That’s fantastic, Danielle!
Thanks!
If this is a feature coming up,
would it be worth waiting until we have 9.38 before we start this project, or
can it easily be added on once we’ve upgraded?
David
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Danielle
Uchitelle
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Frames as separate objects
David,
In TMS 9.38 there is a new
object relationship called “separable object.” One of the main features of
separable objects is that, when you move one, you get an alert asking if you
also want to move all related co-located separable objects. In this case
co-located simply means related separable objects currently in the same location.
This feature was initially
designed to manage things like print portfolios but I can see how it could also
be used to manage frames created as separable object records related to the
primary object record.
Danielle Uchitelle
Managing Director
Gallery Systems
261 W. 35th Street
New York, NY 10001-1902
Tel: 646 733 2239 x264
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah
Yukich
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Frames as separate objects
It’s a great idea
David.
We have had the same
issue with artwork frames, and have recently decided to remove frames as object
components.
I would also be keen
to hear of any solutions people have in dealing with frames, such as David as
indicated.
Sarah
Sarah E. Yukich | Kerry Stokes Collection
t: +61 8 9215 8853 | f:
+61 8 9215 8898 | e:
[log in to unmask]
Australian Capital Equity Pty. Limited | PO Box 1398 West Perth Western Australia 6872
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Aylsworth,
David
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2009 5:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Frames as separate objects
A week or so ago, there was a thread going for those of you
who made individual records for non-art components of a work of art (frame,
crate, pedestal, mount, etc.).
I am leaning towards starting a global policy here whereby
EVERY frame in our museum would have a unique record in TMS, whether it lived
on its work of art or not. The frame would be linked to the object, and
if a frame was used over and over again, could be linked to multiple objects,
creating a history of use for the frame.
It seems to me that if EVERY frame were not entered
separately—even those frames that are never removed from a painting—people who
move the objects would easily get confused as to knowing when to do a location
change for a frame and when not to. If the frames are linked to the
object, an art handler who moves a painting with a frame can easily toggle over
to the record for the frame and make that location change as well.
BUT how do you handle moving entire groups of objects, like
moving an entire exhibition or object package worth of objects if whoever made
the exhibition record or object package didn’t add the frame records? Is
there a way of calling for all of the “related” objects for ALL of the records
in a group?
Am I nuts for thinking this is a good idea?
Thanks in advance for your wisdom and insight…
David
David Aylsworth
Collections Registar
Museum of Fine Arts, Houston
tel: 713-639-7824
fax: 713-639-7780
Presenting North Looks South:
Building the Latin American Art Collection
on view June 7 – September 27,
2009