The thing I can’t seem to get out of my head from today’s talk with Bran Ferren is an idea he threw out to us, perhaps as an illustration, or perhaps with serious intent:
Give away our collection to the American people.
The concept is this: using social security numbers or some similar system, give one item from our collection to one citizen. The Smithsonian would retain the stewardship of the item, but that citizen would accept the responsibility for the online dialogue about that object. They would, in a new sense, perhaps a 21st century sense (?), own it.
The reason this idea, this concept seems to fit is that it emphasizes, in a tangible way, the idea that the collection of the Smithsonian is not a private collection, not meant to be held back and reserved for private viewing in a setting we think is appropriate, but rather it is the public collection of the people of the Unites States of America. Our citizens already own the collection. The facilities they are stored in, the curators that care for and study them, the staff and equipment used to digitize them are paid for with federal dollars.
How can we, in an ethical sense, as well as a legal one, hold back, “be stingy,” as Bran said, with our collection?
We can’t.
This particular proposal struck me as genuinely cuckoo when I heard it. Can you imagine the logistics? But then again, I kind of like that about it.
It is so strange and different that it just might prove deeply compelling--provided nobody tries to fashion it into some kind of marketing/monetization thing.
Posted by: Sara | January 23, 2009 at 05:29 PM
I'm in.
Posted by: Richard McCoy | January 23, 2009 at 05:53 PM
It's kind of like adopt-a-highway.
Although the whole marketing/monetization may not be a bad thing. Money does drive the engine for essentially everything. There is no denying that.
We could combine Chris Anderson's suggestion with this. Have the scholar/researcher pay their own way to study/curate the object, take responsibility for not only its physical and academic livelihood, but also its social significance and presence online and elsewhere.
Posted by: Ricky Leung | January 23, 2009 at 06:36 PM
There was a great public art project in Bellevue, WA in 2008 in which "public art" was construed to mean "send the art to the public" by putting sculptures out into local geocaches. I love the concept of the museum being the starting point for public distribution (rather than hoarding) of art and artifacts.
Here's more about the Bellevue project: http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2008/08/sending-collections-on-road-geocaching.html
Posted by: Nina Simon | January 23, 2009 at 08:48 PM
Imagine the secondary market in trading your assigned object for something that resonates. Would it be a counterproductive to allow an auction where someone sells the rights to "adopt" the Hope Diamond?
Perhaps a better idea might be a first-come, first-served approach which encourages people to browse collections, digitally or otherwise, and pick their favorites before they are randomly assigned.
Posted by: Cyndy Parr | January 24, 2009 at 09:30 AM