I tripped over this Newsweek article this morning, covering the difficulty of protecting artwork both off-display and on.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145195
We’re quite familiar with the concept. For decades we’ve offered artwork storage, museum artifact storage, historic document archiving and such for libraries, museums, and historical societies. Primarily in our underground salt mine facility, but recently in our Kansas City limestone mine and Louisville limestone mine as well.
The pros are obvious – underground protection from natural disasters, protection from leaky water pipes and roofs, secured storage. But more than that – stable cool temperature, stable dry relative humidity. But even more than that – lower cost than above ground storage AND storing within existing museum facilities (proof of that statement in a future post…but it can be demonstrated in costs related to cooling, heating, dehumidification, security, furnishings, staffing, and more profitable use of the space).
In the case of the Kansas City and Louisville mine facilities most of the pros are the same…except their humidity is just a little higher. But – they also have dock access, whereas the salt mine is slightly more limited to the size of the freight elevator. It is a huge freight elevator…to be sure…but not as large as a dock door.
Curators, conservationists, registrars, librarians ALL RECOGNIZE the value of offsite storage and the need for better storage facility for their collections. We went to an AAM (American Association of Museums) conference and no fewer than 5 educational sessions were devoted to storage…every one of them recognized that many museum/library storage facilities are less than ideal. People laughed with the “yeah, me too” kind of laugh to the myriad of storage horror stories. These people care deeply, but…
Cons – Cost. Or perceived higher cost of offsite storage/underground storage is the obstacle. These institutions are charged with being guardians of history and culture – and they work hard to do that. But they are also charged with bringing in more people. The emphasis of display/events over protection is a a source of tension in the community. Understandable. Using the basement storage seems cheaper than paying an offsite company to store. Using a donated warehouse (donated by a patron usually) seems cheaper…even if it is less secure, less climate controlled, and more susceptable to rain/damage.
The nature of a cultural guardian includes a preference to keep control of their charges – the works. They would much rather have items on site, in their care, under their watchful eye. Again, understandable. But what do you do when you have a facility full of good items, and more is coming in that fits with your mission? What if you need more exhibit space, or preservation workspace? What do you deaccession? When do you build the new wing? Couldn’t that archived material that is accessed once every other year be placed in an archive?
There are plenty of disaster stories - Katrina, for example, wiped out entire historic collections in one of the countries most history-rich regions. Or the fire that blew through some of the collections at Universal Studios. These are exceptions – yes. More common are smaller library fires, museum pipe bursts and water leaks, accidental breaks due to presence of employees, insect infestations, poor climate control, etc. We’re here to help make sure a portion of a collection is protected and separated from disaster.
