Collections and collection curatorship have always been at the core of museum operations. Centuries of caretaking traditions have left us with collections that offer concrete evidence and enrichment for our understanding of the future.
Traditionally, museums are responsible not only for the care and maintenance of their objects and collections, but also for the dissemination of information to the public. This work has always been fundamental to museum operations.
Recent decades have produced studies where such work has been under scrutiny and some have even contested the need for collections. The pressure to justify the existence and upkeep of collections, from technical, material and substance perspectives, has been an issue for museum professionals (Conn 2010; Snell- man 2016). Questions have been raised regarding the amount of care debt that accumulates, and compromise seems to be a constant when it comes to practical measures for collection care in museums. At the same time, in-depth knowledge of collections has increased due to the increasing ways of collecting data for cultural heritage. Due to various digital technologies, more unified collection policies and the nation-wide division of collecting duties in Finland, known as the TAKO Network, we now have more knowledge and a better understanding of our shared cultural reserve than ever before.
The authors of this section are experts in the field of collection management and collection care. They have used methods such as Significance Analysis (Rus- sell & Winkworth 2001; Häyhä, Jantunen & Paaskoski 2018) in their everyday museum work, as well as in teaching future museum professionals. The Finn- ish modification of the Australian Significance Anlaysis method is described in detail in Leena Paaskoski, Sari Jantunen and Heikki Häyhä’s chapter. The role of collections and the meaning of co-operation among various stakeholders are discussed in their text, as well as how analysing the significance of museum objects will transform the role of these objects from silent entities into cognitive anchors. Furthermore, the need to be dynamic and take a collection development approach, rather than restricting functions only to collection management and maintenance, will be a crucial step in seeing significance in collections evolve.
Another tool for collection work is offered in Minna Sarantola-Weiss’ chapter, which highlights the meaning of collection policies. In this work, one needs to keep in mind the concept of cultural reserve, something that is not restricted to museums. There are private homes and home or house museums, as well as corporate collections, that house and maintain artefacts and artworks that can be seen as part of the same cultural reserve. Liisa Oikari and Kristina Ranki make a contribution to the category of house museums. In their chapter, special attention is paid to the concept of a home museum, and how this distinction differentiates highly personal and authentic homes from various historical houses. Teemu Ahola’s chapter on the TAKO Network (Ammatillisten museoiden tallennus- ja kokoelmayhteistyöverkosto/Contemporary documentation and nation-wide division of collecting duties) is also a good example of the practical tools needed for museums in order to intensify collection work, very much with the long term in mind. Rapid technological advances have, for example, made 3D modelling a viable tool, both to keep delicate archaeological objects preserved, but also to improve accessibility and make objects more informative to the public (Roe
2014). This technology brings collections and collection work closer to audiences in new and exciting ways, as described in Visa Immonen and Ismo Malinen’s chapter on 3D modelling. They remind the reader that regardless of the chosen technology, one should keep in mind the fast-changing environment of the in- dustry and the need for close co-operation between the museum and technology provider. Ultimately, this section highlights the meaning of collections for entire societies, not only for museums, as seen in Teija Luukkanen-Hirvikoski’s chapter.
One needs to keep all collections in mind, regardless of their ownership, as well as the importance of the cultural exchange between corporations and various cultural institutions.
Heikki Häyhä, Sari Jantunen, Leena Paaskoski
How to be Dynamic – The potential of analysing significance in Finnish museum collections
Minna Sarantola-Weiss
Collection Policy – Experiences and challenges Liisa Oikari, Kristina Ranki
Home Museums – Biographical collections of significant lives Teemu Ahola
The TAKO Network – Developing collections together Visa Immonen, Ismo Malinen
3D Imaging in Museums Teija Luukkanen-Hirvikoski
Between Private and Public – Corporate art collecting and collaboration with art museums in Finland
References
Conn, S 2010 Do Museums Still Need Objects?. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Häyhä, H, Jantunen, S & Paaskoski, L 2018 Analysing Significance.
Helsinki: Publications of Finnish Museums Association No. 75.
Available at https://www.museoliitto.fi/doc/verkkojulkaisut/
AnalysingSignificance.pdf [Last accessed 11 February 2020]
Roe, F 2014 Modernizing Millennia. 3D Models as Ethical Progress in Museum Practice. Master’s Thesis, Lund University. Available at http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/
download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4451700&fileOId=4465992 [Last accessed 11 February 2020]
Russell, R & Winkworth, K 2001 Significance 2.0: A guide to assessing the significance of collections. Adelaide: Collections Council of
Australia. Available at https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/
museums-libraries-and-galleries/significance-20 [Last accessed 11 February 2020]
Snellman, A 2016 Olisiko jo aika tutkia esineitä? Kohti uutta
tutkimusparadigmaa. Historiallinen Aikakauskirja 3/2016, pp. 337–
338. Available at http://elektra.helsinki.fi/se/h/0018-2362/114/3/
olisikoj.pdf [Last accessed 25 July 2019]