This time, I’m
INTENTIONALLY replying to the entire listserv (sorry for that unintentional
time earlier today) and maybe it’s stupid to get too far into features
that we don’t even have yet, but can Separable Objects be linked to more
than one object without creating too much confusion?
I’m thinking of a frame
that is used on multiple objects over the course of years. I like being
able to keep track of its history through the links, but is whether something
is separable or not able to be edited without losing the history of links?
Does that make ANY sense at all,
or should I just call it a day?!
David
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Danielle
Uchitelle
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Frames as separate objects
You can start planning for this
feature right now; any object relationship that you currently have can be
marked as a separable relationship once you have TMS 9.38 installed.
For example, you might currently
have a relationship called “Object – Frame.” Once you
install TMS 9.38 you’ll get a checkbox in the Edit Relationships screen
that will allow you to mark this relationship as Separable.
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 Aylsworth,
David
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Frames as separate objects
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