• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Copyright
 Table of Contents
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Assessing desirability and risk:...
 Surveying campus loan programs
 Developing a campus loan outreach...
 Conclusions and best practices...
 2004 survey questionnaire
 Campus art museums contacted for...
 Object information sheet for...
 Mission statement
 Campus loan outreach program policies...
 Statement about the campus loan...
 Site inspection worksheet
 Designated objects form
 Object spreadsheet
 Tracking spreadsheet
 Reference
 Biographical sketch
 Signature page
 Grant of permissions














Title: Campus Loan Outreach Program at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091760/00001
 Material Information
Title: Campus Loan Outreach Program at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art
Series Title: Campus Loan Outreach Program at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Nemmers, Laura Kathleen.
Publisher: College of Fine Arts, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005
 Notes
General Note: Museum Studies terminal project
General Note: Project in lieu of thesis
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091760
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art
Holding Location: Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 003627296
oclc - 71495317

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Copyright
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Abstract
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Assessing desirability and risk: a review of the literature
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Surveying campus loan programs
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Developing a campus loan outreach program at the Harn Museum
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Conclusions and best practices for developing a successful campus loan program
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    2004 survey questionnaire
        Page 55
    Campus art museums contacted for 2004 survey
        Page 56
        Page 57
    Object information sheet for binder
        Page 58
        Page 59
    Mission statement
        Page 60
    Campus loan outreach program policies and procedures
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
    Statement about the campus loan outreach program information label
        Page 64
    Site inspection worksheet
        Page 65
        Page 66
    Designated objects form
        Page 67
    Object spreadsheet
        Page 68
    Tracking spreadsheet
        Page 69
    Reference
        Page 70
        Page 71
    Biographical sketch
        Page 72
    Signature page
        Page 73
    Grant of permissions
        Page 74
Full Text









THE CAMPUS LOAN OUTREACH PROGRAM AT THE
SAMUEL P. HARN MUSEUM OF ART







By

LAURA KATHLEEN NEMMERS


A PROJECT IN LIEU OF THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005
































Copyright 2005

By

Laura Kathleen Nemmers














TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

A B STR A C T ...................................................................................................v

IN TR O D U C TIO N ......................................................................................... ....

CHAPTER

1 ASSESSING DESIRABILITY AND RISK: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..........4

2 SURVEYING CAMPUS LOAN PROGRAMS..................................................16

3 DEVELOPING A CAMPUS LOAN OUTREACH PROGRAM
AT THE HARN MUSEUM ..................................................................... 31

Initial Planning and Discussions with Museum Staff ............................................31
Development of Documents, Forms and Tools ..................................................36
Program Evaluation and Limited Field Testing..................................................38
Designating Loan Objects and Establishing the Program Framework.........................41
Conclusions ............................................... ........ ... ...... .................43

4 CONCLUSIONS AND BEST PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING A
SUCCESSFUL CAMPUS LOAN PROGRAM .............................................46

APPENDIX

A 2004 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................. 55

B CAMPUS ART MUSEUMS CONTACTED FOR 2004 SURVEY ..........................56

C OBJECT INFORMATION SHEET FOR BINDER ..............................................58

D M ISSION STATEM ENT .......................................... .............................60

E CAMPUS LOAN OUTREACH PROGRAM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ...........61

F STATEMENT ABOUT THE CAMPUS LOAN OUTREACH PROGRAM
INFORM ATION LABEL............................................................................64

G SITE INSPECTION WORKSHEET .......................... ............................65















H DESIGNATED OBJECTS FORM ..................................................................67

I OBJECT SPREADSHEET .......................................................................68

J TRACKING SPREADSHEET ..................................................................69

REFERENCE LIST .......................................................................................70

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................72













Summary of Project Option in Lieu of Thesis
Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts

THE CAMPUS LOAN OUTREACH PROGRAM AT THE
SAMUEL P. HARN MUSEUM OF ART

By

Laura Kathleen Nemmers

December 2005

Chair: Glenn Willumson
Major Department: Art and Art History

Campus loan programs involve the loaning of museum objects to academic

offices for public display. These programs have developed in the college and university

museum community in response to factors such as a need to provide outreach and

education to the campus community and a need to alleviate overcrowded storage

facilities. Loan programs can enhance relations with campus units, allow rarely displayed

holdings to be retrieved from storage, and can be used as an educational and marketing

tool for the museum. Despite these obvious advantages, many museums hesitate to

implement such programs. All too often, campus loan programs are planned improperly

and quickly get out of the museum's control. A lack of dedicated staff typically means a

lack of planning and insufficient monitoring of the loaned objects. Campus offices

generally do not provide the environmental stability and security provided by museums,

and the placing of objects in a non-museum environment may be viewed as a betrayal of








public trust. A loan program implemented without proper planning or lacking interpretive

materials to explain the program also jeopardizes the public trust, as well as the objects

that are part of our cultural heritage. Although these are valid concerns, a well-planned

and well-managed campus loan program can be extremely positive and quite effective.

At the University of Florida in 2004, the Samuel P. Ham Museum of Art was

interested in establishing a program in which they would loan art from the Museum's

permanent collection to campus locations. This was a response to inquiries by several

academic units seeking to borrow and display objects. Under the supervision of the

Museum director and curators, I developed a program that would establish the policies

and procedures necessary for successful campus loans. I researched various university

museums around the country. For those museums with campus loan programs I

investigated their successes and failures, and for those without such a program I

questioned why they chose not to have one. Once I completed this survey of existing

programs, I developed criteria for a program that would comply with the Ham's mission

to "promote the power of the arts to inspire and educate people." In cooperation with the

Museum director and curators, I identified qualifying University locations and conducted

an assessment of museum objects that would fit into the program criteria. At the

culmination of the project, I was able to deliver a well-developed and well-documented

program to the Museum.













INTRODUCTION

"The question we must ultimately ask ourselves is this: do
our museums make a real difference in, and do they have a
positive impact on, the lives of other people? If not...in the
end we are only the servants of our collections and not our
fellow humans...but if so, if the life of the community is
richer for the work we do, if we make an important and
positive difference in the lives of others, then the zeal we
bring to our daily work will have been well rewarded, and
our own working lives well spent." Stephen Weill


A museum affiliated with a college or university enjoys an institutional

infrastructure that allows it to loan objects to various offices on campus with a reduced

possibility of risk of harm to the collection or damage to the public's trust in the museum.

Because the objects belong to the museum, they also belong to the university or college

as a whole, and therefore, the offices on campus share a sense of common ownership

with the museum. That institutional relationship also facilitates closer and more

consistent interactions between museum staff and the staff of the larger academic body. It

is likely that the same situation also exists in business or corporate museums, but

museums unaffiliated with a larger corporate body typically lack the necessary

institutional infrastructure. Museums lacking such an organizational framework probably

should not establish a loan program and should only loan objects in cooperation with

other museums or cultural heritage institutions. A campus museum is ideally situated for



1 Stephen E. Weil, Rethinking the Museum and Other Meditations (Washington and London: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1990), 56.








a loan program because of its ability to have close relationships with offices on campus

that have similar goals in the areas of academic research and education.

The interest in loaning objects to offices within academic institutions is a growing

trend, one that has become a hot topic of discussion in the museum community in recent

years. Because of the potential risk to the objects and the resulting loss of public trust,

museums are often hesitant to establish campus loan programs. For a program to be

implemented successfully, all of the relevant issues and concerns need to be researched

thoroughly, and the museum staff has to be committed and willing to be involved on an

ongoing basis. A program devoid of a dedicated staff can fail because of a lack of pre-

planning and close scrutiny regarding the safety and security of the objects. Without

planning and care, ethical concerns regarding public trust become paramount, as museum

objects can be permanently damaged, lost or stolen. Prevention of such occurrences

always should supercede campus loans. Essential for a successful program is the ability

to provide a balance between care of the objects and public access. Risk to the objects

and public displeasure can be avoided through basic preventive measures, such as the

careful formulization of policies and procedures, adherence to the mission and collections

management policy, and a commitment to communication between the museum and

borrowing offices. By following strict guidelines and devoting personnel and time, the

program can form positive community relationships, expand education and outreach, and

alleviate overcrowded storage facilities.

At the University of Florida in 2004, the Samuel P. Ham Museum of Art was

interested in establishing a campus loan outreach program in which they would loan art

from the Museum's permanent collection to offices on campus. This was in response to








inquiries from several academic units seeking to borrow and display objects. If

implemented, this outreach project would make works of art available for viewing and

interpretation in a setting other than the Museum itself. In this way, the Museum hoped to

engage a more diverse audience, many of whom never may have visited the Ham. In

order to satisfy the needs of the university community and the Ham Museum, I developed

a program that would address the questionable issues normally associated with campus

loan programs.

Chapter 1 examines the desirability of implementing such programs, as weighed

against the potential risks. Because there is scant professional literature directly related to

campus loan programs, this chapter presents an examination of these issues as they relate

to the broader literature on topics such as public trust and the museum's responsibility to

both care for and provide access to its collection. Chapter 2 reports the results of a 2004

survey of campus art museums in the United States to assess the current state of campus

loan programs. These results are compared to the findings of one previous survey,

conducted in 2001, as well as to the professional literature. Chapter 3 presents the

methodology used in implementing the campus loan outreach program at the Ham

Museum. Chapter 4 examines the initial outcomes of this program implementation,

presents conclusions drawn from this process, and provides recommendations for

establishing successful loan programs at college and university museums.













CHAPTER 1
ASSESSING DESIRABILITY AND RISK: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In determining the manner in which the Ham Museum should implement a

campus loan program, I began with an examination of the professional literature. A

thorough review of the literature, however, revealed that there were no published

resources that discussed, in any detail, specific information on campus loan program

implementation and management. The only article that focused on campus loans was an

article by Stephen Ringle, which primarily dealt with deaccessioning rather than

implementing and managing campus loans.' After reaching this realization, I broadened

the scope of my research to include topics such as the careful balance between care of

museum objects and access to those objects, education and outreach, risk and

accountability, loan programs, policy making, and public trust. This broadened literature

review resulted in very little information directly related to the management of campus

programs, but allowed for a thorough investigation of topics that have some relation to

campus loan programs. Despite the fact that museum professionals have been discussing

and experimenting with campus loan programs for years, there is a significant gap in the

professional literature about such programs.

The role of museums and the focus of their activities have changed over time and

are continuing to change. The museum of today, particularly a museum engaging in any

sort of loan program, stands in stark contrast to its precursor museums. The earliest

Stephen Ringle, "Deaccessioning Campus Art Collections," News and Issues (Association of College
Museums and Galleries), Nos. 1&2 (2000).








museums were private, and allowed only a very small, carefully screened audience to

visit the collection. Later, museums evolved into private "cabinets of curiosity" that were

viewed by the public with the strictest supervision.2 The staff created exhibitions with

little or no input from the visitor as to what they wanted to see and experience. Starting in

the mid-twentieth century, however, the cost of maintaining collections and providing

adequate staff and public programs became so overwhelming that it was beyond the

means of the prosperous donors and/or special interest groups that previously had funded

these museums.3 As a result, museums became increasingly dependent on public funding,

donations, and grants, and the public became more directly involved in museum

operations and programming. As Kenneth Hudson wrote in 1998, the most fundamental

change affecting museums during the latter half of the twentieth century:

...is the now almost universal conviction that they exist in order to serve
the public. The old-style museum felt itself under no such obligation. It
existed, it had a building, it had collections and a staff to look after them.
It was reasonably adequately financed, and its visitors, usually not
numerous, came to look, to wonder and admire what was set before them.
They were in no sense partners in the enterprise. The museum's prime
responsibility was to its collections, not its visitors.4

Evidence for this shift from collections and collection care toward public service also can

be found in the publications and activities of professional museum associations, such as

the American Association of Museums (AAM) and the International Council of

Museums (ICOM). For example, the AAM accreditation handbook of 1997 stresses the

identification and inclusion of the public into museum activities, unlike the 1970





2 Gary Edson and David Dean, The Handbook for Museums (London: Routledge, 1996), p. 6.
SIbid, p. 5.
4 Kenneth Hudson, "The Museum Refuses to Stand Still," Museum International 197 (1998): 43.








handbook which focused primarily on collections and the exhibiting of objects.5 The

profession came to realize that in addition to providing enlightenment, education, and

enjoyment, museums had to invite the public to participate as partners in fulfilling their

mission and functions.

For early museums with private collections and limited access, the idea of a loan

program would have been unthinkable. The contemporary museum, however, places

greater emphasis on outreach, education, and public access. For university and college

museums, in particular, campus loan programs are an opportunity to provide access and

education to a wide audience of faculty, students, staff, and members of the surrounding

community, as well as national and international visitors. In addition, these programs

enable museums to inform the academic institution of the museums' core functions,

including collections care, research, and exhibition preparation. More importantly, as

Stephen Weil suggests, the public forgets that museums have a beneficial purpose above

and beyond the functional characteristics that define them.6 All too often, the public does

not understand the role of the museum or that the museum can address their needs and

wants in a variety of ways. The public often forgets or is unaware that museum objects

are evidence of its shared culture, and because the public only interacts with the objects

in a museum setting there is no sense of shared ownership. Placing objects in non-

museum settings around campus can be a subtle way to foster this sense of collective

ownership and attract a larger audience to the museum. Campus loan programs not only

serve as a means of building future audiences, but also can function as a powerful tool to

transform and strengthen the relationship between the museum and the university

5 Stephen E. Weil, "From Being about Something to Bring for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of
the American Museum," Daedalus 28/3 (Summer 1999): 233-34.
6 Stephen E. Weil, "The Proper Business of the Museum: Ideas or Things?" Muse (Spring 1989): 28.








community. As the ICOM Code ofEthics for Museums states, it is vital that a museum

continually seeks to attract a wider audience and offers opportunities for people to

support the museum and its goals.7

Transferring objects out of the museum into a space where they can be viewed by

individuals who might not visit the museum provides an important educational

opportunity. Involvement with the public is a fundamental element of the educational

responsibility of the museum.8 A loan program allows the museum to educate campus

staff about its mission, its holdings, its programs, and its commitment to care. It also

allows the museum to educate the general public in a non-museum setting, especially

when loaned objects on display are accompanied by interpretations of the objects and

explanations of the loan program itself. In addition to standard information such as the

artist, title, and date, the label text also can include descriptive and background

information on the art and artist and a general statement describing the purpose and

intentions of the campus loan program.

Depending on budget and time constraints, a loan program also can provide

several non-traditional opportunities for education. For example, curators can schedule

presentations at locations around campus to discuss loaned objects with staff and/or the

general public. The museum can create catalogs or handouts describing the objects and

artists, which the borrowing office can distribute to visitors. In addition, the museum can

create brochures for self-guided campus tours so that visitors to the museum can tour the

loaned art on campus. For the program to be effective, the museum should take advantage

of every opportunity to educate and reach out to the community, whether through

7 ICOM Code ofEthics for Museums (International Council of Museums, 2004), Available at
http://icom.museum/ethics.html (Last browsed: September 17, 2005).
8 Ibid.








interpretive text or direct communication. If the public feels that the program is there to

satisfy their educational needs, they will continue to have confidence in the positive

stewardship of the museum.

In considering the appropriateness of a campus loan program, many museums

also may view it as an opportunity to alleviate overcrowded storage facilities. Although

this should not be the primary reason for electing to implement a loan program, freeing

up storage space can be an attractive fringe benefit. According to Fiona McLean in

Marketing the Museum, at any given time museums only have about 13 percent of

holdings on display and the majority of the holdings are in storage because they are being

held for future exhibitions or programs, or because there is a lack of exhibition space in

the galleries.9 This means that a museum can have over 85 percent of its holdings in

storage. In addition, university and college museums often have inherited objects that do

not fit into current collecting goals, such as works created by former faculty and students,

which probably will not be exhibited and possibly take up valuable storage space.

Decisions about caring for and preserving these objects, or deaccessioning them, have to

be made. Often, the choice to keep the objects is a complex and delicate one. For

example, the museum might feel that it should retain works by faculty members or

objects donated by influential donors when the majority of these objects most likely will

be displayed in the museum seldom, if at all, and often will sit in storage for extended

periods of time. In The Handbook for Museums by Gary Edson and David Dean, the

authors state that:

In some instances, an object is worth retaining as museum property, but
with limited usefulness. It should be in reasonably good condition and can


9 Fiona McLean, Marketing the Museum (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 108.








be maintained with minimum care. These objects may be loaned to
another institution for an extended period subject to periodic evaluations.10

Objects such as these, especially those with ties to the university such as faculty works,

are perfect candidates for a campus loan program. The program provides an opportunity

for the objects to be viewed and interpreted by the public and frees up storage space for

the museum to collect objects that fit within the scope of their collection development

plan.

The implementation of a campus loan program can be quite desirable to university

and college museums. In addition to increased opportunities for outreach and education,

and to a lesser extent, the ability to free up valuable storage space, the program also can

demonstrate to the campus community that the museum is willing to respond to their

needs. Obviously, there will be some offices on campus who are interested in the

program strictly because they want decorations for their walls. Although their initial

motivation is simply to beautify their work space, the museum can take advantage of this

situation to establish a relationship with the office staff and to communicate the

educational benefits to them. By requiring that loaned objects be accompanied by

interpretive text labels and information explaining the program, the office will receive

much more than simply decorative art for its walls. Also, the mere fact of having a

museum object on display may have an impact on the daily lives of office visitors and

staff. As Edson and Dean stated, "Objects communicate far beyond the walls of the

museum in which they are housed. They influence... the level of respect and

understanding for the personal and collective natural and cultural heritage of a people or


10 Edson and Dean, p. 51.








nation."" If handled appropriately by the museum, the borrowing office can be made to

feel as though it is part of a museum family on campus. Not only should the museum

respond to their needs, but it should make them feel as if they are partners in caring for

and displaying museum objects.

Before moving forward with a campus loan program, it is important to weigh the

potential outreach and educational benefits against the museum's responsibility to

preserve and care for the objects for future generations. The Code of Ethics promulgated

by the AAM states: "The museum ensures that collections in its custody support its

mission and public trust responsibilities."12 The public demands access to the museum for

education and enjoyment, but they also expect the museum to act responsibly and handle

the collections with the best care and intentions. Although these expectations can conflict

with each other, they are equally important. Without a good reputation and solid trust, a

museum cannot expect to succeed. In the past half-century, museums have acquired most

of their funding from private donations, government grants, or corporate support. In

addition, a large percentage of any museum's holdings are made up of donated objects.

As a result of this support, there undoubtedly is closer public scrutiny and a heightened

sense of accountability. If a museum were to place objects into areas with less security or

reduced environmental controls, museum supporters such as current and future donors

might question whether or not the museum is really caring for the objects. The public

might begin to wonder if its trust was misplaced. Objects can not be placed in improper

venues that do not provide an opportunity for wide public access, as this almost certainly

will violate the museum's public trust responsibilities.

" Edson and Dean, p. 7.
12 Code ofEthics for Museums (American Association of Museums, 2000), Available at http://www.aam-
us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm (Last browsed: September 17, 2005).








The issues of public trust and accountability are significant when considering that

museum objects make up the identity of humankind and are part of our cultural heritage.

According to Edson and Dean:

A metamorphosis takes place when objects, no matter what their intrinsic
value, are transferred from personal possessions to museum objects. All
acquire a uniqueness that exceeds previous existence. The level of care for
all museum objects must be adequate to ensure their existence for the
future.13

When a campus museum loans art to an office, it is not simply loaning an object for

decoration. Rather, the loaned object is a unique part of our shared heritage. The public

has to believe that the museum will preserve and protect this heritage. No museum object,

regardless of its provenance or quality, can be loaned without due consideration of its

cultural evidentiary value and its proper place within our heritage. Because of this risk,

museums should not make their most valuable objects eligible for campus loan.

According to the AAM Code ofEthics, it is "incumbent on museums to be resources for

humankind and in all of their activities to foster an informed appreciation of the rich and

the diverse world we have inherited. It is incumbent upon them to preserve that

inheritance for posterity... "14

Assuming that an academic museum has evaluated the benefits and risks of

implementing a campus loan program, and has decided that the benefits outweigh the

risks, it is important that such a program operates within the parameters of the museum's

mission and collections management policy. Although a relatively simple document, the

mission serves as an important ethical contract between the museum and the public. It

describes the purpose and functions of the museum, and identifies its core messages and

13 Edson and Dean, p. 67.
14 Code of Ethics for Museums (American Association of Museums, 2000), Available at http://www.aam-
us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm (Last browsed: September 17, 2005).








ideas. Likewise, a viable campus loan program also must be incorporated into the

collections management policy, a comprehensive document explaining the goals of the

museum and the manner in which they will be accomplished through utilization of the

collection. This policy forms the basis of all professional decisions in the museum

regarding collection activities, including care and access, as well as the loaning of

objects. A collections management policy should be reviewed and revised at regular

intervals to reflect the continuously changing needs of the museum and its public. This

ongoing revision process allows the museum to update its policy to ensure that it

accommodates the existence of a campus loan program.

Since any good collections management policy addresses care and access, it is

impossible to establish a campus loan program without also addressing these issues. As

museums strive to provide greater access to the collections, we must keep in mind that

the care of the collections remains a central function of the museum. As one museum

registrar stated: "Museums put everything into a box and then lock it. Then they give

everyone the key.""15 This expectation of accessibility on the part of the community is

even more pressing for publicly supported museums. According to Marie Malaro, "Some

insist that if a museum is publicly supported, the emphasis should be on access."'6 There

has to be a delicate balance between care and access. When a museum acquires an object,

it is making a long-term commitment to care for that object to the best of its ability. The

staff always should be aware of this responsibility and make it a priority to preserve and

protect the collection. It is difficult to adhere to care and preservation standards when

works of art are loaned to offices, or even to other museums, that lack a similar

15 Mary Case, Registrars on Record (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1995), p. 20.
16 Marie C. Malaro, A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections (USA: Smithsonian Institution
Press, 1998), p. 437.








philosophy. For example, proper and stable climate and humidity controls are essential

to object care because fluctuating climates can be extremely destructive to their

condition. Preservation of collections also involves correct handling practices and proper

documentation of object movement and treatment. Without careful scrutiny of the care of

loan objects, a museum can jeopardize the trust of its constituents.

Whenever objects are placed in academic offices as part of a campus loan

program, it is vital that the museum takes every precaution to prevent damage, theft or

loss. In most campus offices, the security measures typically guaranteed in museums,

such as security guards and video surveillance, are not available. Ideally, objects eligible

for campus loan should be placed in offices where there is some level of security,

including office attendants or security cameras available during hours of operation. In

addition to the possibility of theft or damage, the museum is taking a risk that, over time,

office staff may become unaware that objects are on loan from the museum and may

move or alter the objects without notifying the museum. This type of inadvertent loss or

damage is much more difficult to protect against because it usually involves a passage of

time, a change in staffing, or some other long-term condition. Communication is the key

to preventing these occurrences. Office staff should know how to contact the museum in

case of an emergency and museum staff should communicate frequently with borrowing

offices. Both the museum and the borrowing offices must cooperate to ensure that the

objects are protected utilizing the highest professional standards. As Steven H. Miller

stated in 1996, "citizens have every right to demand that museums manage collections

responsibly on their behalf."17



17 Steven H. Miller, "'Guilt-Free' Deaccessioning," Museum News 75.5 (Sept/Oct 1996): 60.








Undoubtedly, there are very real risks associated with campus loan programs, but

they are not insurmountable and museums often are overly rash when dismissing such

programs. Many museums may want to establish a loan program but hesitate because

they are fearful of creating a poor public image or placing the objects in possible

jeopardy. These problems, however, can be resolved with proper planning. To implement

a campus loan program it is essential for the museum to ensure the safety of the objects,

to satisfy the educational needs of the museum's constituency through interpretive labels,

and to address any issues regarding the trust of the public. A campus loan program is a

long-term commitment that, if pursued, needs to be managed continuously. In minimizing

the risks associated with loans museums can maximize the benefits of a successful

program, particularly increased outreach opportunities and the generation of goodwill

towards the museum.

Museums have made many changes in recent years, and they will continue to

change to meet the needs of generations in the future. Through campus loan programs,

university and college museums are evolving to suit the needs of the academic

community as well as the internal needs of the museums. These programs can be used to

make the campus community feel that it is an integral part of the museum and vice versa.

Museums should know their constituents and be willing to develop solutions that respond

to their needs. It is especially important to get involved when the constituents of the

museum are initiating the relationship and asking to participate, whether they are simply

seeking decorative art for their offices or they are interested in collaborating with the

museum to educate the campus community. As long as the museum remains true to its

mission and operates within the parameters of its formal policies, the museum should be








able to address potential public trust issues. Of course, the public ultimately will decide

when their trust has been damaged, so museums should be overly cautious before

developing a campus loan program. By developing strict guidelines and guaranteeing a

high level of commitment, the program can successfully expand outreach and educational

opportunities and build positive community relationships.













CHAPTER 2
SURVEYING CAMPUS LOAN PROGRAMS

The literature review conducted in 2004 revealed a significant lack of information

about campus loan programs, indicating the need for a survey of current practices in

campus art museums of the United States. This survey would identify museums with

campus loan programs and discover the manner in which successful programs were

implemented and managed. In addition, the survey would reveal practices and factors

resulting in unsuccessful campus loan programs. Prior to implementing this survey, a

search was conducted of the electronic listservs of museum associations on the Internet to

identify institutions that had interest in campus loan programs. Research in the archives

for these listservs resulted in little more than messages from individuals who were

seeking information about establishing and managing a program. Although this did not

provide any useful information specifically related to loan programs, it did result in a

short list of museum professionals who could be contacted directly. More importantly,

the search revealed that a survey concerning the implementation of campus loan

programs had been created and emailed to listervs in 2001. Unfortunately, the listserv

archives did not include a report of the results of this survey, nor any discussion of the

pertinent issues.

The 2001 survey had been conducted by a student as a research fellowship project

at Beloit College's Logan Museum. The student subsequently had graduated, so I

contacted the Logan Museum and asked if the staff would be willing to share the results








of the survey, as well as any of their experiences while trying to implement a campus

loan program. The response from Nicolette Meister, the Curator of Collections, was quite

accommodating, stating that she had received at least three requests for the student's

research since 2001, indicating ongoing interest in the topic.' Prior to the survey, museum

staff had conducted their own literature review and found no resources directly relating to

the topic and only a small amount of discussion about it in the museum community. In

conducting the survey, the graduate student interviewed regional museum professionals

involved in campus art management and surveyed national professionals by submitting

the electronic survey to the MuseumL and RC-AAM listservs. Unfortunately, the survey

did not elicit many responses. The most useful outcome of the interviews and survey was

that some respondents provided recommendations about general management of campus

art collections, which the Beloit museum incorporated into its collections management

policy (copies of which Beloit staff provided to me).

In addition to describing the results of 2001 the survey, Ms. Meister provided me

with information on her own efforts to implement a program, as well as her general

thoughts on the subject. She explained that although she had completed an inventory of

the holdings to identify candidates for the campus loan, the museum did not implement

the program and had postponed it indefinitely because the staff had difficulty determining

who should be responsible for managing the campus loan program. In discussing these

programs in general, she felt that there were three factors that contributed to their demise:

1) inherent preservation compromises that must be made; 2) campus loan programs

consume scarce museum resources (i.e., archival supplies) that could be used in other


SNicolette Meister, Curator of Collections, Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit College, interview by
author via electronic mail, August 24-25, 2004.








ways, and 3) the management of campus loan programs pose an additional strain on

already overworked university museum employees. She did, however, express her belief

that campus collections can be a valuable tool to increase the visibility of the museum,

and that loan programs make collections more widely accessible to the primary audience:

the campus faculty, staff and students. More importantly, in her opinion, the loan

program can keep the museum at the forefront of the academic institution's collective

consciousness, thereby potentially avoiding staff layoffs and museum closings during

periods of low funding.

The lack of a body of useful information, as revealed by the review of the

professional literature and the findings reported by Beloit, only confirmed the anticipated

need for a current survey of the museum community. In order to solicit the information

needed to plan a proper campus loan program, I designed a questionnaire targeting

registrars, collections managers, and directors at university and college museums (See

Appendix A). The goal of this survey was to determine: 1) which museums had loan

programs, 2) how those programs were implemented and managed, and 3) what were the

characteristics of successful programs. The survey was disseminated via email in

September 2004 to 42 AAM-accredited institutions, the total number of campus art

museums and galleries accredited at the time. AAM-accredited museums were targeted

because the Ham Museum is accredited by the AAM and we wanted to solicit

information from museums that had to follow the same guidelines for accreditation. In

addition, another 18 museums were included in the survey because they were known to

have campus loan programs, or they had solicited information on campus loans via the

museum association listservs, or they were recommended by other institutions (See








Appendix B for a complete list). In all a total of 60 museums were contacted, resulting in

24 responses:


Have current program with policies and procedures 9
Have current program without policies and procedures 4
No current program, but had one previously 7
No current program, but planning to implement one 1
No current program and not planning to have one 3
Total 24


These numbers by themselves do not reveal much, other than confirming that a majority

of the museums with loan programs do have policies and procedures in place. Of course,

for this type of survey the statistics are not as important as qualitative responses and

anecdotal evidence. The quality and quantity of the responses varied widely. Several

respondents completed the survey questionnaire as it was written, but other museums

opted to ignore the survey questions and simply responded with a narrative summarizing

their thoughts on the topic. A handful of the responses were not very useful because they

were brief and uninformative, but the majority of the respondents took the time to

provide thoughtful comments and detailed information. For example, one respondent at

Michigan State's Kresge Art Museum, which does not have a loan program because the

director does not favor them, stated that she had previous experience working at a

museum that had operated a program and thought it was quite effective because it kept

them in touch with university personnel, alleviated storage problems, and was an

excellent outreach method. Fortunately, in addition to informative responses, several

institutions also submitted copies of policies, procedures, site inspection forms, and other

documents pertinent to loan programs.








The primary concern expressed by a majority of the respondents was a lack of

commitment on the part of the museum administration to allocate resources, particularly

staff, to the campus loan program. Some respondents suggested that this lack of

commitment is best demonstrated by the fact that there is rarely a staff member who is

solely responsible for management of the program. They pointed out that it takes a

significant commitment of staff time to write and revise policies and procedures,

communicate with campus offices, complete paperwork, conduct inventories and identify

candidates for loan, frame and mat the objects, install the objects, de-install the objects,

perform risk assessments, and monitor the objects on an ongoing basis. According to

Nicolette Meister, "all members of the museum must support the idea of campus art and

be on board with taking responsibility for such a program if any progress is to be made."

The staff member dedicated to managing the program has to cooperate with and receive

assistance from administrators, curators, and other staff. Of the seven institutions who

indicated that they had discontinued previous campus loan programs, almost all of the

respondents mentioned that they had been forced to end the program due to a lack of

staff. Matthew Conway, registrar at Cornell University stated: "there are not enough staff

to keep the campus loan program active on campus... a staff member should be dedicated

exclusively to this work. It is too difficult for other staff to keep up on requests and

inventory." Some respondents felt that in addition to not having sufficient staff to

properly control a loan program, they also lacked the funding for the archival

preservation and installation supplies needed for a campus loan program. When loaning

the objects, the museum is not always simply hanging the objects on the walls. It can

involve expensive factors such as framing, matting, security hangers, cleaning and








repairs, which many respondents felt could be prohibitive factors. The registrar at the

University of Arizona, an institution that had discontinued its campus loan program in

1995, stated that one of the reasons the program had been cancelled was because the

"resources of the museum are better spent and used in a more controlled situation."

Without a commitment from the museum, particularly in terms of dedicated staff

to run the program and financial resources to care for the objects, many respondents

stated that the program would get out of control and lead to unnecessary security risks for

the objects. Several institutions described how objects that had been placed on display as

part of campus loan programs had disappeared. The respondents did not state explicitly

that the objects had been stolen, but stated that many works had vanished when longtime

employees had retired or departed the institution. For example, Southern Utah University

mentioned that an object had been in an employee's office for such a long period of time

that the "borrower gradually had assumed ownership of it over the years." The borrower

was not necessarily taking the object to be malicious, but rather the object had been in

their office for so long that they forgot that it did not belong to them. The museum was

not informed of the employee's retirement, and the object was packed and moved along

with the rest of that individual's personal belongings. To avoid future occurrences of this

nature, the museum subsequently requested that the institution's human resources office

inform them of any changes in personnel so that they could identify any loaned art before

employees retire or leave their office.

In addition to the loss of loaned objects because a staff member had knowingly or

unknowingly assumed ownership over time, some respondents described their difficulties

when borrowing offices had moved objects without permission. For example, Sue Ellen








Jeffers, registrar at the University of Texas at Austin, expressed the belief that campus

loans should be kept to a minimum because the likelihood that some objects may be

moved to different locations without the knowledge of the museum is increased whenever

numerous objects are lent to multiple offices across campus. Several of the museums

stated that they have made it a policy for the borrowing office to contact them before

moving an object. As Lydia Johnson of the Southern University of Utah's Braithwaite

Fine Arts Gallery stated:

The loan contract specifically outlines policy for moving art work--- the
borrower must contact the gallery staff and have us move the art for any
reason. This is emphasized at the time of the loan, but we still find that
artwork moves 'on its own' and we have to track it down when we do
inventory.

Many museums stated that they use security hangers on campus loan objects to ensure

that objects are not moved without the consent of the museum.

Some of the respondents also indicated that the museum should actively maintain

control through precise recordkeeping procedures. For example, the registrar from

Southeast Missouri State University stated that she had inherited an extensive list of

missing items because the museum did not have loan policies and procedures in the past.

She is contacted every so often by a faculty or staff member of a borrowing office

seeking to return an object that they have had for numerous years without the museum's

knowledge. Ms. Jeffers of UT Austin also mentioned that some offices had refused to

return loaned objects because they had displayed them for years and didn't expect to ever

have to return them to the museum. Such situations possibly could have been avoided

with regular visits to borrowing offices to conduct object inventories, which can serve to

remind these offices that they are simply temporary custodians of the objects. Almost all








of the museums responding to the survey stressed the importance of the inventory, and

many stated that they could not keep up with inventories in an efficient manner. Most of

the respondents recommending regular inventories suggested that they should be

conducted on an annual basis. According to the registrar at Miami University Art

Museum in Ohio, "ideally an annual inventory should be done to locate and inspect all of

the work in campus offices."

Another major issue raised by multiple respondents was environmental control. A

majority of the institutions with a campus loan program stated that they had performed

some kind of risk assessment of the proposed site in order to prevent problems associated

with the environment. None of the respondents specifically mentioned taking readings of

the temperature and humidity, but several discussed checking the areas to make sure that

they were safe from high traffic, food, heaters, drinking fountains and other water

sources, UV light from windows, and office machines. Several respondents identified

certain areas on campus that should not be eligible, including dining halls, laboratories,

lounges and dorms. One respondent reported that his museum includes a phrase in its

loan paperwork that explicitly states that the borrower is liable for the value of the work

if anything should happen to the loaned object. For those cases in which a museum might

want to accommodate the wishes of the campus office but feels that the environmental

conditions are unsafe, a few of the respondents encouraged the use of reproductions.

Bryn Mawr College, which does not have a formal campus loan program, indicated that

they offer replicas of some of their objects. Additionally, Miami University Art Museum

in Ohio related that they also offer posters or replicas to private offices. All of the

respondents were unanimous in the belief that museum staff should monitor the condition








of the loaned objects regularly and communicate frequently with the borrowing office to

reinforce the need for environmental control. Intervals between the monitoring of objects

varied from respondent to respondent with the majority encouraging at least annual

inventories.

In addition to the obvious commitment, security, recordkeeping and

environmental control issues, several other considerations were identified by survey

respondents. For example, several respondents noted that campus loan programs can

provide an opportunity to alleviate overcrowded storage facilities. Also, most of the

museums stated that it is important to specify, in the form of written loan policies, the

criteria for eligible borrowing offices and the type of spaces suitable for hanging or

displaying objects. These written policies make it easier for the museum to inform

interested borrowers that their space is not eligible based on environmental or security

risks, or because the space is not easily accessible to the general public. Some

respondents stated that they only loan to locations such as the offices or homes of

presidents, chancellors, and provosts because these locations are more secure than other

areas on campus. Another potential concern raised by some of the respondents involved

extremely demanding office staff on campus. For example, a borrowing office at one

institution expected the museum staff to come and move a loaned object in the office

without making prior arrangements. In response to, or anticipation of this potential

situation, four museums stated that they charge or have charged a small fee to the

borrower to help cover expenses such as installation and de-installation of loaned objects.

Multiple respondents strongly advised that the loan program should be kept small

and under control. They felt that the more popular the program, the more staff would be








needed to manage it properly. Southern Utah University stated that their campus attorney

helped formulate their loan agreement and that "it is pretty heavy, and sometimes

discourages a borrower (which is okay with us)." Several respondents also felt it best

practice to limit loans to short periods of time, such as one year for most objects. Most

respondents did not specify a specific time period, probably because each object is unique

and its loan must be considered on a case by case basis depending on its condition and

medium. Setting limits for loan periods not only protects the objects and facilitates the

inventory process, but it also helps to avoid those situations in which a longtime

employee gradually comes to "own" an object simply because it had been displayed in

their office for such a long time.

In addition to sharing the successes and failures of their programs, many of the

respondents also shared copies of documents such as policies, procedures, loan

agreements, contracts, and other forms. These documents served as models for the

documents that I would need to create during development of the Ham Museum's

campus loan program. Most of the policies and procedures contain statements related to

care and handling. For example, many require that objects can only be handled or moved

by museum staff, and state that objects can not be removed, relocated, reframed, repaired

or altered in any way. In addition, most of the loan agreements require the borrower to

provide suitable protection against damage, theft, and fire. One document, more specific

than others, requires the borrower to protect against exposure to water, excessive

humidity or dry conditions, food or liquids, sunlight, artificial light, florescent light and

heat sources. A few documents specify that the objects can not be placed in close

proximity to heating ducts, pipes, space heaters or humidifiers. Several of the loan








documents address insurance matters, expressly stating that damage, repair or

replacement not covered by the museum's fine arts insurance policy shall be the

responsibility of the borrower. Some of the agreements and policies include statements

about other considerations not specifically addressed by the survey respondents. The

policies typically state, for example, that the museum has the right to recall objects for

exhibition or educational purposes. There are prohibitions against the photography of

loaned objects. A few of the documents state that the borrower can not loan borrowed

objects to third parties. One museum document states that the borrower is responsible for

notifying the museum of any changes in employment, including retirement. For those

museums that charge fees for loans, their documents often include a list and explanation

of the fees.

Although most of these documents contain the same basic information, they exist

in many different formats, demonstrating the need for standardized practices. Some of the

policies and agreements are quite lengthy and outline of all the basic guidelines, while

others are extremely brief with little more than a signature page as a contract for the

borrower and the registrar. Only one museum shared a site inspection sheet, a document

that includes information such as site location, contact names, security and access,

environment, and lighting. It also includes a section for site inspectors to list currently

loaned objects and a description of the object requested by the office. Although a

majority of these documents are easy to read and understand, a few of them are quite

lengthy and complicated and may not be read completely by the borrower. This might

discourage some borrowers, as one respondent suggested, but it is vital that the borrower

understands the loan agreement because the museum and borrower are partnering to








provide the best possible care for the object while it is out of the museum. If it is obvious

when meeting with a potential borrowing office that the office is not interested in the

collaborative aspect of campus loans, then the museum has the option of not loaning

objects.

The information provided by survey respondents agreed with many of the

findings from the broad literature review described in Chapter 1. A majority of the

respondents expressed their belief that care of the collection is vital but that outreach and

educational opportunities are equally vital for the museum. Just as the ICOM Code of

Ethics for Museums states that it is crucial to seek continually to attract a wider audience

and offer opportunities for people to support the museum, several survey respondents felt

that campus loan programs can be quite effective in accomplishing these goals.2 Both

Nicolette Meister at Beloit College and a Rachel Vargas at the Kresge Art Museum

regarded the loan program as an excellent outreach tool and an easy way to increase the

visibility of the museum. They felt that in addition to making collections more widely

accessible to campus faculty, staff and students, the loan program would keep the

museum at the forefront of the academic institution's collective consciousness. Regarding

proper care of collections, authors Edson and Dean stated that objects made available for

loans should be subject to regular evaluations.3 Suzanne Cowan, in a chapter on

collections management inventory in Buck and Gilmore's The New Registration

Methods, states that "objects on loan to other institutions.., should be inventoried






2 ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums (International Council of Museums, 2004), Available at
http://icom.museum/ethics.html (Last browsed: September 17, 2005).
3 Edson and Dean, p. 51.








annually to avoid losing contact with the lender."4 Several survey respondents agreed

with these recommendations and discussed the importance of periodic inventories to

assess the condition of loaned objects.

The most significant difference between the broadened literature review and the

survey responses, of course, was that the respondents were able to provide specific

information regarding campus loan policies and procedures, whereas the professional

literature had no such information. A better comparison, one that specifically relates to

campus loan programs, is a comparison between my own survey results and the results of

the survey and interviews conducted by the student at Beloit. Not surprisingly, the results

of that previous survey are not far different from my own. The student concluded that "a

formalized policy must be established for the management and care of each type of

collection maintained by the museum." Additionally, she proposed that "...a member of

the museum staff should visit the site to assess the security risks, and the final selection

of art for the site should be based upon the level of security at the location." The student

also addressed my own frustration at finding a dearth of information in the literature,

stating: "One of the most significant discoveries made during the course of this project

was the shortage of literature regarding the management of campus art collections."

One noticeable finding as a result of my survey was that several museums

reported difficulties managing their programs despite the fact that many of the

respondents clearly had thorough policies, procedures, and loan agreement documents in

place. For many, the programs posed an additional strain on the museum's already tight


4 Suzanne Cowan, "Collections Management: Inventory," in The New Museum Registration Methods,
edited by Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore, (Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Museums, 1998), p. 117.








budget for staff and supplies. A lack of staff made it difficult to keep up with all of the

necessary paperwork and labor required to manage the program (i.e., to communicate

with offices, maintain paperwork, install and de-install objects, conduct inventories, and

keep track of loan deadlines). Without a commitment on the part of the administration to

provide staff to manage the program, the survey responses suggest that the program

probably is going to fail. Loaned objects must be monitored on a consistent basis, at least

annually, by a trained member of the museum's staff to ensure that they are not at risk of

damage, loss, or theft. Numerous museums that had operated programs and discontinued

them stated that they did so because objects "went missing" and they did not have enough

time to keep up with the recordkeeping, risk assessments, and all of the other day-to-day

tasks associated with a well-managed campus loan program. Many of the museums that

had discontinued programs stated that they were spending a great deal of time and effort

trying to recall the objects that had been placed in the campus loan program.

A majority of the respondents stated that they initially performed risk assessments

or site inspections prior to loaning, but this task is only the beginning of a long

commitment to communicate with the borrowing office and ensure ongoing care for the

object. It is not sufficient to simply sign an agreement and put the loaned object in place;

communication is the key to making the campus loan program succeed. Overwhelmingly,

the respondents felt that a lack of control over the loaned objects can be avoided if the

museum is committed to maintaining communication with borrowing offices.

Communication should be a two-way street wherein the museum inventories objects on

loan regularly and reminds the offices that the objects belong to the museum. Likewise,








the borrowing office should contact the museum if any issues regarding the objects arise,

such as damage, theft or relocation needs.

Assuming that there is guaranteed institutional commitment and the staff

necessary to maintain communication with borrowing offices, the most important

conclusion that can be drawn from the survey is that the program should not be too large

for the museum to handle. Depending on the size of the staff, the museum will want to

loan a number of objects comparable to the staff available to monitor and communicate

with borrowing offices. Although some authors in the profession stress the importance of

outreach above other considerations, the survey results reveal that best practice is to place

limitations on loans, including the number of objects, the number of suitable borrowing

offices, and the length of loan periods. This practical approach might limit outreach

opportunities, but if a program is too large to manage then the risk to the objects is

increased dramatically. Rather than having a conflict between care and access, there

should be a careful balance between the two. Amanda Prugh, registrar at Harvard

University Art Museum recommended when responding to a survey follow-up question,

that a fledgling program should start small, develop policies, and learn what works best

for their particular situation.













CHAPTER 3
DEVELOPING A CAMPUS LOAN OUTREACH PROGRAM AT
THE HARN MUSEUM

In the fall of 2004 I was awarded an internship at the Samuel P. Ham Museum of

Art to conduct research on campus loan programs and to assist the museum in developing

a loan program of its own. This endeavor was instigated by the museum director, Dr.

Rebecca Nagy, who had received many requests from campus offices seeking to borrow

objects from the collection. Although there was no official campus loan program place in

2004, the museum did have several objects loaned to various offices around the

university, including the President's house, the alumni hall, and the Provost's office. Dr.

Nagy wanted to establish a formal outreach program and use it to reach a wider audience.

In early discussions with the museum registrar, Mary Margaret Carr, we decided that the

implementation project would involve a survey of other institutions (as described in

Chapter 2), in depth discussions with various museum staff members, the development of

forms and tools, program evaluation, and the designation of objects appropriate for the

loan program. The goal of the project was to establish the framework for a successful

campus loan program and, if possible, to implement this program in a limited fashion.



Initial Planning and Discussions with Museum Staff

One of the first steps in the project was to meet with the registrar to discuss the

need for a campus loan program, the goals of the museum in implementing such a

program, and the importance of the project in terms of the museum's mission. Ms. Carr








admitted that campus loan programs were a concern to many professionals and that there

was very little research on the topic, but that it was an ongoing topic of discussion for the

profession. She stressed that the campus loan program should be comprehensive and

address issues such as public relations, storage problems, and education. If an important

function of the museum is to enrich the community, then those objects that are deemed

appropriate for campus loan and are able to serve an audience in various ways should not

be sitting in storage. However, we were concerned about public trust issues because the

museum's Collections Management Policy stated clearly that "the highest standards of

care are applied to these objects and extend to other custodians, as in the case of loans."'

We were not positive that the museum could ensure that loaned objects would receive the

highest standards of care while distributed around campus.

Early in the process, I arranged a meeting with the four collection curators to

gather their input on campus loans and to discuss the selection criteria that we would

establish for the program. Only two curators participated in this initial meeting, but

several important decisions were reached:

Objects would have to meet certain criteria in order to be selected for the campus

loan program. Eligible objects would have to be works created by current and

former faculty, students, or alumni, and we would seek permission from living

artists whenever possible.

We would not accept any donated objects that specifically would be for the

campus loan program. The curators were not interested in acquiring objects solely

to be used as loans, and would not want to set a precedent for such acquisitions.


SSamuel P. Ham Museum of Art, University of Florida, "Collections Management Policy," June 2005, p.
7.








Although the director wanted the curators to be responsible for selecting

appropriate objects, registration staff could recommend objects that met the

selection criteria.

The Ham would not loan any objects that the museum would not be proud to

display within its own galleries. One curator stated that it might be preferable to

deaccession such objects and instead loan objects that the museum considers to be

"mid-grade works," or objects that the museum has elected to keep for diplomatic

reasons. The curators decided to take the search for campus loan objects as an

opportunity to reappraise the collection and deaccession any objects that should

no longer be retained as part of the permanent collection.

During this meeting, the curators expressed concern that the campus loan program might

take priority over other activities, such as object preservation and conservation, which

could be a problem in a museum with limited funds. However, they agreed that the loan

program, if implemented properly, would be an excellent opportunity to display objects

that had not been displayed in the museum in the past and were not likely to be displayed

in the future.

The curators pointed out that there were numerous works in storage that they were

not familiar with, and that they should be able to locate objects suitable for campus loan

while researching the collection in greater depth. Most of the objects discussed at this

meeting were works on paper, but the group identified three problems with these works:

1) works on paper usually are unframed, 2) these works are more at risk in environments

that are not climate and light controlled, and 3) museum policy dictates that works on

paper can only be out of storage for twelve months during any five year period. This







would mean that if a work on paper was on loan for three months, for example, the

amount of time that the work could be exhibited in the galleries over the next five years

would be reduced to nine months. Although most of the objects selected for loans will not

be displayed in the museum frequently, if at all, the curators would still like to have the

option to display them in the galleries. The restrictions that the museum would need to

place on the works on paper, such as requiring strict climate and temperature controls,

would limit the university offices that could borrow them and the duration of the loan

period. However, the curators still agreed that these works would be good candidates

because a large number had been created by faculty and former students and the museum

often has multiple prints of these works.

In addition to the works on paper, the curators also agreed to focus on a number

of paintings and other two-dimensional works that the museum had acquired from its

precursor, the University Gallery. When the Ham Museum was founded in 1990 it

inherited an art collection of approximately 2,500 objects, which previously had been

stewarded by the University Gallery. Several of these objects had been displayed in

campus offices primarily because the Gallery did not have a safe place with enough space

to store works of art. The Ham conducted an assessment of these inherited objects, and

those art objects that were not museum quality or did not fall into the collections plan

(e.g., portraits of university presidents) were transferred to the campus offices. Rather

than deaccessioning these objects outright, the museum felt it best to simply transfer

ownership to the offices so that the objects would remain state property managed by the

university rather than by the museum. The remaining inherited objects were retained in

the custody of the museum, many of which were placed in storage. All of these inherited







objects, whether dispersed around campus or retained in storage, became the focus of the

initial implementation of the program primarily because the majority were works by

former faculty and students which would not be displayed in the museum galleries in the

foreseeable future.

Following the meetings with the registrar and curators, I met with the director to

discuss initial progress of the project, as well as some of the broader implications of the

program. Dr. Nagy stressed that the goal of the campus loan program would be outreach;

it would not simply serve as a means to alleviate storage concerns. To emphasize this

point, we decided that the program would be named the Campus Loan Outreach Program.

She agreed with the decisions reached by the curatorial staff, and suggested that we start

identifying offices that would be interested and suitable for borrowing objects, beginning

first with those offices that previously had requested loan objects. For those locations on

campus that already had borrowed works, such as the President's home and Provost's

office, we decided to retrieve them temporarily in order to assess their condition. We also

discussed the option of charging a fee to borrowers, but decided against it because the

program was intended to promote the museum in a positive way and fees might detract

from any goodwill generated by the program. Regarding the selection criteria, she

decided that loan objects also should be created by artists who lived and/or worked in

Florida. Further, in determining which objects would be suitable for loan, Dr. Nagy

decided that the curators should contact living artists and ask them to help decide which

of their works should be eligible. Finally, she required that all loaned objects should be

accompanied by interpretive labels and a paragraph describing the purpose of the campus

loan program. This text, hopefully, would alleviate public trust issues not only by








educating the public about the object, but also by informing the public of the program's

intentions and the museum's dedication to care.



Development of Documents, Forms and Tools

Following the meeting with the director, the registrar generated a small list of

objects that the curator and director had deemed suitable for campus loans; these objects

served as a test group with which to create forms for the program. I transferred records

for the listed objects from the museum's old database into the new TMS (The Museum

System) database, and photographed the objects so that images could be included with

their descriptions. Based on the database records for these objects, I designed an

information sheet to be included in a newly created "object selection binder" (see

Appendix C). The purpose of the binder is to allow potential borrowers to browse

information sheets for the objects available in the collection without physically coming to

the museum, thereby reducing risk to the objects. The information sheet, which was

created as a form that could be generated and printed directly from TMS, includes the

artist, title, date, medium and size, an artist biography, loan restrictions, and the image of

the object. The binder is divided into three sections, with the first section containing the

program's mission statement, policies and procedures, and a statement describing the

program, which will be displayed with each object (Appendices D-F). This statement,

which is intended to educate the public about the purpose of the program, was written by

myself and the director, and states:

The Campus Loan Outreach Program of the Samuel P. Ham Museum of
Art is a service to other University of Florida departments.








The Ham Museum promotes the power of the arts to inspire and educate
people and enrich their lives. Accordingly, the Campus Loan Outreach
Program serves the University community through the display and
interpretation of works of art from the permanent collection in eligible
interior spaces on campus. Available for loan are selected works by
current faculty, faculty alumni, student alumni, and artists who have lived
and worked in the state of Florida.

The second section in the binder lists the objects according to type: prints, paintings and

photographs. The last section of the binder includes information about each interested

borrowing office, including site inspection sheets and contact information.

At the same time that I was creating the object selection binder, I also began

writing the policies and procedures for the campus loan program. The policies and

procedures document I created was based on discussions with the curators and director,

the results of the previous literature review and survey results, as well as copies of

policies and procedures that were given to me by other university museums. This

document contains an explicit statement of the criteria for the program:

The Campus Loan Outreach Program at the Samuel P. Ham Museum of
Art is provided as an outreach service to departments on campus at the
University of Florida.

The works available for the Campus Loan Outreach Program will be
drawn from designated objects in the Museum collection. They will
include works by current faculty, faculty alumni, student alumni and
artists who have lived and worked in Florida that the Museum is not likely
to display in the Museum's exhibition space.

Living artists will be consulted prior to making their work part of the
Campus Loan Outreach Program.

Following this criteria statement, there is a section on the authorization of loans,

installation, care and handling, insurance, the loan period, and photography. The policies

and procedures document went through several drafts involving minor changes before it

was finally approved by the registrar, the curators and the director (See Appendix E).










Program Evaluation and Limited Field Testing

At the same time that I and other museum staff were developing the campus loan

program, the Ham employed the services of an AAM Museum Assessment Program

(MAP) assessor, who included the Campus Loan Outreach Program in his overall

assessment of the museum and expressed a few concerns about it. The mission of the

MAP program is to advise "museums on how to implement professional museum

practices in order to sustain themselves and more effectively serve the public. MAP also

helps museum professionals develop leadership skills and an increased understanding of

the profession."2 The MAP assessor feared that the staff would not be able to devote

sufficient time to the loan program, that the program would become too large to manage

properly, and that the program conflicted with a statement in the Collections

Management Policy which states that "the highest standards of care are applied to these

objects and extend to other custodians, as in the case of loans." It came as no surprise that

these three issues coincided with three of the top concerns identified by other museum

professionals when surveyed (see Chapter 2). Following his assessment, I spoke with the

curators, registrar, and director about staffing issues, and the museum decided that it

would attempt to create a permanent Graduate Student Assistant position to manage the

program. We also decided to start off with a small program, loaning no more than fifty

works around the University of Florida campus at any given time. The third concern, that

of justifying lower standards of care for those objects eligible for the program, initially

seemed more difficult to address but the solution turned out to be relatively simple. I


2 American Association of Museums, "Museum Assessment Program." Available at http://www.aam-
us.org/museumresources/map/index.cfm (Last browsed: October 28, 2005).








discussed the issue with museum staff, and also solicited the opinion of a registrar at the

University of Maine, which has an active and very popular campus loan program.3 The

advice was unanimous that the Ham should revise the Collections Management Policy to

explicitly include the campus loan program. The Collections Management Policy

approved in July 2005 now includes the statement:

Works deemed by curatorial as unlikely to be used in the galleries may be
designated for the Campus Loan Outreach Program. These selected works
will be made available to units on campus that can provide adequate care
for the object as outlined in the campus loan procedure.

With this addition to the policy, the museum was able to reduce any potential conflicts

between the campus loan program and public trust issues.

Once the major considerations related to the implementation of a successful

program, as identified by the literature, survey and the MAP assessor, had been addressed

the next step in the project was to develop a worksheet that could be used during

inspections of potential borrowing offices (See Appendix G). All site inspections would

be conducted by registration staff, but the final decision to approve a borrowing office

would be made by the curators and director based on the registrar's recommendations.

This site inspection worksheet includes three sections: 1) contact information of the

borrowing office and date of inspection; 2) building information, including location and

hours open to the public; and 3) details about the room where the object may be

displayed, including who has access to the room, whether or not attendants are present,

size of the location, whether food or drink is allowed in the room, and light readings.

Once the form was reviewed and approved by the registrar, I made arrangements to test


3 Stephen Ringle, Registrar, University of Maine Museum of Art, interview by author via telephone,
September 1, 2004.








the worksheet at an office on campus that already was borrowing two objects from the

museum. This initial test proved to be invaluable, and I was able to make modifications

to the worksheet based on the results of the test. Specifically, I added a space for

temperature and humidity readings, and included sections on the verso for "other possible

locations" because the office had multiple walls that they wished the museum to consider

for displaying artwork and there was insufficient space to record all of the information on

a single sheet.

The initial test of the site inspection worksheet also produced an interesting and

unexpected result. During the site visit, the contact person at the location informed me

that they were going to be renovating the space in the near future and that the object

would need to be removed from its current wall. I told him that I would make

arrangements to have the loaned painting returned to the museum temporarily. This was a

valuable lesson on the importance of maintaining communication with borrowers a

lesson that reinforced many of the observations and anecdotes related by other museum

professionals during the survey phase of the project. If I had not contacted the office to

conduct the test of the site inspection worksheet, museum staff may never have known

that the object needed to be removed prior to construction activities. As a result of this

interaction, I also decided to create business cards specifically for the campus loan

program that could be distributed periodically as a reminder to the borrowers that the

program is a collaboration and that they should share the museum's goals of caring for

the art and should maintain regular communication.








Designating Loan Objects and Establishing the Program Framework

Following the development and test of the site inspection form, I worked with the

registrar and curators to identify and designate additional objects to be included in the

program. I reminded the curatorial staff that we were seeking two-dimensional works,

and asked for interpretive text for the extended labels. Initially we thought that the

process of the curators designating objects would be relatively brief; however, due to

delays because of exhibition projects and preparations for the opening of a new pavilion

at the Ham, the identification of objects was a low priority. Even without these

distractions, the work proceeded slowly because curators still had to inventory and assess

hundreds of works to decide which ones, if any, would be made eligible for campus loan,

or if they were better suited for deaccessioning. Although the curators and director

ultimately were responsible for approving objects for the loan program, the registration

staff also suggested possible candidates for the curators to evaluate, based on the criteria

for eligible objects.

Despite the delays, objects were selected for the loan program and I was able to

establish procedures and tools to be used during this process. Using the TMS database I

developed a Designated Objects Form, which includes the goals of the program, the

selection criteria, label information for the object, and spaces for the curator and director

to sign and approve the object for the Campus Loan Outreach Program (Appendix H).

While developing this form, I continued to photograph and input objects into the TMS

system, flagging the object records with a "Campus Loan Outreach Program" identifier.

As the curatorial staff designated eligible works, I printed out the Designated Objects

Forms and asked the director and curators to approve them. Completed forms were








placed in the permanent accession file for each object. I also developed a spreadsheet

with a list of the objects, which includes a field to check that the Designated Objects

Form had been signed, a space to indicate whether or not the object had been

photographed and entered into TMS, the dimensions of the object, whether it is framed or

matted, and a space to indicate whether a color image had been placed in the object

selection binder (Appendix I). The final step was to generate and print the object

information sheets, which include the color images of the objects, for inclusion in the

object selection binder.

In addition to implementing the policies and forms, it was important to organize

the loan program in such a way that it could be managed in the future by museum staff

and graduate student assistants. I created a manual for the program's procedures, and

compiled all of my research and sample documents into one binder. I met with the

exhibitions registrar to discuss some of the unresolved program management issues,

including a method to keep the campus loan items separate from other loans. In addition

to their permanent accession numbers, we decided to assign temporary loan numbers

(e.g., "CL2005.1") to the loaned objects while they are on loan to a borrowing office, and

to maintain a record book to track the loan numbers assigned to each object.

Once all of the policies and forms were in place, I contacted six campus offices

that had expressed interest in borrowing objects from the museum. I informed the offices

that the loan program was in a fledgling stage but that I would like to discuss the program

with them and conduct a site inspection of the proposed area, or areas, in which they

wanted to display the borrowed objects. I visited four locations and discovered that the

office staff in each were very excited and enthusiastic about the program. I also quickly








learned that I needed to bring more than one site inspection worksheet during each visit,

because they had multiple rooms and wanted the museum to consider placing objects in

each room. This demand for several objects was not entirely expected, and due to the

limitation of fifty objects placed on the program, museum staff decided that we would

limit each loan to two objects per office. Concerned that the Har would not be able to

keep track of all of the loans on campus, I also created a "Tracking Spreadsheet" that

included the name of the borrowing office, accession number and temporary loan

number, artist, title, the date of the loan and the expected date of return (Appendix J).



Conclusions

The importance of a well-organized program, dedicated staff, adequate funding,

and formal policies and procedures can not be overstated, but these things are

meaningless without ongoing communication between museum staff members, between

the museum and the borrowing offices, and between the museum and the public.

Obviously, a program like the Ham's Campus Loan Outreach Program cannot be created

without frequent meetings and discussions with museum administrators, curators, and

registrars, as well as other professionals in the museum field. The importance of

communication with borrowers was revealed during the test of the site inspection

worksheet. Not only did this experience demonstrate the efficacy of testing the program

on a limited trial basis before broad implementation, but the discovery of impending

construction at the borrowing office served as a reminder that communication should be

maintained continually. Regular site visits, even if only conducted annually, can serve to

remind the borrowing office that the museum should be contacted if any situation arises








that may affect the loaned object. In addition, the implementation project addressed the

issue of communicating the intentions of the program to the public. The director

repeatedly stressed the educational and outreach focus of the program, and required that

every loaned object be accompanied by labels interpreting both the object and the

program. Further, the MAP assessor's recommendation prompted the museum to add

language to the Collections Management Policy explaining the Campus Loan Outreach

Program.

The most difficult aspect of the project was the delay while waiting for the

curatorial staff to designate objects eligible for loan. The curators were extremely busy

with exhibition planning and preparations for the opening of new building space, and had

little time to devote to inventorying the collection for possible candidates for campus

loan. Approximately fifteen objects that had been selected at the outset by the curatorial

staff are still on hold because the curator has not had time to research the objects and

artists to give final approval for the program. This delay can be frustrating when trying to

move forward with the program, but the curators can not be faulted for this. Certainly, it

is important to proceed carefully and slowly before making decisions about the

designation of objects for campus loan. If objects are going to be placed in an

environment where they are outside of the museum's control and at greater risk, the

curators have a duty to consider selections carefully. Ultimately, the director proved to be

very effective in motivating the curators to designate objects, and the program currently

has sixty-nine objects in the TMS system with the status of campus loan eligible.

The process was eased immeasurably by the quality of the advice and documents

received from other museum professionals during the survey period. Their








recommendations were extremely helpful, warning of pitfalls to avoid and proven

methods for success. The sample documents they provided during the survey, such as

policies and procedures, proved to be an invaluable tool that aided in writing the Ham's

policies and procedures and the risk assessment forms. The suggestion by multiple

professionals to start by testing the program on a small scale was some of the best advice

received. By testing the procedures and forms on campus, I was able to determine what

did and did not work, and make the necessary corrections. Meetings with the museum

staff and director also were helpful in that they allowed me to discuss and make revisions

to the policies and procedures, mission statement, label text, site inspection worksheet,

and other forms and tools. Without the collaboration of the museum staff, director and

outside professionals the resulting program would have taken much longer to develop,

and the quality of the program may have suffered as well. Fortunately, this was not the

case and the initial implementation of this fledgling program can be considered a success

in that regard.













CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND BEST PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING A SUCCESSFUL
CAMPUS LOAN PROGRAM

As there is almost no literature directly related to campus loan programs, it is

almost impossible to predict whether or not well-planned programs such as the Campus

Loan Outreach Program at the Ham Museum will prove to be successful in the long term.

The dearth of literature indicates that the profession simply has not been reporting on the

development, implementation and management of campus loan programs. In order to

determine if existing programs have been successful, as well as to identify factors

contributing to failed programs, a thorough investigation is required. Due to time

constraints the survey and research completed during the Ham implementation project

was limited. Although my survey yielded a high rate of return and provided extremely

useful information, it may not be a true representation of the majority of campus loan

programs in the country.

This author would like to see AAM or another professional organization establish

a task force to conduct a more extensive, in-depth survey. The ongoing discussion within

the museum community indicates that there would be support for such an endeavor. The

investigation, possibly undertaken as a grant-funded project, would provide statistics on

the number of museums loaning objects on campuses formally or informally, the number

of objects loaned on campuses, the average duration of loan periods, and the number of

objects destroyed, damaged or lost as a result of campus loans. This quantitative data will








allow museums interested in establishing a campus loan program to weigh the desirability

of outreach against the actual risk that exists for loaned objects.

In addition to statistical data, a formal survey of the profession hopefully would

amass a greater body of anecdotal evidence and a collection of sample documents and

tools used in campus loan programs. Even with only 24 museums responding to my 2004

survey, I gathered quality responses from professionals who had a wide variety of

experiences working with loan programs. In addition, many of these respondents

contributed copies of their policy and procedure documents, forms, worksheets, and other

tools. An Internet clearinghouse could be created to facilitate the sharing of these

documents and other information between campus museums. The results of my own

project demonstrate that even a small number of museum professionals sharing

information can provide best practice guidelines for a campus loan program. Despite the

limited nature of my survey and the literature review which produced almost nothing

specifically related to campus loans, I was able to arrive at several conclusions that

should lead to a successful development of a loan program.

Outreach and Communication with the Community. It is strongly

recommended that campus loan programs are established primarily as outreach

initiatives, rather than simply as a means to alleviate overcrowded storage or to provide

decoration for academic offices. The campus loan program is a means to foster a sense of

collective ownership in which the museum and the borrowing office share a common

goal of both providing access to and caring for the object. The Ham used the Campus

Loan Outreach Program as an opportunity to strengthen the support of university

administrators, to remind the institution as a whole that the museum is an integral








component of the university, and to generate a feeling of goodwill towards the museum

on campus. It also is recommended that the program serve an educational purpose. The

loan object always should be accompanied by interpretive labels about the artist and/or

object, as well as labels with text explaining the purpose of the program. The museum

also can provide educational experiences by creating brochures at the museum for self-

guided tours of campus loan objects, individual handouts on the objects to be distributed

in the borrowing offices, and in-office presentations about loan objects by a museum

curator. A successful campus loan program can build positive community relationships.

Administrative Commitment. The museum administration must be committed

to the management of the program and provide sufficient staff not only to implement the

program but also to keep it operating smoothly and effectively. It is strongly

recommended that one member of the museum staff should be designated as the

coordinator of the loan program. Although it would be best for this person to be a

permanent, fulltime staff member to maintain continuity in the program, the coordinator

could be a trained graduate student or intern with knowledge of art handling and museum

practices. The museum administration also must be willing to budget funds for object

care, including framing and matting and preservation treatments. At the Ham Museum,

the administration's commitment was clear from the outset because the program was

instigated by the Museum Director and my graduate assistantship position was created

solely to implement the program.

Research Other Loan Programs. It is important before starting a campus loan

program to conduct thorough research to identify possible pitfalls and successes by

communicating with other museum professionals. The survey and literature search that I








conducted for the Ham's loan program took approximately five months, including

follow-up discussions with museum professionals. In addition to the valuable information

provided by survey respondents, it was extremely important and helpful to collect sample

policies and other documents from various institutions. These served as models as I

created policies and forms for the Ham Museum.

Communication Between Museum Staff. Even if there is a high level of support

from the museum administration, it is important to have conversations with curators to

solicit their opinion and discover their thoughts on campus loan programs. Because the

program will involve the close cooperation of the curatorial and registration departments

within the museum, it would be impossible to manage the program without ongoing

communication with the curators. At the Ham Museum, the framework for the loan

program was established during meetings with curators, registrars, and the director.

Policies and Procedures. It is important to create policies and procedures before

loaning objects to offices. The policies and procedures define the parameters of the

program, indicate to borrowing offices their responsibilities, define eligible offices, state

the duration of the loan period, and list all restrictions and requirements. The museum

should be flexible and revise the policies and procedures as the needs and goals of the

museum and university community change.

Develop a Manageable Program. It is recommended that museums start small,

relative to the amount of staff and resources available to operate the program effectively

and the size of the academic institution. Once the program has been established and

perfected on a small scale, it can expand as museum staff come to understand the size of

program that they can effectively manage. The Ham Museum decided to limit the number








of objects loaned at one time to fifty objects, and no one office could borrow more that

two objects at one time. The average loan period for objects will be one year; however,

the duration of loan will depend on the nature of each object. For example, due to the

limited time that works on paper can be out of the Ham museum, these works may only

be available for campus loan for three to six months.

Recordkeeping and Organization. It is vital for the museum to maintain records

of all campus loans. In addition to entering object and loan information into the

museum's database or collection management system, it is recommended that this data is

also printed and filed in a special filing system for the loan program. At the Ham, for

example, I created a loan object tracking spreadsheet, which I printed and filed with the

loan records. It also is recommended that the museum maintain a procedural manual. At

the Ham, the procedures binder is comprised of instructions, background information,

samples of forms used in the program, and a list of steps so that the program can be easily

managed.

Create Forms and Tools. There are several forms and tools recommended for

managing a successful campus loan program:

A designated objects form is used by museum staff to identify eligible loan

objects and includes the criteria for the campus loan program, basic label

information, any loan restrictions for the object, and a space for signatures.

This form must be approved by both the curators and director.

Although objects are identified as "campus loan eligible" in the museum's

database, a separate object spreadsheet can serve as a concise list of all the

objects eligible for campus loan. This sheet includes the accession number of








the object, the artist and title, spaces to indicate if the designated objects form

has been signed and if a photo has been taken, the dimensions of the object,

whether it is framed and/or matted, and if it has an object information sheet.

An object information sheet is used to describe loan objects to borrowing

offices and includes basic label information, an image of the object, an artist

biography and any loan restrictions.

A site inspection worksheet is intended to identify any possible security or

environmental risks to the objects and includes contact information, building

access information and details about the room where objects may be displayed

(e.g., who has access to the room, size of the location, whether or not

attendants are present, and environmental risks).

A tracking spreadsheet is used to keep track of all of the loans on campus, and

includes the name of the borrowing office, accession number and temporary

loan number, artist, title, the date of the loan and the expected date of return.

Designating Loan Objects. Before designating objects for a campus loan

program, the museum staff must agree upon the criteria for objects that will be eligible

for campus loan. For example, the staff at the Ham decided that we wanted to include

works by current and former faculty, student alumni and artists who have lived and

worked in Florida. We also felt that it was important to contact living artists and allow

them to participate in selecting which of their objects they would like to include in the

program. The staff also decided not to accession new objects solely for the campus loan

program, and select only objects that already are in the permanent collection.








Evaluate the Program Prior to Implementation. Once the policies and

procedures and other forms are written, it is recommended that the museum test the forms

to determine if they require modifications. For example, a test of the site inspection

worksheet indicated that I needed to add more space in the document for measuring other

walls, and add a space for the temperature and humidity readings for the multiple areas

within one room. In order to ensure the effectiveness of a new loan program, it is

recommended that museums use the services of an evaluative consultant, whether hired

or as a volunteer. Outside professionals can advise on whether the museum should

establish a loan program or not, provide guidance concerning object selection criteria,

and assist in the creation of policies and procedures, forms and other tools.

Object Care. The site inspection worksheet is used to determine that borrowing

offices conform to basic environmental and security controls. As an extra security

measure it is recommended that campus loan objects are displayed using security hangers

to deter the theft and movement of objects. In addition, museum staff should train the

staff in borrowing offices to handle loan objects during extreme emergency situations in

which there is no time for museum staff to move and secure the object. The borrowing

office staff also may be trained on how to recognize security and/or environmental issues

so that they will know when to contact the museum. For example, if the air conditioning

is broken and the office is displaying a work on paper, the contact person in that office

should be able to recognize that the museum needs to be contacted to temporarily remove

the object.

Fees for Loans. It is up to individual museums to decide if they would like to

charge fees to borrowing offices. Although my 2004 survey discovered that many








museums use fees to cover the expense of framing, matting and conservation of campus

loan objects, the Ham decided that the Campus Loan Outreach Program would be a

goodwill gesture to promote the museum in a positive way and, therefore, would not

impose fees on the borrowing offices.

Communication with Borrowing Offices. The borrowing office and the museum

should envision the loan as a collaboration in which they share the goal of caring for the

object. In addition to initial meetings with staff in borrowing offices to explain policies

and procedures and answer their questions, I recommend handing out campus loan

business cards so that they will feel comfortable contacting the museum should an

emergency or any other needs arise. The museum also may choose to communicate using

an email listserv, which will allow museum staff to send updates and reminders to

borrowing offices. I also recommend a site inspection and inventory of each loaned

object every six months. These frequent visits will serve as an opportunity for the

museum to check the condition of the object and the environment in which the object is

located, and to meet with the office contact to discuss the loan and remind them subtly

that the object belongs to the museum. Regular communication also will help museum

staff remain aware of office staff turnover so that they will know who in the office is

responsible for the object.

Care vs. Access. An important question to be answered regarding campus loans is

whether or not collections care is more important, less important or equal to access. This

is a decision that should be made by each museum based on its mission and goals and the

needs of the institution and community it serves. It is undeniable that the placing of

objects outside of the museum heightens the risk of damage or loss. Additionally, these








campus loans can have a negative effect on reputation of the museum, particularly if

objects are lost or stolen. Objects designated for campus loan should not be significant

works in the museum collection. The program should be comprised of objects that are

"mid-grade" works or objects that the museum is unlikely to display in its galleries. Most

museums have objects in their collections that will never be displayed in the galleries

because they no longer fall into the collecting scope of the museum, or they are only kept

for diplomatic reasons. For works such as these, perhaps the outreach and educational

advantages gained by displaying them around campus outweigh the risks. For example,

the Ham has an extensive collection of paintings created by faculty members that it

inherited from the University Gallery. It is almost certain that these objects will never be

displayed in the museum galleries, nor will they be deaccessioned because the museum

does not want to offend former faculty. If the objects in the collection are placed in

storage, never to be seen by the public, and possibly never to be researched by scholars

then what good are they serving? As Stephen Weil stated, "The question we must

ultimately ask ourselves is this: do our museums make a real difference in, and do they

have a positive impact on, the lives of other people?"' Perhaps these loan objects can

have a positive impact on people that visit and work in offices on the university campus.












1 Stephen E. Weil, Rethinking the Museum and Other Meditations (Washington and London: Smithsonian
Institution Press, 1990), 56.








APPENDIX A
2004 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

The Ham Museum of Art at the University of Florida is seeking to establish a campus
loan program. The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information regarding
professional standards from other university institutions that have established similar
programs. Please respond to the questions below and return the information to Laura
Nemmers at lnemmers@ufl.edu.

If you would like to share your campus loan policies and procedures please send them
with this email as an attachment or fax them to (352) 392-3892 (Attention: Laura
Nemmers).

Questionnaire

1) What is the name of your institution and associated museum or gallery?

2) Do you have formalized policies and procedures for your campus loan
program?

3) If you have a campus loan program but do not have formalized policies and
procedures please explain why there are none established.

4) Are there specific standards regarding whom or what department is eligible to
borrow from the campus loan program?

5) Where are the objects typically displayed? How is placement determined?

6) Do require that the object be labeled and identified as a piece on loan from your
museum?

7) Are the objects accessioned or deaccessioned?

8) If accessioned, how are your campus loan objects classified (are there gradations
of accessioned pieces, i.e. A, B, etc.)?

9) Does your institution acquire or accept objects specifically for the campus loan
program?

10) Does your institution charge a fee to the borrower?

11) What other information and/or suggestions would you like to share regarding the
implementation of a new campus loan program? What works, what doesn't? What
pitfalls should be avoided?








APPENDIX B
CAMPUS ART MUSEUMS CONTACTED FOR 2004 SURVEY

1. Agnes Scott College
2. Arizona State University
3. Ball State University Museum of Art
4. Beloit College Logan Museum
5. Brigham Young University
6. Bryn Mawr
7. California State University Long Beach
8. Colgate University Picker Art Gallery
9. Cornell University Herbert Johnson Museum
10. DePaul University Art Museum
11. Duke University Museum of Art Durham North Carolina
12. Eastern Illinois University Tarble Arts Center Eastern Illinois University
13. Florida International University Frost Museum of Art
14. Florida International University Wolfsonian
15. Florida State University
16. Harvard University Art Museums
17. Indiana University Art Museum
18. Iowa State University, Art on Campus Ames Iowa
19. Iowa State University Art Museum Brunnier Art Museum
20. Kansas State University Marianna Kistler Beach Museum of Art
21. Longwood University Center for the Visual Arts
22. Miami University Art Museum Ohio
23. Michigan State University Kresge Art Museum
24. Princeton University
25. South Dakota University Art Museum South Dakota Art Museum
26. Southeast Missouri State University Museum
27. Southern Utah University Braithwaite Fine Arts Gallery
28. Syracuse University Art Museum
29. University of Arizona Museum of Art
30. University of Chicago The Smart Museum of Art
31. University of Georgia Georgia Art Museum
32. University of Illinois Krannert Art Museum
33. University of Iowa Museum of Art
34. University of Kansas Lawrence Spencer Museum of Art
35. University of Kentucky Art Museum
36. University of Louisiana at Lafayette
37. University of Maine Museum of Art
38. University of Miami Lowe Art Museum
39. University of Michigan Museum of Art
40. University of Nebraska Sheldon Memorial Art Gallery and Sculpture Garden
41. University of New Mexico Art Museum
42. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Ackland Art Museum
43. University of North Carolina at Greensboro Weatherspoon Art Museum








44. University of Notre Dame Snite Museum of Art
45. University of Oklahoma Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art
46. University of Oregon Museum of Art
47. University of Rochester Memorial Art Gallery
48. University of South Florida Contemporary Art Museum
49. University of Southern California Fisher Gallery
50. University of Southern California at Santa Barbara
51. University of Texas at Austin Jack S. Blanton Museum of Art
52. University of Virginia Art Museum Bayly Art Museum
53. University of Washington, Seattle Henry Art Gallery
54. University of Wisconsin at Madison Elvehjem Musuem of Art
55. University of Wyoming Art Museum
56. Utah State University Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art
57. Utah State University Utah Museum of Fine Arts
58. Washburn University Mulvane Art Museum
59. Washington University Art Gallery, St. Louis Missouri
60. Yale University Gallery








APPENDIX C
OBJECT INFORMATION SHEET FOR BINDER
1999.8.1
















Waterless litho on paper

Messengers
Kenneth A. Kerslake


1997
Waterless litho on paper
sheet: 29 3/8 x 22 1/2 in. (74.6 x 57.2 cm)
image: 22 3/8 x 17 1/4 in. (56.8 x 43.8 cm)

Gift of Kenneth A. and Sarah A. Kerslake

Artist biography:
Kerslake, an outstanding printmaker and teacher, joined the University of Florida
faculty in 1958. He was named a Distinguished Service Professor in 1991 in
recognition for his contributions to the University and his achievements as an
artist. He has been represented in more than 300 solo and group exhibitions. His
work is included in the collections of the National Gallery of Art, Washington DC;
the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; and the High Museum of Art, Atlanta.


Other loan restrictions:
Works on paper can be exhibited no more than 12 months per five years.
Visible light not to exceed 10 footcandles.
UV light not to exceed 75 microwatts per lumen (as per Northeast Document
Conservation Center Technical Leaflet section 2, leaflet 4).














1999.8.1


Photograph and Digital Image @ this museum. Not for reproduction or publication.


E-~~4-i~~;
Ir~T~r~)lbbE~r~i.s:

+.

-,..








APPENDIX D
MISSION STATEMENT


The Samuel P. Har Museum of Art, through its Campus Loan Outreach
Program, shares the power of the visual arts to inspire, educate and enrich the
lives of members of the University of Florida campus community.

As an integral part of the University, the Museum seeks to establish and
strengthen ties with other University departments through the display and
interpretation of select works of art from the permanent collection in eligible
interior public spaces on the University campus.








APPENDIX E
CAMPUS LOAN OUTREACH PROGRAM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Harn Museum of Art
Campus Loan Outreach Program PolicieslProcedures

The Campus Loan Outreach Program at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art is
provided as an outreach service to departments on campus at the University of
Florida.

The works available for the Campus Loan Outreach Program will be drawn from
designated objects in the permanent collection. They will include works by
current faculty, faculty alumni, student alumni and artists who have lived and
worked in Florida that the Museum is not likely to display in the Museum's
exhibition space.

Living artists will be consulted prior to making their work part of the Campus Loan
Outreach Program.


Authorization of Loans

Campus loans are subject to the approval of the Curatorial staff and Museum
Director and will be determined on a case by case basis.

Interested campus units will submit a letter of request. Campus Loan staff will
perform a site visit and risk assessment of the display location. The results of the
visit will be shared and discussed with Curatorial staff and selection of
appropriate objects will be determined. The Campus Loan Outreach Program
staff will share the list of works deemed appropriate to borrowing agency. Once
the borrower has selected works that he or she is interested in borrowing the
Museum Director will consider approving the selection. If the selection is
approved a loan agreement will be drawn up and installation will be arranged
with the borrower.

Loans are available for areas with both reasonable security and access by the
public such as reception areas or administrative offices and conference rooms.
They will not be considered for students for residential use, private offices, dining
halls, kitchens, corridors, or bathrooms.

Eligible borrowing institutions will be determined on a case by case basis by the
Harn Museum following the completion of a risk assessment form for the location
where the objects) may be installed.

The Museum will not charge a fee to the borrower.









Installation

Objects must be installed and de-installed by Harn staff. Objects may not be
relocated without the permission of the Harn staff, unless the movement is in an
emergency in which the object may be damaged if immediate action is not taken.

The Museum will make installation or de-installation arrangements at a time
convenient to both parties.

The loaned object must be labeled as an object on loan from the Har Museum
and include identifying text about the artist and/or object. Extended interpretive
text and/or biographical information may be available.

Care and Handling

Harn Staff will be responsible for moving, handling, and installing objects.

Loan objects are to remain in the condition in which they are received by the
borrower. Objects may not be removed from mats, frames, or mounts. They may
not be cleaned, repaired, retouched, or altered in any way. Requests for any
such changes should be directed to the Harn Museum of Art.

Specific instructions for regular maintenance (e.g., dusting) will be included with
loan papers.

Insurance

Each object will be insured under the fine art policy of the Harn Museum.

Loan Period

Objects shall remain in the custody of the borrowing department for the term
stated on the loan agreement.

Upon completion of an inventory and condition report, campus loans may be
extended or revoked.

The borrower must make objects available to Museum staff for inventory
purposes.

The Harn reserves the right to recall any object for its own purpose upon
reasonable notice to the borrower. The replacement of recalled works is at the
discretion of the Harn Museum.







The Museum must be notified at least two weeks in advance prior to any
renovation or painting of the offices) where the work is installed. Re-installation
will be arranged at a time convenient to both parties.

An inventory and condition report should be completed by Campus Loan staff for
each object every six months.

Photography

The loan objects may not be photographed or reproduced in any way without
prior written permission. All rights and reproductions requests should be directed
to the Museum registrar.








APPENDIX F
STATEMENT ABOUT THE CAMPUS LOAN OUTREACH PROGRAM
INFORMATION LABEL

The Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art
Campus Loan Outreach Program

The Campus Loan Outreach Program of the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art is a
service to other University of Florida departments.

The Harn Museum promotes the power of the arts to inspire and educate people
and enrich their lives. Accordingly, the Campus Loan Outreach Program serves
the University community through the display and interpretation of works of art
from the permanent collection in eligible interior spaces on campus. Available for
loan are selected works by current faculty, faculty alumni, current students,
student alumni, and artists who have lived and worked in the state of Florida.









APPENDIX G
SITE INSPECTION WORKSHEET


Borrower (Academic
Unit/Office)

Contact Name

Date of Inspection CLOP Staff

Building Information:

Building Name and Location:



Hours of Public Access:

Attendants Present?

Who has after hours access to the
building?

Is the building climate controlled?

Site Information (Floor, room number, department or office name):

Hours of public access:

Attendants present?

Who has after hours access to the
room?

Are there site sensitive thermostats in the room?

Natural light (windows)? UV filtered windows?

Lighting (circle one): Florescent Incandescent Other (explain)

Site Location 1:

Light Meter reading FC UV

Size of space:

Temp. Humidity:









Are food and beverages allowed where objects are to be placed?

Explain:

Placement Concerns (i.e. vents, water fountains, etc.):



Site Location 2:

Location:

Light meter reading FC UV

Size of space

Placement Concerns (i.e. vents, water fountains, etc.):



Site Location 3:

Location:

Light meter reading FC UV

Size of space

Placement Concerns (i.e. vents, water fountains, etc.):



Site Location 4:

Location:

Light meter reading FC UV

Size of space

Placement Concerns (i.e. vents, water fountains, etc.):



Site Location 5:

Location:

Light meter reading FC UV

Size of space

Placement Concerns (i.e. vents, water fountains, etc.):








APPENDIX H
DESIGNATED OBJECTS FORM


The Campus Loan Outreach Program at the Samuel P. Harn Museum of Art is
provided as an outreach service to departments on campus at the University of
Florida.

The works available for the Campus Loan Outreach Program will be drawn from
designated objects in the Museum collection deemed unlikely to be displayed in
the Museum's exhibition space. They will include works by current faculty, faculty
alumni, student alumni and artists who have lived and worked in Florida.

Living artists will be consulted prior to making their work part of the Campus Loan
Outreach Program.


The object listed below is designated as available for the Campus Loan Outreach
Program:


Artist:
Title:
Date:
Medium:
Accession number:


Restrictions for loaning object:






Curator approval Date


Director approval Date









APPENDIX I
OBJECT SPREADSHEET


On hold until end of Fall as per KOS

Indicates that object is already framed and/or matted
Indicates that objects is not framed or matted
Indicates that no color image has been printed for the Object Selection Book
Indicate Y or N to indicate if a color image is in the object selection binder


Object Number Artist Title Designated Photographed? Dimensions Framed Matted Book?
1988.3.1 Purser The Plains of Ono 8/31/2005 Y 59 3/4 x 48 1/2 in. X
198832 Purser Crossing Hemps Creek Y 5 ft. 11 1/2 in. x 47 3/4 in X Y
1988.3.3 Purser Verticles 8/31/2005 Y 48 x 36 in. X
1988.3.4 Purser Black Figs 8/31/2005 Y 39 x 26 in. X Y
1992.7.5 Kerslake Transformations of the Charmed Circle 7/20/2005 Y 10 1/2 x 17 13/16 in. X Y
1992.7.6 Kerslake The Valley of Shadows 6/30/2005 Y 18 7/16 x 16 9/16 in. N N Y
1992.7.10 Kerslake Genesis III 6/30/2005 Y 23 3/8 x 18 in. N N Y
1992.7.15 Kerslake Dark Altar 6/30/2005 Y 26 3/4 x 16 1/8 in. N N Y
1992.7.16a and b Kerslake Altars of Man: The Scapegoats 7/20/2005 Y 15 x 12 in. N N Y
1992.7.17 Kerslake Altars of Man: Armaggedon 6/30/2005 Y 30 3/16 x 22 1/4 in. N N Y
1992.7.21 Kerslake Altars of Man: Cataclysmic Unfolding 6/30/2005 Y 22 x 15 15/16 in. N N Y
1992.7.28 Kerslake The Ambiguous Wall 7/25/2005 Y 18 1/16 x 20 5/8 in. X Y
1992.7.31 Kerslake Hearts and Parts II 7/20/2005 Y 33 x 25 7/8 in. N N Y
1992.7.32 Kerslake Trials of the Human Heart 7/20/2005 Y 20 x 15 7/8 in. N N Y
1992.7.35 Kerslake Hands Up Harry 7/20/2005 Y 30 1/16 x 20 11/16 in. N N Y
1992.7.36 Kerslake Come to the Florida Sunshine Tree 7/20/2005 Y 22 3/16 x 14 3/16 in. X Y
1992.7.37 Kerslake Configurations Over a Landscape 7/20/2005 Y 35 1/2 x 20 7/8 in. N N Y
1992.7.73 Kerslake Otherwise Engaged 7/20/2005 Y 20 5/8 x 16 3/4 in. N N Y
1992.7.76 Kerslake Pages from a Torn Book: Dawn 7/20/2005 Y 22 3/8 x 18 1/4 in. N N Y
1992.7.79 Kerslake The Journals of Voyageur: Sand Roses 7/20/2005 Y 18 15/16 x 14 13/16 in. N N Y


X
N
Y-nc
Book?








APPENDIX J
TRACKING SPREADSHEET


Borrowing Department CL Loan # Accession # Artist Title Date of Loan Date of Return














REFERENCE LIST


American Association of Museums. Code ofEthics for Museums, 2000. Available at
http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfin. (Last browsed:
September 17, 2005).

American Association of Museums, "Museum Assessment Program." Available at
http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/map/index.cfn. (Last browsed: October
28, 2005).

Buck, Rebecca A. and Jean Allman Gilmore. The New Museum Registration Methods.
Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1998.

Case, Mary. Registrars on Record. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Museums, 1995.

Cowan, Suzanne. "Collections Management: Inventory," in The New Museum
Registration Methods, edited by Rebecca A. Buck and Jean Allman Gilmore.
Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums, 1998.

Edson, Gary and David Dean. The Handbook for Museums. London: Routledge, 1996.

Hudson, Kenneth. "The Museum Refuses to Stand Still," Museum International 197
(1998): 43.

International Council of Museums. ICOM Code ofEthics for Museums, 2004. Available
at http://icom.museum/ethics.html. (Last browsed: September 17, 2005).

Malaro, Marie C. A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections. Washington and
London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998.

McLean, Fiona. Marketing the Museum. London: Routledge, 1997.

Meister, Nicollete. Curator of Collections, Logan Museum of Anthropology, Beloit
College, interview by author via electronic mail, August 24-25, 2004.

Miller, Steven H. "'Guilt-Free' Deaccessioning," Museum News 75:5 (Sept/Oct 1996):
60.

Ringle, Stephen. "Deaccessioning Campus Art Collections," News and Issues Nos. 1&2
(2000).









Registrar, University of Maine Museum of Art, interview by author via
telephone, September 1, 2004.

Samuel P. Ham Museum of Art, University of Florida, "Collections Management
Policy," June 2005.

Weil, Stephen E. "From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing
Transformation of the American Museum," Daedalus 28:3 (Summer 1999): 233-
34.

"The Proper Business of the Museum: Ideas or Things?" Muse 7:1 (Spring
1989): 28-32.

Rethinking the Museum and Other Meditations. Washington and London:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1990.













BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Laura Nemmers graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Art History from the Florida
State University in 2003. As a graduate student in Museum Studies at the University of
Florida, Laura interned at the Samuel P. Ham Museum of Art, the Florida Museum of
Natural History, and the Palmer Museum at the Pennsylvania State University. She is
currently employed at the Ham Museum as the Exhibitions Registrar.










I certify that I have read this document and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a project in lieu of thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.


/ Glenn Willumson, Chair
SAssociate Professor of Art History
Director, Graduate Program in Museum Studies



I certify that I have read this document and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a project in lieu of thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.


/ j I lary Margaret Carr
Collections Manager, Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens




This project in lieu of thesis was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College
of Fine Arts and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts.

December 2005
Ma-cla Y.Isaacson
Director, School of Art & Art History




Barbara O. Korner
Interim Dean, College of Fine Arts








GRANT OF PERMISSIONS

In reference to the following titless: "T\\ C@()CS LCo\ C VtCk( '\ .2CCCI 2

[Author]. [Title]. [Publication Place]: [Publisher], [Publication Date]. 'z C S

I, L JA E M,', -rS as copyright holder or licensee with the
authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned titless, hereby authorize
the University of Florida, acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the University of
Florida, to digitize, distribute, and archive the titles) for nonprofit, educational purposes
via the Internet or successive technologies.

This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite
term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either, for educational uses, with the terms of U.S.
copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Florida, with the
maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of
Florida to generate image- and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and
enhance access using search software.

This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or
profit.




~cignature of Copyright Holder

LARj2A K tM i6
Printed or Typed Name of Copyright Holder


Date of Signature



Attention:
Digital Library Center
Smathers Libraries
University of Florida
P.O. Box 117003
Gainesville, FL32611-7003
P: 352.273.2900
DLC@uflib.ufl.edu




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs