building I'm currently
sitting in) but we do not have endowed janitorships.
>JMHO,
Which are always worth reading.
>Eve
---- Paul
Paul J Gans
>Surreyman
I fully agree with you about flash and lighting and said as
much in my first post.
My early trips to the British Museum were made with several
expensive "fast" lenses capable of taking photos in dim light
and the least grainy high-speed slide film I could find. Many
of these turned out very well.
I can no longer lug 20 pounds of photo equipment, lenses, camera
bodies, etc. around with the ease that I could some years ago, so
I've switched to a digital camera. I've had difficulties with
it because of low light levels.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Gans simply wants MORE Government control and regulation of our Art
Museums in the United States.
Gans wants MORE Socialism.
Not surprising, not surprising in the least ---- because Gans IS a
Socialist at heart -- even if only a parlour socialist -- that is a
babbling, prattling and scribbling Socialist -- not one out in the
streets demonstrating or manning the barricades -- and putting his body
on the line, rather than just his mouth.
No, he expects those he has indoctrinated to do that ---- as we saw on
15 February 2003 during the New York City demonstrations against the
imminent and unfolding Battle of Iraq in the War On Terrorism.
Gans stayed home, kept his tuchis and his tootsies warm and just watched
the demonstrations all unfold on the telly.
Hilarious!
E. C. Lee
> In alt.history.british E. C. Lee <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message news:<c1m777$lif$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
> >> In alt.history.british Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >Actually, most museums only display about 5-10 % of their collection at
> >> >any given time. Often, it is because of space restriction but the
> >> >conservation of the artifacts is also a consideration. (Too much light,
> >> >too much moisture, etc....)
> >>
> >> That is correct. But my point was that those undisplayed
> >> artifacts are all gathered together. But never mind, the
> >> chance of collections being locally dispersed is very
> >> small.
> >>
> >> >I've also seen amazing artifacts not displayed purely due to a lack of
> >> >manpower to catalogue and prepare for display. Museums DO NOT recieve
> >> >the proper funding. A big pet peeve on my part.
> >>
> >> I do not know how things are in Canada, but in the US museums
> >> are privately owned. The Smithsonian in Washington and a very
> >> few others are exceptions to this.
> >>
> >No. There are many US publically owned institutions as well as many
> >private. It varies from place to place.
>
> There are very few public institutions. With the exception of
> the Smithsonian, all the major museums I know are private.
>
of Chicago is considered a public museum. So is the Field Museum of
Chicago. So is the Detroit Art Museum. So is the Milwaukee Art
Center. And a heck of a lot of other city and state museums. OTH,
the Cleveland Art Museum is a private museum, as is the Terra. I
think Dunbarton Oaks in Washington is private. Some University
museums, such as the museums at Harvard and the Krannart (geez, I hope
I'm not spelling it wrong, I used to work there!) at the University of
Illinois are also public museums. Much of it has to do with funding
(and their charters) and because of that funding they are expected to
have certain responsibilities to the public that private museums do
not.
> >> As a result of private ownership, the art treasures in the US
> >> are not public property, but may be treated, displayed, and
> >> dealt with as the private owners decide.
> >>
> >It doesn't really work that way. Even when they are public museums
> >they are still under the care and discretion of the museum caretakers.
> > The caretakers, who SHOULD be museum professionals (more and more the
> >musuems fates are decided by businessmen with limited knowledge of the
> >art itself in order to keep the place solvent), who then decide what
> >is best for the collection. What to show, what to buy, how to keep
> >the collection safe and in good condition. Occasionally there are
> >scandals when things are mismanaged or bad decisions are made. Of
> >course, it's often hushed up, so the public doesn't know too much
> >about it.
>
> There would be no need for businessmen to be involved with a
> public museum.
>
Not true at all! Many are critical members of the boards. It's a
MAJOR status thing. And business folk are also hired as consultants.
And this is one of my gripes. Many of them made their money in
businesses unrelated to art. They don't understand the art
market--which is very complex. And they also just look at the art as
a commodity. Art that might not be valuable in terms of current
resale value, can be worth a fortune in terms of educational, historic
or artistic value.
IMHO the purpose of an public art museum is not to make a big profit,
but to care for the art, and to increase the cultural life and
knowledge of the community. A lot of this changed with Hoving at the
Met. His idea of the "blockbuster" led to a hyping up of the more
popular shows and a decrease of the more esoteric. Yeah, this led to
more people going to the art museums, but they tended to go to the
same things. ( If I see one more show of Impressionism at the Art
Institute, I'm going to puke--and of course, more are scheduled! )
IMHO, when museums do this they aren't trying to expand the horizons
of their audience. And it leads to the question, will these museums
turn down a significant show for the sake of something popular?
Probably! The Art Institute turned down a fascinating show on Russian
art many years back for that very reason. It eventually was picked up
by the less visited Smart Gallery at the University of Chicago, and
seen by far fewer people than it might have at the Art Institute.
Another gripe I have about the Art Institute is that they have a HUGE
gift shop. And gift shop it is. Looks like something you'd see at
the mall. Jewelry, toys, scarves, knick knacks with art masterpieces
pasted on them. It used to the Art Institute BOOK store, and you
could get an incredible amount of unusual and wonderful art books
there. But now, the stock on art books is very limited. They don't
sell as well as ties with Van Gogh sunflowers printed on them. The
money men want the bookstore to be a profitable enterprise. But IMHO
it takes away from the purpose of the museum as a cultural institution
to increase the knowledge of the visitor and turns it more into just
another boutique.
Some museums have made good compromises. I like the shop at the Field
Museum of Natural History. I think they did a fine job at that end.
It's not that I don't want the museums to make money, but I don't want
them forgetting their purpose. They shouldn't make money at that
expense.
I think this type of gift shop was another legacy from Hoving's years
at the Met. As was his famous deaccessioning, where he'd sold off
some of the less flashy coins (which were historically significant) to
make new impressive purchases. (I want to add that there were many
things I DID like about Hoving, and his books are wonderful and he was
an incredible as the editor of Connosieur Magazine, but he set some
bad precedents in the museum world.) His touting of the expensive of
purchases as an audience draw also screwed up the art market a bit.
Not to mention priorities.
Here's another problem--to cut expenses museums often cut professional
personnel replacing them with volunteers who work as docents. What a
huge savings! However, half the time even the best trained docent
really doesn't know what they are talking about. I've heard an
incredible amount of misinformation on art tours. OTH, when the
professionals are allowed to strut their stuff, the results are
maginificent! Would a business consultant care about this, or the
bottom line?
> >Libraries are public, but does the common man really *own* the books.
>
> Yes. They own them through their government.
>
Of course, but people only get to borrow them for limited times.
We can look at the art in the public museum. That's how *we* borrow
them. With our eyes. And our community owns them. We don't own them
as individuals any more than we own the books. They are part of the
resources of our communitiy. Of course, you can't let people take the
art home with them. They needed to be cared for and they are too
valuable to start lending them out! We can take pride in them. We
just can't hang them over our dining room table.
> >Public museumes do "owe" the public something. There may be an
> >insistance that there be "free" days where everyone has access or
> >"suggested" admissions. They may be considered accountable for how
> >they spend their money. They may recieve a small sum of public funds.
> > But the average Joe is not going to get a vote as to how any of the
> >money is specificly spent. That's up to the selected trustees.
>
> You mean "public" in the sense of a private museum open to the
> public. I agree with what you wrote above.
>
Many private museums are open to the public as well. Terra Museum
was. But it was still privately owned.
> >> Most Americans are unaware of the fact that in Europe most
> >> (but not all) museums are nationally owned. Thus in the UK
> >> the British Museum collection is the property of the nation
> >> itself and not of one or a few individuals. And in France
> >> museums label their displayed possessions as (to paraphrase)
> >> part of the patrimony of the French people.
> >>
> >> Thus visitors are allowed to photograph freely (with proper
> >> respect to the usual prohibition of flash guns) whatever
> >> they wish. In the US photography is often (but not always)
> >> prohibited for fear that one will somehow sell the photos
> >> and perhaps "ruin" the private investment in the originals.
> >>
> >There are two main reasons for no photography. One is because part of
> >the funds of the museums comes from the right to sell the images, such
> >as in postcards from the museum gift shops. This can be true for both
> >public AND private museums.
>
> The Art Institute in Chicago allows photography (no flash of course).
> I've a small collection of my favorite paintings from it. I am
> not allowed to make any money from those images however.
>
> At the Met in New York one can apply for permission to take
> pictures and permission is usually granted (with restrictions
> as to hours and equipment -- no flash of course but also no
> tripods, etc.) But the point is made that photography is a
> privilege and not a right.
>
I agree.
> Other museums simply prohibit pictures altogether. Lifting a
> camera will bring a guard to your side.
>
And it should! I still yell at people if they are taking pictures
with a flash. Or touch the art. Oh, I forgot to mention that some
individual collections within even a public collection can request no
photography. This can be something that the donor insists on!
BTW, an interesting thing here about the reproduction of art works.
Those with more liberal policies on reproduction tend to get their
works in more books and studies, etc. therefore increasing people's
awareness of them and their importance and thus INCREASING their
value!
> >Another VERY important reasons is that
> >the light from flashes CAN damage materials, particularly in
> >paintings. Lighting can be so dangerous for some materials that they
> >are not always on display, may be covered with a black cloth that the
> >viewer can lift, or have lights that go on only when the view
> >approaches the picture. This has nothing to do with public or
> >private. Public museums can also limit photography.
>
> We agree that flash is considered dangerous. We disagree as to
> whether a publically owned (as opposed to one open to the public)
> can really prohibit the taking of pictures.
>
I think it depends on the policies of the individual institution. I
don't think the local government cares one way or another as to the
right for people to take pictures. I think they probably leave that
up to the museum directors.
> I've got tons of images from the British Museum. I'd not be
> able to do my course without them.
>
That's because it's their policy, not because they are public.
Keep in mind that income from postcards may be considered part of the
museum's means of earning some of its operating expenses. If you go
to the board with the proposal that people NOT be allowed to
photograph so that they will buy postcards and other reproductions in
the museum's store, they may decide this is a fair and reasonable
decision. Frankly, I have no problem with it. The post cards usually
look better anyway, and I could care less if I'm in the same picture
as an the El Greco.
> >BTW, another concern with taking the image is its misuse. The artist
> >or institution may want the rights of the image to also insure that
> >it's not shown in a way that damages the reputation of the artist or
> >institution.
>
> I would agree with that. I'm basically talking about private use.
>
> >> So yes, museums are underfunded everywhere, but for different
> >> reasons. In Europe the underfunding represents the priorities
> >> of the Government and can be dealt with by proper voting at
> >> elections. In the US museums are underfunded due to the lack
> >> of private donations to museums, something I attempt to remedy
> >> in a small way out of my own pocket, but beyond that I can
> >> do nothing.
> >>
> >A big problem with museum funding is that it's very glorious to donate
> >works of art or money for the aquisitions fund or for a wing with your
> >name on it. But who wants to give money towards the operating
> >expenses?
>
> Nobody. The same applies to Universities. We have the Silver
> Center for the Arts and Sciences (the building I'm currently
> sitting in) but we do not have endowed janitorships.
>
Exactly!
>
> Which are always worth reading.
>
Thanks!
Eve
E. C. Lee
> E. C. Lee <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0cfed5b.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > Another VERY important reasons is that
> > the light from flashes CAN damage materials, particularly in
> > paintings. Lighting can be so dangerous for some materials that they
> > are not always on display, may be covered with a black cloth that the
> > viewer can lift, or have lights that go on only when the view
> > approaches the picture. This has nothing to do with public or
> > private. Public museums can also limit photography.
> >
> Hopefully, this might be read by intending US 'historical tourists'.
> A recent visit to Abu Simbel appalled me.
> Inevitably it was crowded inside the structure, possibly two-thirds USA
> people.
> For all the reasons you give, there is no flashlight photography allowed.
> Very crudely (there must have been inevitable exceptions) the USA visitors
> ignored this, the non-US visitors respected it.
> Not only that, but there must have been some dozens of US-held video cameras
> running, all inevitably with continuous flash panning up and down the walls.
> The sole Egyptian attendant was pitiably anguished at his continual
> protestations being completely ignored.
> Typical remarks were "We've come this far, we gonna have those pics". The US
> tour leaders did *nothing* to stop this.
Politely warn 'em, then sternaly warn 'em and if they still don't
listen, bounce 'em and confiscate their cameras. That's what I'd have
done. Also, I'd supply a nice public humiliation.
> If this is going on all day and every day, the effects of harsh light on
> these interiors can be imagined.
> It is understandable, having travelled so far, that visitors would like
> their own permanent memories of such wonderful places - but we had travelled
> far also!
There's usually SOMETHING else that can personalize their trip. How
'bout a nice shot with a native or a harmless monument or something?
Maybe it's a US cultural thing that we can overcome but they
> cannot?
> Not that this sole plea will do much good. But *please* pass on and
> reinforce wherever possible.
>
Oh, I inform people whenever I see them doing this! I'm *quite*
annoying! ;-)
I think, other than the fact that people have truly selfish and
boorish behavoir sometimes, they just don't understand what the
manners are in regards to this. Or *why* this is a bad idea (not
only the taking pictures of art, but the habit some people have of
"touching* things.) You may also be dealing with people who have
limited experiences with art and things of historic value.
I think people would be better off with a nice postcard, anyway. The
lighting in them is generally better than anything post amateurs can
take. I suppose some people also feel a need to document things. As
if they weren't really there unless they have a picture to prove it.
That's something I don't personally understand.
JMHO,
Eve
Paul J Gans
The distinction is simple. If a museum, like the Met in
New York, has a self-appointed board of directors and if
it can buy, sell, alter, manipulate, etc., its possessions
without the permission of any public (i.e. elected)
authority it is a privately-owned museum.
The museum may be open to the public. And it may accept
donations, and it may even take money from the public. But
ultimately the control is with a private group -- even if
the basic financing is by some Foundation -- it is a private
museum. Is the Art Institute city or state property? Is
the Field Museum city or state property? Or are they run
by a private board?
In New York the Guggenheim, the Met, the Modern, the Frick,
the Whitney, the Jewish Museum, and the Morgan are all
controlled by private boards. The Brooklyn Museum is funded
and controlled by the City of New York and is an example of a
publically owned museum.
All of the private museums have a charter. As non-profit
tax exempt institutions they have to have certain operating
rules. Nevertheless they can do almost anything they want
with their collections.
>> >> As a result of private ownership, the art treasures in the US
>> >> are not public property, but may be treated, displayed, and
>> >> dealt with as the private owners decide.
>> >>
>> >It doesn't really work that way. Even when they are public museums
>> >they are still under the care and discretion of the museum caretakers.
>> > The caretakers, who SHOULD be museum professionals (more and more the
>> >musuems fates are decided by businessmen with limited knowledge of the
>> >art itself in order to keep the place solvent), who then decide what
>> >is best for the collection. What to show, what to buy, how to keep
>> >the collection safe and in good condition. Occasionally there are
>> >scandals when things are mismanaged or bad decisions are made. Of
>> >course, it's often hushed up, so the public doesn't know too much
>> >about it.
>>
>> There would be no need for businessmen to be involved with a
>> public museum.
>>
>Not true at all! Many are critical members of the boards. It's a
>MAJOR status thing. And business folk are also hired as consultants.
>And this is one of my gripes. Many of them made their money in
>businesses unrelated to art. They don't understand the art
>market--which is very complex. And they also just look at the art as
>a commodity. Art that might not be valuable in terms of current
>resale value, can be worth a fortune in terms of educational, historic
>or artistic value.
Oh, I agree, except for the part about businessmen being
critical members of the boards. Sure, it *is* a major status
thing for them and they often, in essence, buy their membership
on the boards.
There are many other people who could do a much better job
(from the art point of view) on such boards, but they will
never be appointed.
>IMHO the purpose of an public art museum is not to make a big profit,
>but to care for the art, and to increase the cultural life and
>knowledge of the community. A lot of this changed with Hoving at the
>Met. His idea of the "blockbuster" led to a hyping up of the more
>popular shows and a decrease of the more esoteric. Yeah, this led to
>more people going to the art museums, but they tended to go to the
>same things. ( If I see one more show of Impressionism at the Art
>Institute, I'm going to puke--and of course, more are scheduled! )
>IMHO, when museums do this they aren't trying to expand the horizons
>of their audience. And it leads to the question, will these museums
>turn down a significant show for the sake of something popular?
>Probably! The Art Institute turned down a fascinating show on Russian
>art many years back for that very reason. It eventually was picked up
>by the less visited Smart Gallery at the University of Chicago, and
>seen by far fewer people than it might have at the Art Institute.
Yup.
>Another gripe I have about the Art Institute is that they have a HUGE
>gift shop. And gift shop it is. Looks like something you'd see at
>the mall. Jewelry, toys, scarves, knick knacks with art masterpieces
>pasted on them. It used to the Art Institute BOOK store, and you
>could get an incredible amount of unusual and wonderful art books
>there. But now, the stock on art books is very limited. They don't
>sell as well as ties with Van Gogh sunflowers printed on them. The
>money men want the bookstore to be a profitable enterprise. But IMHO
>it takes away from the purpose of the museum as a cultural institution
>to increase the knowledge of the visitor and turns it more into just
>another boutique.
Yes. The Met has a wonderful gift shop (seriously) but also
has an excellent book shop. The book shop at the Cloisters
is *wonderful*. I think it is the largest collection of
medieval books on permanent sale in the US. (The largest
not on permanent sale is the book show at Kalamazoo.)
The Met also has a network of gift shops around New York.
There's one at Rockefeller Center and one on Broadway in
Soho.
These are money-raising operations. They are, as I know
you know, needed because nobody, City, State, the Nation
or private philanthropy is willing to spend the needed
money on art. Gifts to museums are a minor fraction of
what is spent on gambling, just for instance.
>Some museums have made good compromises. I like the shop at the Field
>Museum of Natural History. I think they did a fine job at that end.
>It's not that I don't want the museums to make money, but I don't want
>them forgetting their purpose. They shouldn't make money at that
>expense.
>I think this type of gift shop was another legacy from Hoving's years
>at the Met. As was his famous deaccessioning, where he'd sold off
>some of the less flashy coins (which were historically significant) to
>make new impressive purchases. (I want to add that there were many
>things I DID like about Hoving, and his books are wonderful and he was
>an incredible as the editor of Connosieur Magazine, but he set some
>bad precedents in the museum world.) His touting of the expensive of
>purchases as an audience draw also screwed up the art market a bit.
>Not to mention priorities.
Sure. He could do that because he ran a private operation.
>Here's another problem--to cut expenses museums often cut professional
>personnel replacing them with volunteers who work as docents. What a
>huge savings! However, half the time even the best trained docent
>really doesn't know what they are talking about. I've heard an
>incredible amount of misinformation on art tours.
So have I. And I'm nowhere near an expert.
>OTH, when the
>professionals are allowed to strut their stuff, the results are
>maginificent! Would a business consultant care about this, or the
>bottom line?
One of the really good things about the NYU Medieval and
Renaissance Studies Programs is our relationship with several
of the curators at the Morgan. Being taken on a tour by one
of them is a wonderful and unforgetable experience.
>> >Libraries are public, but does the common man really *own* the books.
>>
>> Yes. They own them through their government.
>>
>Of course, but people only get to borrow them for limited times.
Sure.
>We can look at the art in the public museum. That's how *we* borrow
>them. With our eyes. And our community owns them. We don't own them
>as individuals any more than we own the books. They are part of the
>resources of our communitiy. Of course, you can't let people take the
>art home with them. They needed to be cared for and they are too
>valuable to start lending them out! We can take pride in them. We
>just can't hang them over our dining room table.
I don't want to take the art home. My point is that I don't
own them, certainly not in a private sense but more importantly
in a community sense. If the board agreed, Hoving could have
shipped the entire collection to Bolivia.
They can't do that at the British Museum. The government would
not let them because ultimately the Government owns the material.
>> >Public museumes do "owe" the public something. There may be an
>> >insistance that there be "free" days where everyone has access or
>> >"suggested" admissions. They may be considered accountable for how
>> >they spend their money. They may recieve a small sum of public funds.
>> > But the average Joe is not going to get a vote as to how any of the
>> >money is specificly spent. That's up to the selected trustees.
>>
>> You mean "public" in the sense of a private museum open to the
>> public. I agree with what you wrote above.
>>
>Many private museums are open to the public as well. Terra Museum
>was. But it was still privately owned.
Was? Is that the one on Michigan? If so, I've been there.
Yes. That is because title has not yet fully passed to
the museum.
>BTW, an interesting thing here about the reproduction of art works.
>Those with more liberal policies on reproduction tend to get their
>works in more books and studies, etc. therefore increasing people's
>awareness of them and their importance and thus INCREASING their
>value!
YES!!! For instance, although many people violate the rule
(including me) one is not supposed to use photographs of materials
on one's web pages. But I think it is madness to think that
a lousy two inch by two inch 90 dots per inch image is going
somehow to lessen demand to see the original. As you say,
it could only increase it.
>> >Another VERY important reasons is that
>> >the light from flashes CAN damage materials, particularly in
>> >paintings. Lighting can be so dangerous for some materials that they
>> >are not always on display, may be covered with a black cloth that the
>> >viewer can lift, or have lights that go on only when the view
>> >approaches the picture. This has nothing to do with public or
>> >private. Public museums can also limit photography.
>>
>> We agree that flash is considered dangerous. We disagree as to
>> whether a publically owned (as opposed to one open to the public)
>> can really prohibit the taking of pictures.
>>
>I think it depends on the policies of the individual institution. I
>don't think the local government cares one way or another as to the
>right for people to take pictures. I think they probably leave that
>up to the museum directors.
Sure. But the directors are responsible to the government. For
instance here in New York a while back there was a very edgy
exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. Some in the public did not like
it and the mayor at the time (Guiliani) threatened to close the
place if they did not take the "objectionable" image down.
He could do that because the city owns the museum. There was
a public outcry and it soon became clear that his threat had
almost no public support outside of a bunch of crazy folks.
On the other hand, if the work had hung at the Met (which it
would not because it was edgy) there would have been nothing
the mayor could have done except to complain in public.
>> I've got tons of images from the British Museum. I'd not be
>> able to do my course without them.
>>
>That's because it's their policy, not because they are public.
Sure. But the point is that since the nation owns the artifacts
(NOT private foundation) they'd be hard put to ban photography
without a reason. They can and do ban flash.
>Keep in mind that income from postcards may be considered part of the
>museum's means of earning some of its operating expenses. If you go
>to the board with the proposal that people NOT be allowed to
>photograph so that they will buy postcards and other reproductions in
>the museum's store, they may decide this is a fair and reasonable
>decision. Frankly, I have no problem with it. The post cards usually
>look better anyway, and I could care less if I'm in the same picture
>as an the El Greco.
Agreed. But the priority is different. With a publically
owned museum, the government is in some sense committed to
providing enough money for maintainance and salaries.
(I know that does not mean that they will or do, but they
do have such a committment.) At the Modern in New York there
is NO such commitment at all. That's a major difference.
>> >BTW, another concern with taking the image is its misuse. The artist
>> >or institution may want the rights of the image to also insure that
>> >it's not shown in a way that damages the reputation of the artist or
>> >institution.
>>
>> I would agree with that. I'm basically talking about private use.
>>
>> >> So yes, museums are underfunded everywhere, but for different
>> >> reasons. In Europe the underfunding represents the priorities
>> >> of the Government and can be dealt with by proper voting at
>> >> elections. In the US museums are underfunded due to the lack
>> >> of private donations to museums, something I attempt to remedy
>> >> in a small way out of my own pocket, but beyond that I can
>> >> do nothing.
>> >>
>> >A big problem with museum funding is that it's very glorious to donate
>> >works of art or money for the aquisitions fund or for a wing with your
>> >name on it. But who wants to give money towards the operating
>> >expenses?
>>
>> Nobody. The same applies to Universities. We have the Silver
>> Center for the Arts and Sciences (the building I'm currently
>> sitting in) but we do not have endowed janitorships.
>>
>Exactly!
But we are a private institution.
By the way, the so-called "public universities" in the US
have been purposely underfunded for years to the point where
they have effectively become private. Take the UofI for
example. I understand that less than 20% of their income
now comes from the state and that the tuition, once either
nothing or very nominal, is now quite large. Nevertheless,
they are public becaue they have boards that are responsible
to the state. In Illinois I believe that they are elected
by the voters.
NYU, which also gets about 20% of its funding from public
funds (by various means) is nevertheless private because we
have a private board of trustees responsible to nobody.
>>
>> Which are always worth reading.
>>
>Thanks!
Tis true.
---- Paul J. Gans
Jim Beck
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cfed5b.0402...@posting.google.com...
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:<c1m777$lif$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
> > In alt.history.british Sheila J <wols...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> A big problem with museum funding is that it's very glorious to donate
> works of art or money for the aquisitions fund or for a wing with your
> name on it. But who wants to give money towards the operating
> expenses?
In the past, people who gave heavily to the general fund often became
trustees or board members. Has this changed?
a.spencer3
> listen, bounce 'em and confiscate their cameras. That's what I'd have
> done. Also, I'd supply a nice public humiliation.
They were hard-arsed. Numerous 'loud comments' were made, supported by some
of the USians. They just carried on regardless. We were greatly outnumbered!
Abu Simbel wasn't the only example. It does seem to be a national trait.
Even the snap-happy Japs usually recognised the restrictions.
>
> > I suppose some people also feel a need to document things. As
> if they weren't really there unless they have a picture to prove it.
> That's something I don't personally understand.
>
Yeh - they spend all their time looking through video cameras and rarely
look at the real thing!
Surreyman
Sheila J
> military regulations, e.g. they may not charge admission.
>
> I know rather too much about this because I used to oversee the financial
> operations of the RCA Museum and RCA Fund, and sign thousands of tax
> receipts every year. Our curator (Jodi Eskritt, MA Leeds, 1988?) was
> legally authorized to appraise everything from a button to a tank. We
> qualified for funding from the province of Manitoba to mount travelling
> exhibits for the 50th anniversary of Normandy under the rubric "Canada
> Remembers" (Sheila should remember that). My predecessors tried to use
> the Cultural Property Import and Export Act to block the sale of an
> Auster Mk IV artillery air observation post aircraft as the Regiment
> tried to muster the money to acquire it (of the type flown by James
> Doohan, "Scotty" of Star Trek notoriety, when he was a Canadian Gunner).
> We could not come close to the bid and had to console ourselves with the
> knowledge that the plane went to a good home in the United States.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
>
>
>
I have all the Canada Remembers plates, Andrew! :D
Neat fundraising going on here in Winnipeg...
Krispy Kream donuts (which are beyond yummy) are brought up from the
states every week or so and then sold to back Op OVERLORD - which is a
local initiative to send back the local vets to the 60th Anniversary
DDay celebrations..
NOW that is a cause that I am all for....philanthropy AWAYYYYYYYYY........
E. C. Lee
define themselves. They may be privately governed, but they still get
a certain amount of public funding and have certain responsibilities
that they are required to fulfil. There is also a question of their
founding and their charter which distinguish them as public. The
Terra museum is not bound to the city of Chicago. It was an
individual's collection that was set up to be a self perpetuating
institution but in no way accounts to anybody but itself. There was a
decision for that museum to move out of the state. There was protest,
but in the end, there was nothing the city could do. It was not a
city museum. This is not the case with the Art Institute. State
University museums, such as the Krannart, are bound to their
University and thus the state. The Cleveland is a private museum. To
my knowledge, it does not get government support and does what it
pleases in ways that public museums cannot. Nevertheless, it is open
to the public.
> The museum may be open to the public. And it may accept
> donations, and it may even take money from the public. But
> ultimately the control is with a private group -- even if
> the basic financing is by some Foundation -- it is a private
> museum. Is the Art Institute city or state property? Is
> the Field Museum city or state property? Or are they run
> by a private board?
>
They are run by a board on behalf of the public. There are certain
things they can and cannot do.
> In New York the Guggenheim, the Met, the Modern, the Frick,
> the Whitney, the Jewish Museum, and the Morgan are all
> controlled by private boards. The Brooklyn Museum is funded
> and controlled by the City of New York and is an example of a
> publically owned museum.
>
> All of the private museums have a charter. As non-profit
> tax exempt institutions they have to have certain operating
> rules. Nevertheless they can do almost anything they want
> with their collections.
>
I think the distinguishment you are trying to make is to how they are
run. Nevertheless, they are still considered public museums and are
accountable to the public to a certain extent. A true private museum
is not.
In recent years they have had a lot of impact the running of the
museums. They've made a lot of changes that IMHO have not been for
the better.
> There are many other people who could do a much better job
> (from the art point of view) on such boards, but they will
> never be appointed.
>
In the past, the businessman/enlightened collector might have been
major force. I don't think that's considered as important anymore.
There is an interest in financial matters that often takes precedence
over the art itself.
I agree. Along with all the do dahs they have a wonderful bookstore.
Unfortunately, the Art Institute doesn't have as large of a space and
reduced the importance of the books to emphasize the dodahs.
> The Met also has a network of gift shops around New York.
> There's one at Rockefeller Center and one on Broadway in
> Soho.
>
They used to do mail order business as well. They still might.
> These are money-raising operations. They are, as I know
> you know, needed because nobody, City, State, the Nation
> or private philanthropy is willing to spend the needed
> money on art. Gifts to museums are a minor fraction of
> what is spent on gambling, just for instance.
>
No problem here with money raising events, as long as they don't
become more important than the art itself.
> >Some museums have made good compromises. I like the shop at the Field
> >Museum of Natural History. I think they did a fine job at that end.
> >It's not that I don't want the museums to make money, but I don't want
> >them forgetting their purpose. They shouldn't make money at that
> >expense.
>
> >I think this type of gift shop was another legacy from Hoving's years
> >at the Met. As was his famous deaccessioning, where he'd sold off
> >some of the less flashy coins (which were historically significant) to
> >make new impressive purchases. (I want to add that there were many
> >things I DID like about Hoving, and his books are wonderful and he was
> >an incredible as the editor of Connosieur Magazine, but he set some
> >bad precedents in the museum world.) His touting of the expensive of
> >purchases as an audience draw also screwed up the art market a bit.
> >Not to mention priorities.
>
> Sure. He could do that because he ran a private operation.
>
It was still the city museum, but he was allowed to make decisions
because he was put in its charge. There was a great deal of outcry in
the museum world that he overstepped his bounds. In a true private
museum, like the Terra, it was no one's business WHAT it did.
Ummm, we could make parallels with the federal government here. The
point is, the director is entrusted with his responsiblity on behalf
of the public, as are his boards. They are doing this with the public
trust. They are usually given a strong degree of latitude. It's
assumed that they know what they are doing and are looking after our
best interests.
> They can't do that at the British Museum. The government would
> not let them because ultimately the Government owns the material.
>
I don't think it's a question of ownership, it's a question of control
and who is given the control. The public museum here is run and
managed on behalf of the public. It may well be a different
definition of what makes it public.
> >> >Public museumes do "owe" the public something. There may be an
> >> >insistance that there be "free" days where everyone has access or
> >> >"suggested" admissions. They may be considered accountable for how
> >> >they spend their money. They may recieve a small sum of public funds.
> >> > But the average Joe is not going to get a vote as to how any of the
> >> >money is specificly spent. That's up to the selected trustees.
> >>
> >> You mean "public" in the sense of a private museum open to the
> >> public. I agree with what you wrote above.
> >>
Ummm, not exactly. It is a public museum that is managed as an entity
unto itself by appointed trustees and directors. It still has
responsibilities to the public, but it has a great deal of leeway in
managing its own affairs.
> >Many private museums are open to the public as well. Terra Museum
> >was. But it was still privately owned.
>
> Was? Is that the one on Michigan? If so, I've been there.
>
Terra was originally in Evanston, then was in Chicago. I believe it
has moved since then. I'm not sure if it went to Michigan. Never one
of my favorite museums. Not a bad collection, really. American. I
just didn't care for how it was run. They also charged a huge
admission fee.
A donor often agrees to donate under *circumstances*. It's still
museum's gift, but those circumstances must be obeyed. One common
circumstance is that the collection must be shown together. I know of
circumstances where the museum is forced to take an entire donation
where some of the items are treasures and part are trash (possibly
even frauds or misattributed). To get the gems all is accepted. The
donor, meanwhile, can deduct the losers, as if they were winners, as
part of their charitable donation.
> >BTW, an interesting thing here about the reproduction of art works.
> >Those with more liberal policies on reproduction tend to get their
> >works in more books and studies, etc. therefore increasing people's
> >awareness of them and their importance and thus INCREASING their
> >value!
>
> YES!!! For instance, although many people violate the rule
> (including me) one is not supposed to use photographs of materials
> on one's web pages. But I think it is madness to think that
> a lousy two inch by two inch 90 dots per inch image is going
> somehow to lessen demand to see the original. As you say,
> it could only increase it.
>
Well, it's one of those things where they don't want to establish
precedents. Or, they are just pricks. Do you think it really matters
if someone has Mickey Mouse on their birthday cake? Disney Corp
does. If they catch a bakery putting a picture of the famous rodent
or any of their other characters on a child's cake, they will close
down the bakery if they don't get their cut. A jealous legal
department anywhere can do the same. In the case of an art museum, it
can be the decision of that museum or part of the conditions of the
owner. But you aren't considering another factor. Most people don't
get to see the originals. If you are showing an inferior copy, you
might be giving people a false impression of the original. If it
makes the artist look bad, well, you could be damaging his/her
reputation. This is a valid legal manner. Some won't care, others
will.
> >> >Another VERY important reasons is that
> >> >the light from flashes CAN damage materials, particularly in
> >> >paintings. Lighting can be so dangerous for some materials that they
> >> >are not always on display, may be covered with a black cloth that the
> >> >viewer can lift, or have lights that go on only when the view
> >> >approaches the picture. This has nothing to do with public or
> >> >private. Public museums can also limit photography.
> >>
> >> We agree that flash is considered dangerous. We disagree as to
> >> whether a publically owned (as opposed to one open to the public)
> >> can really prohibit the taking of pictures.
> >>
> >I think it depends on the policies of the individual institution. I
> >don't think the local government cares one way or another as to the
> >right for people to take pictures. I think they probably leave that
> >up to the museum directors.
>
> Sure. But the directors are responsible to the government. For
> instance here in New York a while back there was a very edgy
> exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. Some in the public did not like
> it and the mayor at the time (Guiliani) threatened to close the
> place if they did not take the "objectionable" image down.
>
Again, a control issue. It has a much shorter leash. But there was a
case, where a student show at the school of the Art Institute had an
"objectionable" painting (it showed the then mayor in an unfavorable
light) and the show was raided by the cops. I believed the work was
removed.
> He could do that because the city owns the museum. There was
> a public outcry and it soon became clear that his threat had
> almost no public support outside of a bunch of crazy folks.
>
The city has direct ownership and direct control. These other public
museums are more independent. In the case you stated, is that direct
control such a good thing? The independent control allows the museum
to run in the best interests of the museum on behalf of the public.
In the case you mention the major was acting in the part of a
dictator. It is assumed that the private board of a public museum
has been selected to do what is in the best interest of a museum that
is there to serve the public.
> On the other hand, if the work had hung at the Met (which it
> would not because it was edgy) there would have been nothing
> the mayor could have done except to complain in public.
>
Actually, there could have been the protest to cut off all public
funding. I've heard that threatened before.
> >> I've got tons of images from the British Museum. I'd not be
> >> able to do my course without them.
> >>
> >That's because it's their policy, not because they are public.
>
> Sure. But the point is that since the nation owns the artifacts
> (NOT private foundation) they'd be hard put to ban photography
> without a reason. They can and do ban flash.
>
That doesn't make the other institutions less public. They just
choose to have their own policies which they defend on the point that
it is ultimately in the public's best interest.
> >Keep in mind that income from postcards may be considered part of the
> >museum's means of earning some of its operating expenses. If you go
> >to the board with the proposal that people NOT be allowed to
> >photograph so that they will buy postcards and other reproductions in
> >the museum's store, they may decide this is a fair and reasonable
> >decision. Frankly, I have no problem with it. The post cards usually
> >look better anyway, and I could care less if I'm in the same picture
> >as an the El Greco.
>
> Agreed. But the priority is different. With a publically
> owned museum, the government is in some sense committed to
> providing enough money for maintainance and salaries.
> (I know that does not mean that they will or do, but they
> do have such a committment.) At the Modern in New York there
> is NO such commitment at all. That's a major difference.
>
It is a difference sense of responsibility here.
Yet they are still officially public. That the government washes it's
hands of most of the responsibilities of funding and running these
places is another story. Some governement support is still given and
there are responsibilities that must be maintained. As to whether or
not the government should take a greater interest in running and
maintaining some of these institutions, I'm not so sure that's a good
idea. There are a lot of dangers that come with such power.
Eve
Andrew Chaplin
>
> Hilarious!
Grow up.
E. C. Lee
I'd have to check on a case by case basis. That was the story in the
past, without doubt. I think today they are trying to choose people
who have success in business so that the museums can be run as if they
were successful businesses.
I'm trying to remember the name of a couple books that might be
helpful. There's one, I think the title is "The Art Museum as
Educator". It was one of my textbooks when I was in a museum studies
program years ago. Not sure if it's still available. Another
fascinating book with some insight into the American art museum world,
I believe, is called, "Tales from the Art Crypt". If I come across it
again and can get the exact title and author, I'll post it.
Eve
Jim Beck
US symphonies went through the same thing in the early 80s. The end result
was almost every symphony plays the same short list of commercially
successful music. [Economically, it's no different from a host of services.
For example, public transporation system serves everyone up to the limit of
its revenue authority, while a privatized system serves only profitable
routes.] Every recession exposes the progressive underfunding of the arts.
Gotta watch those politicians like a hawk. In Colorado, there's an explicit
tax levy for culture and libraries. Originally, the state lottery was
permitted by the voters because it would fund parks & recreation. A blink
later, parks & rec weren't getting the ducats. It took a statewide
referendum to force the issue, now enshrined in Article 27 of the state
constitution.
In 1992, voters "Bruce-ified" the state constitution by passing the
taxpayer's bill of rights, which restricts the power of the representative
government to both levy and spend tax dollars. Politicians hate having their
hands tied & representatives of both major parties have sued to
de-Bruce-ify.
When people get angry enough, they can fix it. Careful though, the cure may
be worse than the disease.
Paul J Gans
Good grief! Is it 60 years already? I still vividly recall
the radio broadcasting from the landing craft...
--- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
ITA! I have missed some superb, unparalelled photo opportunities with mine 'at
low light levels' (hem hem) recently, to my great disappointment - the flash
is no brighter than an anaemic gloworm after a three day rave. Even so, it has
been great fun, and it's amazing what horrors you can pull out of an
apparently black frame with photoshop etc...
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
I was out there a while back, in a mixed party of US, Australian and British.
I got my revenge when our bus was stopped at a roadblock by grim faced
soldiers, and I couldn't help but say in a loud, clear, ringing voice "don't
worry, they'll shoot the Americans first.."
No sense of humour (my poor father still hasn't forgiven me).
Martin Reboul
Don't worry - I still have an RCA AR88D and a #19set....
Martin Reboul
> >> one hell of a lot more expensive than the present method,
> >> but a lot safer in the long run. It would be expensive
> >> because the material would have to be maintained under the
> >> same very expensive curatorial and physical care that is
> >> used now, only spread over more venues. And it would make
> >> life harder for scholars.
> >>
> >> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
>
>
> >Paul: I'm hugely in favour of conservation. I've volunteered at
> >museums and run military museums for years.....
> >BUT....one of the joys of museums is public access and education. If we
> >disperse all our historical assets, then we are making it more and more
> >difficult for the average person to have the benefit of this same history.
>
>
> >Is just having 'history' more important that making it accessible?
>
> >I'm not sure about the answer.
>
> Having it is more important than easy accessibility. It is
> easy to debate until it is gone. All we need now is a major
> fire in a museum to see the truth of that -- say during a
> Vermeer show. Whups, there go all the Vermers left on earth.
>
> I've had the misfortune to see two such fires on a small scale.
> One was at a small museum at the University of Illinois that
> housed, among other things, three Rembrant drawings. You'll
> never see them again.
>
> The other was in Edward Hopper's workshop. Hopper was a
> major American painter of the middle of the 20th century.
> He lived and worked on the northern edge of Washington
> Square Park. After his death, his top-floor workshop
> (with skylights) burned in a fire, taking with it a number
> of his unsold paintings and a number of his unfinished
> ones.
>
> I watched under the misapprehension that Hopper's house was
> next door. It was only the next day I found out how wrong
> I was.
>
> The house has been rebuilt (I can see it from my office window
> right now) but the Hoppers have not been repainted... ;-)
>
>
> But I would want the collection accessible. There's no reason
> why they could not be. New York has almost a dozen major art
> museums and scads of smaller ones. One can spend a day at
> any of them. The Met, on the other hand, is so large that
> one cannot see the entire displayed collection in any sort
> of few days -- and most of their collection is in storage
> so *nobody* among the public sees it.
I think the best thing to do is have everything very carefully catalogued,
photographed and recorded, and records duplicated and dispersed. These would
not only provide a 'tappable resource' they would preserve some the essence of
the artefact for posterity. True, you could never bring back a burnt painting
or melted brooch, but you would have some part of it so it would never be
forgotten.
As for the items themselves, this is difficult. Keeping them all together is
good from the point of view of those who want to go and see one subject (such
as Vermeers) in particular, but keeping many such collections in one place is
sometimes a bit much to see in one go. I visited the V&A twice last year and
realised that I had missed three quarters of it on the first visit. Even so, I
was suffering from 'overload' after seeing just that bit - you can have too
much of a wonderful thing!
Cheers
Martin
E. C. Lee
> E. C. Lee <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0cfed5b.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > > Politely warn 'em, then sternaly warn 'em and if they still don't
> > listen, bounce 'em and confiscate their cameras. That's what I'd have
> > done. Also, I'd supply a nice public humiliation.
>
> They were hard-arsed. Numerous 'loud comments' were made, supported by some
> of the USians. They just carried on regardless. We were greatly outnumbered!
> Abu Simbel wasn't the only example. It does seem to be a national trait.
> Even the snap-happy Japs usually recognised the restrictions.
>
and send them back home at one time? ;-)
There are many museums I've been in where the cameras were confiscated
on entrance. They'd be returned as the visitor exits. I think that's
not a bad idea.
Eve (hopefully one of many considerate American travelers)
Andrew Chaplin
>
> > Good grief! Is it 60 years already? I still vividly recall
> > the radio broadcasting from the landing craft...
>
> Don't worry - I still have an RCA AR88D and a #19set....
A 19 Set? Who built it?
a.spencer3
> > On the other hand, didn't some of your countrymen slice up monuments
> and send them back home at one time? ;-)
>
Surreyman
Martin Reboul
"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:4041592B...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
> Martin Reboul wrote:
> >
> > > Good grief! Is it 60 years already? I still vividly recall
> > > the radio broadcasting from the landing craft...
> >
> > Don't worry - I still have an RCA AR88D and a #19set....
>
> A 19 Set? Who built it?
Marconi I think? It was a tank transceiver. Not Marconi himself of course,
although the design and 'efficiency' of the thing were hardly an improvement
on spark. Good thing tanks stayed in close formation in those days.
I'm pretty sure it was a US design? I also had the rotary generators with
Russian markings in luminous paint, which geiger counters found most
interesting.
NB - if you are ever tempted to fire one up, DO NOT use a metal jack plug for
the key! It breaks the 500V supply to the screen grid of the PA valve, and if
you have one sweaty hand gripping the case handle as you insert the plug with
another sweaty hand.... let's just say, I found out the hard way! As if it
wasn't dangerous enough being stuck in a WWII allied tank, the hapless radio
operator also had +500V strapped to his knee... shocking is hardly the word!
Cheers
Martin
Andrew Chaplin
>
> > A 19 Set? Who built it?
>
> Marconi I think? It was a tank transceiver. Not Marconi himself of course,
> although the design and 'efficiency' of the thing were hardly an improvement
> on spark. Good thing tanks stayed in close formation in those days.
> I'm pretty sure it was a US design? I also had the rotary generators with
> Russian markings in luminous paint, which geiger counters found most
> interesting.
> NB - if you are ever tempted to fire one up, DO NOT use a metal jack plug for
> the key! It breaks the 500V supply to the screen grid of the PA valve, and if
> you have one sweaty hand gripping the case handle as you insert the plug with
> another sweaty hand.... let's just say, I found out the hard way! As if it
> wasn't dangerous enough being stuck in a WWII allied tank, the hapless radio
> operator also had +500V strapped to his knee... shocking is hardly the word!
> Cheers
> Martin
I ask because significant numbers of the 19 Set were built in Canada,
I think by Canadian Marconi. I think it was a licensed U.S. design.
Many were exported to the Soviets. Most of those exported after '43
have a gold-on-blue maple leaf decal with "CANADA" in the Roman and
Cyrillic letters, and in Chinese characters.
William Black
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cfed5b.04022...@posting.google.com...
> Well, that might be how you define it, but that's not how the museums
> define themselves. They may be privately governed, but they still get
> a certain amount of public funding and have certain responsibilities
> that they are required to fulfil.
In the UK the curatorial staff of the major public museums are Civil
Servants, recruited and employed by the state.
Daddy can't fix you a job there by donating a couple of million...
Ya gotta have a 1st in whatever they'd like as well...
And god help the museum director who bounces a better applicant for some
rich kid when he's short of cash...
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
E. C. Lee
> "E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0cfed5b.04022...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Well, that might be how you define it, but that's not how the museums
> > define themselves. They may be privately governed, but they still get
> > a certain amount of public funding and have certain responsibilities
> > that they are required to fulfil.
>
> In the UK the curatorial staff of the major public museums are Civil
> Servants, recruited and employed by the state.
>
> Daddy can't fix you a job there by donating a couple of million...
>
> Ya gotta have a 1st in whatever they'd like as well...
>
> And god help the museum director who bounces a better applicant for some
> rich kid when he's short of cash...
That's wonderful. I'm from Chicago. Land of patronage. Such
concepts are alien! However, it's not so much that a rich kid would
get a city job, as someone who had an
*in* with the alderman.
As far as the city museum is concerned, after I'd finished my
education, I went for an assistant curatorial job and was told that
they couldn't afford secretaries so that I would have to do my own.
Even though I was more than qualified and experienced as an art
historian, the curator regretfully told me that management thought it
was easier to train a typist about the art than to train an art
historian how to type. At the time I didn't know how to type (and
some who read my posts might still say that.) You can imagine the
outcome.
Eve
Paul J Gans
Good grief! Museum stuff.
---- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
And an R1155A and a CR100... they still work too, but better as door stops
than receivers.
Martin Reboul
I think mine was made in Stanmore - the wiring is atrocious! As it happens,
the 'B' set is most interesting - a 235Mhz super-regenerative R/T unit, which
plays merry Hell with mobile phones. Quite useful in fact...
Paul J Gans
>"Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:4041592B...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
>> Martin Reboul wrote:
>> >
>> > > Good grief! Is it 60 years already? I still vividly recall
>> > > the radio broadcasting from the landing craft...
>> >
>> > Don't worry - I still have an RCA AR88D and a #19set....
>>
>> A 19 Set? Who built it?
>Marconi I think? It was a tank transceiver. Not Marconi himself of course,
>although the design and 'efficiency' of the thing were hardly an improvement
>on spark. Good thing tanks stayed in close formation in those days.
>I'm pretty sure it was a US design? I also had the rotary generators with
>Russian markings in luminous paint, which geiger counters found most
>interesting.
Not to worry. In those more innocent days small bits of
radioactive materials were added to the paint to make them
glow in the dark. Otherwise after a while they'd go dark.
Zinc sulfide was often used for the non-radioactive ones.
You had to expose them to sunlight for a few hours but they'd
go dark rather fast.
Watches were also marked with radioactive paint. The level
was low and the radioactive emissions would not penetrate the
metal casing or glass face of the watch.
>NB - if you are ever tempted to fire one up, DO NOT use a metal jack plug for
>the key! It breaks the 500V supply to the screen grid of the PA valve, and if
>you have one sweaty hand gripping the case handle as you insert the plug with
>another sweaty hand.... let's just say, I found out the hard way! As if it
>wasn't dangerous enough being stuck in a WWII allied tank, the hapless radio
>operator also had +500V strapped to his knee... shocking is hardly the word!
Was it battery operated or done off the tank electrics? I've
seen a number of WWII radios which could do either.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Yup. The person hired instead of you never learned anything
about art.
---- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
I think a few half lives must have gone by, as it is hardly luminous any more.
Proper radium paint even so. I saw a horrifying documentary about the girls
who worked at the 'Radium Dial' factory a few years ago - only one out of
hundreds had survived into her 70's, and she was extremely ill. To get a 'nice
sharp line' on the clock faces, they were told to lick their brush between
strokes... and they used to lark around, painting their faces and turning the
lights off... not advisable! They visited the grave of one of them (eho had
died and been buried decades ago), and even though she was 'six feet under',
the geiger counter went ballistic when they passed it over her grave. The site
of the factory is unusable and fenced off for hundreds of yards - health &
safety arrived too late I'm afraid.
> >NB - if you are ever tempted to fire one up, DO NOT use a metal jack plug
for
> >the key! It breaks the 500V supply to the screen grid of the PA valve, and
if
> >you have one sweaty hand gripping the case handle as you insert the plug
with
> >another sweaty hand.... let's just say, I found out the hard way! As if it
> >wasn't dangerous enough being stuck in a WWII allied tank, the hapless
radio
> >operator also had +500V strapped to his knee... shocking is hardly the
word!
>
> Was it battery operated or done off the tank electrics? I've
> seen a number of WWII radios which could do either.
Twin rotary generators from 12V in the most 'advanced' version - one puts out
a steady 250V and the 550V one fires up when you press the PTT button, all
very exciting (and lethally dangerous). Unfortunately the thing drew a good
20A from the battery, not very efficient when considering it put out a mighty
13W of RF. Still enough to get in big trouble though, as I never did pass my
morse test, ahem...
The T1154 was another horror altogether however (as used in Lancasters and
Mosquitoes), which chucked out a hair raising 60 - 70W with its 2000V Ht
supply, and devastated TV reception for miles around. Very simple - an
oscillator and a PA, that was it. How we ever won the war with equipment like
this is a bit of a mystery, but it obviously did the job... I still love it.
Cheers
Martin
E. C. Lee
I never followed up on it. But if their knowledge of art is as good
as my typing, we are in big trouble! ;-)
Eve
Paul J Gans
Oh yes. But the extent of the danger was not fully recognized
early on. There was a similar thing among hatters working in
felt in period around the 19th-20th centuries. The fibers were
worked in mercury and the mercury was absorbed through the skin.
It is neurotoxic and led to tremors and mental strangeness. Hence
"mad as a hatter."
>> >NB - if you are ever tempted to fire one up, DO NOT use a metal jack plug
>for
>> >the key! It breaks the 500V supply to the screen grid of the PA valve, and
>if
>> >you have one sweaty hand gripping the case handle as you insert the plug
>with
>> >another sweaty hand.... let's just say, I found out the hard way! As if it
>> >wasn't dangerous enough being stuck in a WWII allied tank, the hapless
>radio
>> >operator also had +500V strapped to his knee... shocking is hardly the
>word!
>>
>> Was it battery operated or done off the tank electrics? I've
>> seen a number of WWII radios which could do either.
>Twin rotary generators from 12V in the most 'advanced' version - one puts out
>a steady 250V and the 550V one fires up when you press the PTT button, all
>very exciting (and lethally dangerous). Unfortunately the thing drew a good
>20A from the battery, not very efficient when considering it put out a mighty
>13W of RF. Still enough to get in big trouble though, as I never did pass my
>morse test, ahem...
Valve (tube in the US) electronics were never very efficient.
I used to design and build these as a summer job in the
early 1950s. Most of the power went into heating the
filament and only a small fraction of that power was turned
into current. Transistors can be (and are) much more
efficient.
>The T1154 was another horror altogether however (as used in Lancasters and
>Mosquitoes), which chucked out a hair raising 60 - 70W with its 2000V Ht
>supply, and devastated TV reception for miles around. Very simple - an
>oscillator and a PA, that was it. How we ever won the war with equipment like
>this is a bit of a mystery, but it obviously did the job... I still love it.
Yeah, but there was no TV to disrupt during WWII. Those bands
were empty. But they played havoc with most ordinary radio as
well if they were close by.
And it was state of the art at the time. Today we'd track
them by their spray of RF on tons of frequencies.
---- Paul J. Gans
Martin Reboul
I heard that people working on 'anti-knock' additives for fuel suffered
similarly ghastly fates? The more OT 'medieval' complaint was probably lead
poising, suffered by cider drinkers when the presses were made with lead
aprons and piping. They even used 'sugar of lead' to sweeten the stuff it is
said (cheaper than sugar).
But not nearly as much fun! Push a transistor too hard and there's a little
pop and a nasty smell, no fun at all. I like to see anodes glowing cherry red
and that lovely blue electron cloud pulsating to your voice. The energy wasted
on the heater gets more and more insignificant as the power level goes up
anyway... I like to see things really *working* (except myself of course). The
old 813 was a nice bottle....
>
>
> >The T1154 was another horror altogether however (as used in Lancasters and
> >Mosquitoes), which chucked out a hair raising 60 - 70W with its 2000V Ht
> >supply, and devastated TV reception for miles around. Very simple - an
> >oscillator and a PA, that was it. How we ever won the war with equipment
like
> >this is a bit of a mystery, but it obviously did the job... I still love
it.
>
> Yeah, but there was no TV to disrupt during WWII. Those bands
> were empty. But they played havoc with most ordinary radio as
> well if they were close by.
For jamming the uplink between ground control and German fighters, the T1154
had an extra microphone lodged in one of the engine nacelles to make a load of
noise and prevent the radio operator getting hoarse... the mind boggles. No
crystal control, and I daresay 10$ of the output was harmonics. But it
worked....
> And it was state of the art at the time. Today we'd track
> them by their spray of RF on tons of frequencies.
This almost is 'medieval' radio here! I also have one of those little
emergency distress beacon/radios with a dipole aerial (as used by Wm Holden at
the end of 'The Bridges at Toko Ri'
to call up a rescue helicopter, and direct the rest of his squadron to
administer air strikes etc.) A fascinating little thing, with half a dozen
1.5V direct filament valves which I bought for £10 at an airshow. Being me, I
couldn't resist putting a few volts up it, and to my astonishment it worked
perfectly (though I couldn't manage to call up an airstrike - they don't use
AM any more I'm afraid). Even so, it was bleeping away for several hours
before I worked out the frequency it was on - 121.5 MHz, the international
distress frequency... quickly dismantled and hidden away ever since. I
remembered what happened to Bill Holden at the end of the film too, mind you,
hardly surprising when the helicopter was piloted by Mickey Rooney... oh dear!
Cheers
Martin
Paul J Gans
And so we are! But not because of your typing. *That* can
easily be learned in a month. Art,.... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:c1vvda$p2u$1...@reader2.panix.com...
[stuff trimmed for mercy]
>> Oh yes. But the extent of the danger was not fully recognized
>> early on. There was a similar thing among hatters working in
>> felt in period around the 19th-20th centuries. The fibers were
>> worked in mercury and the mercury was absorbed through the skin.
>> It is neurotoxic and led to tremors and mental strangeness. Hence
>> "mad as a hatter."
>I heard that people working on 'anti-knock' additives for fuel suffered
>similarly ghastly fates? The more OT 'medieval' complaint was probably lead
>poising, suffered by cider drinkers when the presses were made with lead
>aprons and piping. They even used 'sugar of lead' to sweeten the stuff it is
>said (cheaper than sugar).
Yup. Killed a lot of Romans too. They used lead pipe. Lead
oxide is modestly soluble -- more in hot water (think warm days
in Rome) than in cold, but...
Arsenic oxide is also rather sweet. Nice old ladies used to
add it to tea to off their despicable nephews, at least in
theater... ;-)
[more snippage]
>> Valve (tube in the US) electronics were never very efficient.
>> I used to design and build these as a summer job in the
>> early 1950s. Most of the power went into heating the
>> filament and only a small fraction of that power was turned
>> into current. Transistors can be (and are) much more
>> efficient.
>But not nearly as much fun! Push a transistor too hard and there's a little
>pop and a nasty smell, no fun at all. I like to see anodes glowing cherry red
>and that lovely blue electron cloud pulsating to your voice. The energy wasted
>on the heater gets more and more insignificant as the power level goes up
>anyway... I like to see things really *working* (except myself of course). The
>old 813 was a nice bottle....
Oh yes. I used to design what then passed for high fidelity
tube audio sets. One could get some nice designs out of them.
[snip]
>> Yeah, but there was no TV to disrupt during WWII. Those bands
>> were empty. But they played havoc with most ordinary radio as
>> well if they were close by.
>For jamming the uplink between ground control and German fighters, the T1154
>had an extra microphone lodged in one of the engine nacelles to make a load of
>noise and prevent the radio operator getting hoarse... the mind boggles. No
>crystal control, and I daresay 10$ of the output was harmonics. But it
>worked....
Yup. Alls fair in love and war.
>> And it was state of the art at the time. Today we'd track
>> them by their spray of RF on tons of frequencies.
>This almost is 'medieval' radio here! I also have one of those little
>emergency distress beacon/radios with a dipole aerial (as used by Wm Holden at
>the end of 'The Bridges at Toko Ri'
>to call up a rescue helicopter, and direct the rest of his squadron to
>administer air strikes etc.) A fascinating little thing, with half a dozen
>1.5V direct filament valves which I bought for ?10 at an airshow. Being me, I
>couldn't resist putting a few volts up it, and to my astonishment it worked
>perfectly (though I couldn't manage to call up an airstrike - they don't use
>AM any more I'm afraid). Even so, it was bleeping away for several hours
>before I worked out the frequency it was on - 121.5 MHz, the international
>distress frequency... quickly dismantled and hidden away ever since. I
>remembered what happened to Bill Holden at the end of the film too, mind you,
>hardly surprising when the helicopter was piloted by Mickey Rooney... oh dear!
Ah yes. Now everything comes on prepackaged chips that
look like ossified centipedes. No fun at all. Can't
even warm your fingers on a cold day with them.
---- Paul J. Gans
a.spencer3
Martin Reboul <mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c20232$6c4$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> The more OT 'medieval' complaint was probably lead
> poising, suffered by cider drinkers when the presses were made with lead
> aprons and piping. They even used 'sugar of lead' to sweeten the stuff it
is
> said (cheaper than sugar).
>
But medieval?
I well remember the cider pubs in Bath in the 1960s (are they still there?).
It was common knowledge that cider had an 'odd effect' on the hard-drinking
regulars. Numbers of these sorry lads were still there, propping (just)
themselves up at the bar for more.
But I'd never heard the lead context before.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> In alt.history.british Martin Reboul
<mar...@spamfukreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Arsenic oxide is also rather sweet. Nice old ladies used to
> add it to tea to off their despicable nephews, at least in
> theater... ;-)
>
........ :-))
Surreyman
Sophia
>
> I heard that people working on 'anti-knock' additives for fuel suffered
> similarly ghastly fates? The more OT 'medieval' complaint was probably lead
> poising, suffered by cider drinkers when the presses were made with lead
> aprons and piping. They even used 'sugar of lead' to sweeten the stuff it is
> said (cheaper than sugar).
>
It was flowers of lead, and it was used to sweeten, stabilise and
disguise wines
which were turning to vinegar. It wasn't cheaper than sugar, but it
was more potent and there
was no risk of a second fermentation starting, as there would be with
sugar. The practice has been
illegal for centuries, but it was still known amongst unscrupulous
makers in the 1950s. Nor is flowers of lead the worst that gets put in
wine, cf the Italian and Austrian glycol scandals in which a number of
people died in the 1980s.
ob mediaeval, adulteration of wine has a long history, Chaucer refers
to the practice of blending bad wine to disguise it and relabelling it
to raise the price.
BTW Bullmer's has an excellent collection relating to adulteration of
food and drink (and the history of cider too) - well worth a visit if
you ever find yourself in Somerset.
Soph
erilar
<ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> there was no TV to disrupt during WWII. Those bands
> were empty. But they played havoc with most ordinary radio as
> well if they were close by.
In the late 50's we had neighbors picking up our half of conversations
on ham radio on their cheap radios until we changed the orientation of
our antenna a bit. We were only bothering CHEAP radios, though. And FM
was safe from us 8-) Of course, this was before transistors.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no such thing as too many books. Bookshelves, on the other hand . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
William Black
> But medieval?
> I well remember the cider pubs in Bath in the 1960s (are they still
there?).
> It was common knowledge that cider had an 'odd effect' on the
hard-drinking
> regulars. Numbers of these sorry lads were still there, propping (just)
> themselves up at the bar for more.
> But I'd never heard the lead context before.
There was a programme on TV a few years ago about people taking the waters
at Bath where they found that lead miners and people who drank too much
cider could be cured by immersion. They didn't know why at the time, and I
forget the medical reason, but the discovery was eighteenth century...
William Black
Everyone used it in wallpaper dye.
Victorian green wallpaper is toxic waste these days, and so entertaining to
get rid of...
a.spencer3
>
>> There was a programme on TV a few years ago about people taking the
waters
> at Bath where they found that lead miners and people who drank too much
> cider could be cured by immersion. They didn't know why at the time, and
I
> forget the medical reason, but the discovery was eighteenth century...
>
:-))
Surreyman
Brant Gibbard
wrote:
> Nor is flowers of lead the worst that gets put in
>wine, cf the Italian and Austrian glycol scandals in which a number of
>people died in the 1980s.
That is not true. The adulterant used in the Austrian wines (I'm not
familiar with the Italian case) was illegal, and used for reasons of
cheating (to make the wine seem slightly sweeter and fuller-bodied than
it should legitimately have been), but it was completely non-toxic. It
was falsely described by a reporter who didn't know his chemistry as
being toxic anti-freeze (ethylene glycol), but they were actually a
different harmless chemical with a similar name (diethylene glycol).
No-one suffered any adverse health effects from it.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@ca.inter.net
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~bgibbard/gen/
Toronto, ON
Martin Reboul
"erilar" <erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-9CBC...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> In article <c1vvda$p2u$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
> <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > there was no TV to disrupt during WWII. Those bands
> > were empty. But they played havoc with most ordinary radio as
> > well if they were close by.
>
> In the late 50's we had neighbors picking up our half of conversations
> on ham radio on their cheap radios until we changed the orientation of
> our antenna a bit. We were only bothering CHEAP radios, though. And FM
> was safe from us 8-) Of course, this was before transistors.
I found that actually using NBFM did wonders for TVI. I used to run some hair
raising power once, more than some commercial stations in ERP (a good Kw of RF
into a 13dB quad), which didn't bother the TV even when its aerial was almost
cooking in the beam. However, one whiff of SSB or AM and... oh dear!
Soren Larsen
meddelelse news:c1uk3s$5r2$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk
The resistence over here was absolutely horrified by the monstrosities
SOE delivered by parachute. You almost needed the Lancaster
to move them around and the Germans could easily home in on them .
So they had a Bang & Olufsen designer;L A Duus Hansen make a more
discrete radio.
It could be moved around in an ordinary briefcase and acted less
as radio beacon.
There is a pic here but the text is danish.
http://frihed.natmus.dk/rundvisninger/september8.htm
Cheers
Soren Larsen
FF
>
>Martin Reboul <mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:c20232$6c4$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> The more OT 'medieval' complaint was probably lead
>> poising, suffered by cider drinkers when the presses were made with lead
>> aprons and piping. They even used 'sugar of lead' to sweeten the stuff it
>is
>> said (cheaper than sugar).
>>
>Not a lot of people know that - including me!
>But medieval?
>I well remember the cider pubs in Bath in the 1960s (are they still there?).
I don't know of any but I can ask.
>It was common knowledge that cider had an 'odd effect' on the hard-drinking
>regulars. Numbers of these sorry lads were still there, propping (just)
>themselves up at the bar for more.
Cider is still drunk in the area and there are still odd-looking regulars propping up
the bar in many places. These days it's put down to (ermm....) "keeping it in the
family".
>But I'd never heard the lead context before.
A bit like the Hatters in Luton and the arsenic poisoning.
Liz
Paul J Gans
>Martin Reboul wrote:
>>
>> I heard that people working on 'anti-knock' additives for fuel suffered
>> similarly ghastly fates? The more OT 'medieval' complaint was probably lead
>> poising, suffered by cider drinkers when the presses were made with lead
>> aprons and piping. They even used 'sugar of lead' to sweeten the stuff it is
>> said (cheaper than sugar).
>>
>It was flowers of lead, and it was used to sweeten, stabilise and
>disguise wines
>which were turning to vinegar. It wasn't cheaper than sugar, but it
>was more potent and there
>was no risk of a second fermentation starting, as there would be with
>sugar.
That would be lead acetate.
>The practice has been
>illegal for centuries, but it was still known amongst unscrupulous
>makers in the 1950s. Nor is flowers of lead the worst that gets put in
>wine, cf the Italian and Austrian glycol scandals in which a number of
>people died in the 1980s.
Yup.
>ob mediaeval, adulteration of wine has a long history, Chaucer refers
>to the practice of blending bad wine to disguise it and relabelling it
>to raise the price.
>BTW Bullmer's has an excellent collection relating to adulteration of
>food and drink (and the history of cider too) - well worth a visit if
>you ever find yourself in Somerset.
Thanks for the information.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <c1vvda$p2u$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> there was no TV to disrupt during WWII. Those bands
>> were empty. But they played havoc with most ordinary radio as
>> well if they were close by.
>In the late 50's we had neighbors picking up our half of conversations
>on ham radio on their cheap radios until we changed the orientation of
>our antenna a bit. We were only bothering CHEAP radios, though. And FM
>was safe from us 8-) Of course, this was before transistors.
Sure. With no selectivity your signal was riding in on top
of theirs and with some rectification (any non-linearity
would do) they'd pick you up. It was sort of like being
able to listen to single sideband by getting the signal
on the selectivity slope of a decent short wave receiver.
You know, by just detuning slightly from the peak (and
unreadable) signal.
Ah tubes. Things of beauty that glowed in the night.
---- Paul J. Gans
a.spencer3
FF <fuchsi...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:kt1a401of2vk0vf82...@4ax.com...
Were/are they uniquish to Bath, or were they simply the ones I happened to
know of?
Surreyman
Martin Reboul
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:c22vra$1nv48o$1...@ID-131301.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thanks Soren. I love the name: 'Telefonbogsradio'...!
Always liked B&O equipment, beautifully made and superb quality, one of the
'Rolls Royces' of HiFi back in the 70's. Which is more than can be said for
SOE radio gear! I saw one of their 'suitcase radios' which was quite clever,
but almost useless without an antenna array that even the dimmest, half blind
German could have spotted a milea away. Nearly all the hopeful agents who
nervously set up the indoor one supplied and tapped out desperate messages to
London (at terrible risk), failed to make contact. I daresay even amateur gear
was better at that time.
The allies seemed to have a lot of problems with radio gear in WWII, most
notably at Arnhem. Looking back on the gear they were using, it isn't
surprising really.
One thing I always wondered about was what happened to international telephone
communications after the fall of most of Europe to the Nazis in 1940. This may
seem a silly question, but I suppose all the submarine cable connections to
France and other occupied countries remained intact throughout the war. What
happened at the exchanges they were connected to in Britain? Obviously they
were secured and no international calls were allowed. I presume someone was
appointed to watch over them, but did anything ever 'come in or go out',
perhaps on an official basis?
Obviously there must have been communication about Red Cross matters, POW's
and so forth - was this ever done by telephone, radio or what? Things couldn't
have been much more 'hostile' at the time, but some communication must have
occured, I always assumed through diplomatic channels in neutral countries. I
just had a funny feeling, imagining someone watching a big, silent switchboard
somewhere in Kent, Sussex or Essex, knowing the wires behind it were directly
connected to the enemy...?
Cheers
Martin
Don Aitken
I think it's much more likely that all the cables were cut at both
ends - you can cut a submarine cable, but you can't tap one, unlike
radio, which can always be intercepted. Arthur Clarke's "Voice Across
the Sea", although it doesn't say anything about the Channel, has some
information about long-distance submarine cables in wartime: "In 1939
the Germans possessed only two cables of their own - one from Emden to
the Azores, the other from Emden to Lisbon. Both were cut with
neatness and dispatch before the war was twenty-four hours old, in the
first move of a battle of wits which was to continue on the sea-bed
for the next six years". The Japanese-controlled cables from Hong-Kong
to Saigon and Hong-Kong to Singapore, which ran through waters of
which the Japanese were in firm control, were not cut until 1945, when
the job was done by Sub-Lieutenants KM Briggs and AK Bergius,
operating from an XE4 midget submarine. Of course, you don't just
*cut* a cable in these situations - the break would be too easy to
find. You attach a "dummy resistance" to the cut end, which is
elctrically equivalent to the length severed.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
William Black
> The allies seemed to have a lot of problems with radio gear in WWII, most
> notably at Arnhem. Looking back on the gear they were using, it isn't
> surprising really.
If you look at the historical cases you'll find it's always the Parachute
Regiment that has problems...
Perhaps the ability to jump out of an aeroplane in flight, land on your
head, and then keep fighting isn't an 'ability set' coincident with keeping
complex and delicate radio equipment going.
The Parachute Regiment seems to have had radio problems in WWII, Suez,
Falkland Islands, Kosovo and Iraq and anywhere else they go.
Perhaps we should explain about batteries...
> One thing I always wondered about was what happened to international
telephone
> communications after the fall of most of Europe to the Nazis in 1940.
There a very good book by Anthony Sampson about a US company called ITT that
goes into this in some detail.
Essentially this company owned most of the German telephone system, some of
the US and all the Argentine telephone system, along with the British
'Standard Telephones & Cables 'and the German Grundig.
How Grundig got the ASDIC plans is a very entertaining story...
They didn't care who won WWII, they were on both sides...
D. Spencer Hines
Do post about things you understand ---- only.
DSH
"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:m61c40hu49f190v37...@4ax.com...
|... I think it's much more likely that all the cables were cut at both
| ends - you can cut a submarine cable, but you can't tap one, unlike
| radio, which can always be intercepted...
Jim Beck
> <mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
> >news:c22vra$1nv48o$1...@ID-131301.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> "Martin Reboul" <mar...@SPAMFUKreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> skrev i en
> >> meddelelse news:c1uk3s$5r2$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk
> >> > "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:c1uglj$ajr$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> >> In alt.history.british Martin Reboul
> >> > <mar...@spamfukreboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> "Andrew Chaplin" <abch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:4041592B...@yourfinger.rogers.com...
> >> >>>> Martin Reboul wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> I think it's much more likely that all the cables were cut at both
> ends - you can cut a submarine cable, but you can't tap one, unlike
> radio, which can always be intercepted.
You can tap them, Don. Blind Man's Bluff (1998) by Sontag and Drew is a good
read that deals with a number of issues in submarine espionage.
[snip]
Paul J Gans
Yes you can, but it was very much harder, if not impossible,
during WWII.
----- Paul J. Gans
Jim Beck
Even walking was harder in those days, or so I've heard. Uphill both ways.
Edward King
<Debl...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>The HoC will soon debate the idiot scheme of Joyce Quin MP to get the
>Lindisfarne gospels moved permanently to the north of England. This populist
>move is clearly the thin end of the wedge, and will hopefully be resisted by
>MPs with the national interest in mind.
>
>National treasures must be protected in the most suitable place, in this
>case the British Library. To remove important or unimportant manuscripts
>from valuable collections is no innocent act. The BL is a national
>repository for treasures of importance to the nation. If anyone wants to
>consult its manuscripts, they may do so in London. From the point of view of
>research it is much more important to preserve intact the BL's collection
>than to accede to the philistine whimsy of a populist, publicity-seeking MP.
>An adequate motorway runs between Gateshead and London: serious researchers
>find that they are only an hour or two from Britain's finest collection of
>books.
The British Library does not only have books held in London. It also
maintains a substatial repository of its volumes at Boston Spa, in the West
Riding of the County of York. Thus, the Lindisfarne Gospels could be held
here if necessary, and satisfy the MPs demands that they be held in "the
North".
Edward
Allan Connochie
"Edward King" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7av15059spl22etul...@4ax.com...
The other poster seems to think that it's the demand of one publicity
seeking MP but I think there has been a campaign for some time for the
Gospel to be returned to the north. I wonder where they intend keeping it
if succesful though? I suppose that Durham Cathedral would be the obvious
choice. The idea that every treasure should naturally remain in London is
patently absurd. It's not exactly central is it? :-) Oh and it's the
Lewis Chess Men next!
cheers
Allan
>
> Edward
Edgar De Blieck
> maintains a substatial repository of its volumes at Boston Spa, in the
West
> Riding of the County of York. Thus, the Lindisfarne Gospels could be held
> here if necessary, and satisfy the MPs demands that they be held in "the
> North".
LOL
A fine resource for modern works - most of my interlibrary loans come from
there. To consult the medieval ms collections should involve a visit to
London St Pancras, though!
Here are some links that people may be interested in:
http://www.bl.uk/services/dscrr.html
http://www.bl.uk/collections/manuscripts.html
http://www.bl.uk/whatson/exhibitions/lindisfarne/home.html
EDEB
Edgar De Blieck
> The other poster seems to think that it's the demand of one publicity
> seeking MP but I think there has been a campaign for some time for the
> Gospel to be returned to the north. I wonder where they intend keeping it
> if succesful though? I suppose that Durham Cathedral would be the obvious
> choice. The idea that every treasure should naturally remain in London is
> patently absurd. It's not exactly central is it? :-)
Well it certainly isn't for me! - I work in Scotland. The issue is whether
or not the BL should be picked at. You wouldn't stick a brick of the great
wall of China in your backpack to let the folks back home see it on your
mantelpiece, now, would you?
EDEB.
Paul J Gans
>EDEB.
There is a natural wonder in the US called the petrified
forest. It is a level plain containing an immense number
of tree trunks, branches, and old chunks of ancient forest
now totally petrified.
My parents were there in about 1931 (or possibly 1932) and
had photos they took of it. It was as described above.
They had a few bits and pieces brought home from it.
I was there in 1970, about 40 years later. It had been
picked clean. All that was left were the huge chunks
(don't forget that the chunks are now stone) too large
to carry off in a small truck.
Nobody took much. Just a stone here and a stone there...
Kind of sad, actually.
---- Paul J. Gans