|
Author
|
Topic: Flown hardware code of ethics for curators
|
kyra
Member Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-06-2012 01:04 PM
   
The recent NASA General Counsel measures has inspired me to consider what we as a collecting community is doing proactively to ensure preservation and access of flown and rare items to the public and future generations. We collect many pieces that are rare or museum grade that for means of their own limitations (space or money) are not in the care of a museum. The expense of curatorship may even exceed what the auction price of an item over time. Hence, it mitigates investment as a sole or driving reason if these principles are followed. Curatorial ownership is a big responsibility involving numerous points. - Is the item being preserved from environmental effects as reasonably as possible?
- Is the item protected from theft, fire, and natural disasters within reason?
- Is the items' whereabouts or at a way to contact the curator publicly available? Is a record of provenance being kept?
- Is the item on display (even digitally) in such a way where the public can inquire about it? In the case of flight documents an online or available by request scan is mandatory.
- Is there a plan for transfer in the event of death/disability of the private curator or institution?
If any of these items is answered "No", then attention should be made to address the issue or transfer the item to a private or public curator who can meet all the criteria.For example, if a collector is hiding items in a safe deposit box and not letting their inventory be known this poor curatorship. If it is hidden because of fears of the theft, then it is not being secured. If the secure environment is not allowing for prevention of deterioration then it needs another secure environment. I suggest that when you buy a piece of heritage you accept the ethical responsibility of being a curator. If you do not want this responsibility, then don't buy the item. How do we feel about adopting such a code if only in the spirit of ethics? It would also be our duty to watch each other to keep a stable community of honest and responsible collecting, buying, and selling. The culture of secrecy and squirreling away needs to stop. |
Schoner
Member Posts: 20
From: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Registered: Jul 2011
|
posted 01-06-2012 01:15 PM
I like your proposal. It is sound advice.However with the current state of affairs with NASA now seeking out such items, it forces those that have such artifacts to hide and keep their collections secret. And that is not good at all.
|
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-06-2012 01:16 PM
A very interesting post, and similar to one I was thinking about myself. I've often considered that perhaps while indulging ourselves we could be denying others the chance to view these artifacts. On the other hand I believe many museums would not have the space (pardon the pun) to display everything.As long as we are storing artifacts carefully I'm sure many more will survive than if they were all entrusted to organisations. |
kyra
Member Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-06-2012 02:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Schoner:
However with the current state of affairs with NASA now seeking out such items, it forces those that have such artifacts to hide and keep their collections secret.
They know already that much is being hidden.I would imagine that NASA counsel has requested catalogs and records of sale from the auction houses about all the flown items in recent years to see which merit investigation. Is there any way to know? Would they tell us? Would such items be safer in plain sight with collectors interactions with NASA counsel in a public setting (i.e. sites, blogs) actually provide some protection? This might not "blow over" until clear guidelines are established. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-06-2012 04:27 PM
These are well intentioned suggestions, of course, but it's important to emphasize as well that once an item becomes personal private property it becomes solely the owner's prerogative as to the ultimate disposition of that property. Without private property there can be no law, and without law there can be no private property. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-06-2012 04:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kyra:
Is the item protected from theft, fire, and natural disasters within reason?
I see your point but can't help thinking of the thefts from the Kansas Cosmosphere, and the 1978 fire at the San Diego Air and Space Museum.Now obviously those incidents aren't a fair representation of the effort put into keeping those collections safe, but maybe there's something to be said for having items widely distributed (including in private collections worldwide) rather than stocked in just a few locations. |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 01-06-2012 09:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...it's important to emphasize as well that once an item becomes personal private property it becomes solely the owner's prerogative as to the ultimate disposition of that property.
A code of ethics wouldn't so much be a rule, as a guideline. Legally, a collector can do anything they want with their property. However ethically, it's better for them to take care of it and share it with the public. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-06-2012 10:39 PM
Again, while I certainly agree with the sentiments and concerns involved, ethical "imperatives" mustn't ever override the respect for private property, which is the backbone of any society's claim of being a civilized one. I didn't much care for Alan Bean's decision to grind up his Apollo suit patches for inclusion in his paintings but I fiercely respected his right to do so, and without harassment. William Pitt's warning "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom" is something to always bear in mind.
|
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-08-2012 10:30 AM
Enactment of a national antiquity law which preserves the right to private ownership but stipulates obligations that comes with ownership of national heritage should at least be considered. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-08-2012 02:31 PM
Homeowner associations provide an example where community rules are applied to private property. Those who choose to move into a development are required to join and obey by the rules of the association, despite owning the house affected by those rules.Not that I am suggesting such a strict or required approach for space artifacts, but it does serve as a legal example of restrictions being placed on private property. |
space1
Member Posts: 853
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 01-10-2012 05:47 AM
I would favor this in the context of "best practices" rather than being compelled to act. If someone would like to put images of their items on line, and they have the means, great. If they wish to hide the items they may, but it would not be "best practice."I would expect that anyone who has artifacts has them because they value them. Otherwise they would be selling or donating them. But I do appreciate the importance of somehow making their historic value known to other family members, and arranging for the future care of the artifacts. By publishing best practices guidelines, collectors can consider whether they are doing all that they should be doing to care for and protect their historic artifacts. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-10-2012 02:34 PM
Homeowner association restrictions do not conflict with property rights, because the owners have bought into and "own" the restrictions that came together with the property. An example more applicable to what is being discussed here would be someone who owns their own home being forced to pay dues to a homeowners association formed after their home purchase and without their consent. Such an owner may choose willingly to join that association, but shouldn't ever be compelled to do so, or be harassed for refusing to do so. Property rights are zero-sum; there can be NO infringement that doesn't result in loss of personal liberty. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-10-2012 03:00 PM
There are some laws enacted for the greater good, that trump private ownership. Eminent domain is an example. I'd like to beleive that all collectors with the resources to acquire artifacts are responsible custodians and won't destroy them, but unfortunately that's not the case. In the interest of a nation protecting its heritage, don't think it unreasonable to levy ownership guidelines. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-10-2012 03:35 PM
I don't think you will ever see any sort of laws with mandatory guidelines. It would have to be way too broad for it to be effective. Remember our interest in the space program is one part of our national history. I doubt that you could make laws that only pertains to the space program. Would the laws then have to include historical documents from the founding of our country, to implements, machines, weapons used in our various wars, all of which are collectible with large amounts on private hands. I would like to think people would be responsible owners and care and protect the items they own, but as always there will always be some that are simply out to make a buck. They will take apart checklist selling them one page at a time, even down to the rings that held it together. Even the astronauts have been selling off checklists one page at a time. Others will buy them and then stick them in a drawer and never tell anyone what they have. When they pass away, these items could be discarded by unknowing relatives. A good thing would be to have a database listing what is out there and who owns it. I do not see many owners agreeing to do this at least until NASA makes a clear policy on what is allowable to be in private hands. To list an item now could be an invitation for NASA to send a "letter" about ownership. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-10-2012 04:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
There are some laws enacted for the greater good, that trump private ownership. Eminent domain is an example.
Eminent domain is indeed an example, and one that's been in the news lately for its abuse.One thing that gets lost in any call for "guidelines" is who, exactly, will be creating and enforcing those guidelines. One person's idea of what is "necessary" may greatly infringe on someone else's rights. Some may not like it, but what makes an entrepreneur's rights or desires any less valid than a curator's or historian's? (Funny how virtues such as tolerance are so easily tossed aside when it comes to matters of simple preference). Carving out ANY exceptions to property rights chips away at personal liberties. The only reachable conclusion, if one really values liberty, is that any such infringements have to be overwhelmingly necessary, and I have yet to see a good case presented for such in any non-scientific sphere. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-10-2012 04:12 PM
It only takes amendment of 16 USC 470 (the National Historic Preservation Act) to expand protection to artifacts placed on a registry. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-10-2012 04:33 PM
It only takes an amendment of 16 USC 470 (the National Historic Preservation Act) to expand RESTRICTIONS on artifacts placed on a registry.One man's ceiling...  |
SkyMan1958
Member Posts: 867
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 01-10-2012 06:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kyra:
Curatorial ownership is a big responsibility involving numerous points.
I find it informative that so many people here think that even museums follow these sort of guidelines. I grew up with a father who created a museum. Yes, the very best museums in the U.S. protect their top tier material very well. However, even these museums have major issues with protecting second, third, fourth etc. tier material. Just basic staffing & upkeep of a museum chews up a huge percentage of the budget of the museum. The second or lower tier museums can't afford the level of protection that the major museums do. There are lots of items in museums, that are basically rotting away even as we type. The items might be in a climate controlled room, maybe even in nitrogen filled areas, but, over time, machinery malfunctions, pipes burst etc. etc. and pieces get harmed. It is the rare museum that has a large enough budget to fix all the damage that happens to all it's articles over time. Even assuming a museum can afford to protect and/or restore all its pieces, a very large percentage of the lower tier collection pieces will not be visible to the public. They will be locked down in the basement. Personally, I'd rather have these sort of items be loved to death, e.g. get more worn out, by a collecting public, than locked away to rarely see the light of day, and then only by specialists. It has been my experience that a collector collects items because he/she is interested in them. Yes, there are certainly some collectors that have OCD (I think all do to a certain extent, and I include myself in that category) and are just collecting items and not appreciating each and every item, but the majority of collectors know about and are interested in the things they purchase. They want to take care of them. They also like to show their items to others (and often get shot down by others in the process, along the lines of, "Oh... yawn... that's more space stuff isn't it?") Finally the collector also has a vested financial interest in seeing that the items they own are protected. I think the general collector does a better job of protecting their material than most museums do for anything but the museum's best material. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-12-2012 12:07 PM
As far as any binding public policy regarding collectibles in private hands, I would be opposed. It is your property to do with as you would like regardless of the historic value. I would be in favor of a voluntary code of conduct regarding these artifacts but only a voluntary one period. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-12-2012 04:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
I would be in favor of a voluntary code of conduct regarding these artifacts but only a voluntary one period.
Laudable sentiment, one with which I sincerely empathize, but even this concept becomes fraught with difficulty; what becomes the "penalty" for straying, even minimally, from the "established" code? Ostracism? Banishment? Spam-attacks? As I see it a voluntary code is already in place,...and I follow it. Unfortunately mine may differ somewhat from yours, or someone else's. Therein lies the rub. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-12-2012 04:33 PM
There would be no penalty. A best practices type of thing which could educate collectors on ways to preserve the document, artifact, photo, patch etc. The idea that the collector let someone in the family or a friend know what certain things are worth, either in dollar value or historical value so if something happens to them, the artifact(s) would not end up in the trash. How to preserve a flag or signature so it does not fade away (don't hang it in direct sunlight) etc. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-12-2012 04:33 PM
I've resolved never to transfer/sell artifacts to individuals who have historically been associated with dismantlement; it would sure be nice to define a group of individuals who are signatories to ethical guidelines so that those of us who wish to participate in a community of practice are known to each other. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 01-12-2012 05:43 PM
I have no desire to hide my "faith", so I guess I'd be one of those not to sell to (even though the vast majority of my collection IS intact). |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 01-14-2012 05:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kyra:
I suggest that when you buy a piece of heritage you accept the ethical responsibility of being a curator. If you do not want this responsibility, then don't buy the item.
Amy, your narrative is more than just a guideline for collections - it's a guideline for life.Although our collections may be small we are all curators. Well written! |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 09-12-2012 02:43 AM
I propose these simple rules to start. - Not to sell to those who cut the pieces to gain money
- Do not sell to people who hides the pieces and not display collection on the web
- Do not to sell to those not who help others with information and does not increase the responsibility of owning pieces of history.
Obviously this is a affinabile proposal.I can say from personal experience, that the true collector is also a curator, looking more information on the pieces that buys and owns, those who buy to close in a drawer objects, certainly not like the story they represent. I apologize for my English, I hope the concept is clear. |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 09-12-2012 07:17 AM
Here's a sad dismantlement: A shuttle space suit swatch booklet sold by Heritage Auction for $180 is being cut up and resold at $55 each on eBay. Should we publish the names of sellers like these? The original booklet:
 The cut up "artifact":
 |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-12-2012 12:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by garymilgrom:
Should we publish the names of sellers like these?
For what purpose? Ostracism, denouncement, harassment? If so, perhaps starting with the ASF and more than a few astronauts?The adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", applies here. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-12-2012 12:38 PM
The rational was stated earlier in the thread (to offer an option for those who so chose to participate), in limiting exchange of commodities to collectors who will not engage in artifact dismantlement or destruction. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-12-2012 03:21 PM
All I can say is I'm glad many astronauts, and collectors, don't quite see things the same way, but good luck with that blacklist/boycott anyway. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 09-12-2012 03:54 PM
I'm not a big fan of cutting up intact artifacts (as I've made clear in previous posts/threads) but I would say that the space suit sample mentioned above was actually a 'fragment' to begin with. To my mind cutting it into smaller pieces hasn't destroyed anything that should have been kept in one piece.I've no idea who bought it or cut it up and I didn't find the corresponding eBay listing, but in my personal opinion the resulting presentation is very nicely done. |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 09-12-2012 06:37 PM
Personally, I'd want to know who cut that space suit swatch up so I know who to avoid selling intact hardware to.Even if the original swatch wasn't a whole space suit, I've seen similar swatches used for training/educational purposes as a visual aid to show the different layers inside a space suit. That's what that swatch was made to be used for... not to be cut into very tiny pieces and sold for about 32 times the auction's hammer price. Harassing such sellers is very out of the question as they do legally have the right to do as they please, but knowing would be helpful for people who want to protect intact hardware. While they can legally do whatever they want with their property, it's also my right to choose who I will and will not sell my property to. What sets the ASF apart from these people is that the ASF is selling it's items for charity. As such, they also increase the prices so that they'd earn more per item.... for charity. And people often bid higher than normal in the charity auctions... for charity. And they're helping the best students they can find get an education... as charity. Meanwhile, the private individuals who are butchering items and selling the shreds for high prices just want to make some easy money. As I've stated before in another post, if I managed to sell every shred of my flown space shuttle blankets at the price most people are charging (and in the same size of cut-offs), I'd be sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars. But the items only cost me a very tiny fraction of that to acquire. And none of the profit of these private sales is going to charity. There's no way to control what everyone does with their items, although we could establish a white-list of people who do protect their artifacts (and especially note the ones who display them both online and other public places), and maybe also a black-list so that those with historical interests in mind will know who refuses to keep things intact. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-13-2012 12:09 AM
So if the ASF contributes to the "destruction" of certain historical pieces (by not boycotting their usage in sellable display pieces), and it's ok because the money is used for charitable purposes (scholarships for worthy students, or other good works), why isn't it ok if Joe Collector does the same thing to raise money for his childrens' college tuition? What exactly makes one such enterprise worthy, and the other not? And how exactly do you know, or presume to know, that "none of the profit of these private sales is going to charity"? |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 09-13-2012 08:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Spaceguy5:
...it's also my right to choose who I will and will not sell my property to.
Which is next to impossible to do when you consign an item to an auction house. It's fair game for anyone at that point. |
space1
Member Posts: 853
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 09-13-2012 11:05 AM
As long as items of historic and monetary value are in existence there will be the risk of abuse, whether the items are privately owned or controlled by institutions. This is not limited to space items. I think the best we can do is discourage the abuse, and encourage good curatorial practices. The encouragement of good practices must not be coercive in any way. In the end we cannot control what people do with their private property. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 09-13-2012 11:15 AM
If you consign an item to auction, then you have to do so with the knowledge that the buyer might do anything with it. If you have a valuable item (in terms of historic value as well as financial) and you want to be sure that it won't end up in the hands of a chopper, then do not sell it at an auction.I would never cut up an intact artifact just to make money on it. Though in my case it is academic as I do not own any as I have not been able to afford any. I have refrained from buying cut up pieces(with two exceptions I do have a piece of flown Kapton from Apollos 8 and 11) because I do not support the practice. I would rather not have an artifact than have a small piece and be a party to destroying the artifact. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-13-2012 12:08 PM
Whether we're discussing historic artifacts or noodle pudding, different people will act and see things differently — fact of life.But since we're not talking about forgers or other criminal activity, I cannot see a justification for the kind of "villification-lite" that some here engage in, even if someone purchases space artifacts SOLELY for break-down and income enhancement. If no crime is being committed, and no deception is involved, in the end it's likely just someone trying, non-nefariously, to provide for themselves and/or their families. It wouldn't hurt to consider that sitting on high horses doesn't necessarily improve one's vantage point. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 09-13-2012 01:07 PM
Of course no crime is being committed and people that buy these artifacts have every right to cut them up and sell, set them on fire, shred them whatever, that still does not make it right in an historic context. I certainly would not advocate taking away a persons right to do what they wish with their personal property.The same seller of the swatch has for sale a word written by Jim Irwin cut from an expense receipt and a word cut from a document written by Abe Lincoln for a property sale. Why anyone would want to purchase a word is beyond me, but in those two cases, I see nothing wrong with it. The documents were not of any significant historic value. Where I would take issue with this practice is if the Gettysburg Address was in private hands and was sold. The buyer decided he could make more money selling it off word by word so he cut it up. It is his property but it would be totally reprehensible. I agree with your premise Chet that these items are owned by the people that purchased them and they have every right to do with them as they wish. I also find no fault in a list of people who engage in this practice. It is not a vilification or blacklist, it would be a way someone who owns an artifact and would like to see it kept intact would not sell it to a person known to cut such items up. It is the sellers right not to sell it to someone who behaves in a manner not consistent with his beliefs. The "chopper" is free to buy from other sources. There are many other sources than members here. A lot of people do not feel as passionately about the space programs as members here do, so there will always be a source for the chopper to buy what he feels he can make money on and do with it as he will. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 09-13-2012 01:34 PM
I agree cutting up something akin to the Gettysburg Address would be reprehensible, but a good deal of the complaining about "choppers" has to do with impacted sensibilities over items of far less magnitude (such as ILC shuttle blanket material sample swatches, for crying out loud).Purists are fully entitled to their perspective, which I don't disrespect. What I don't respect however are the attempts to vilify those who may simply see things a bit differently. Even establishing a list of known "choppers" is something understandable, but not when the "choppers" are characterized as only slightly better than snake-oil salesmen. It's unjustified, and it should stop. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 09-13-2012 01:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
What exactly makes one such enterprise worthy, and the other not? And how exactly do you know, or presume to know, that "none of the profit of these private sales is going to charity"?
Devil's advocate: Why address this "issue" with sellers? Why not also go after collectors who buy such pieces? Rather simplistic, but if there were no buyers, there'd be no market... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-13-2012 01:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
What I don't respect however are the attempts to vilify those who may simply see things a bit differently.
A whitelist, rather than a blacklist, would only include those who agree not to segment artifacts any further then they already are, regardless if they are dealers, collectors, investors, charity organizations or curators. There may be multiple reasons why someone might not join such a whitelist, which would do away with any justification to criticize those who do not participate. |
advertisement