For the most part, we use components for multi-part artworks. Naturally, though, there is at least one exception. We have a multi-part work by Nan Goldin that has 129 individual photographs. Each of the photographs is separately titled, with separate condition notes, dimensions, etc. However, none of the individual works should be shown alone, but only collectively as a group. We opted to make each of the individual works a separate object, but to mark them as virtual objects. Only the record for the 129 works is marked as a non-virtual object. Each of the virtual objects is linked to the main record in a child relationship. My reasoning was that it was of more importance that we have a one-to-one relationship of countable objects in the collection with non-virtual accessioned objects in the collection. Is that sort of what you mean? David David Aylsworth Museum of Fine Arts, Houston Registrar for Collections telephone: 713-639-7824 fax: 713-639-7780 ________________________________ From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeri Moxley Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:17 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Component vs. Group Object Dear TMS List, Please discuss the pros and cons of components vs. group objects for multi-part artworks (e.g., an installation piece that is comprised of 6 artworks). Jeri Jeri L. Moxley Manager of Collection and Exhibition Information Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum o: (212) 423-3509 c: (646) 912-3365 [log in to unmask]