0.7 Chapter five: new initiatives and economic shocks, 1982-1987  (Page 4/18)

Larry Sullivan, the librarian, was vehemently opposed to shifting responsi­bility for the prints, photos, and drawings to the museum. In April 1983, he pre­sented to the trustees a document titled "Report on the Print Room as a Library Division." The report attacked the proposal from the museum committee and out­lined the many and varied reasons for his opposition.

Sullivan wrote that "the Print Room is most heavily used as a research facil­ity and its traditional designation as a Library division acknowledges its primary role as a visual and architectural archive." Sullivan also emphasized that the col­lections of the Print Room had been built with knowledge of the holdings of its sister institutions. Sullivan pointed out that the museum committee report ignored the collections of other institutions in assembling its wish list, including artists whose works were already well represented at institutions like the New York Pub­lic Library and the Whitney Museum of American Art. Furthermore, although Sullivan did not directly question the appropriateness of pursuing twentieth-century work given the Society's mission and strengths, he did write that "pursuit of 20th century prints and photographs should not detract from a longstanding commitment to the N-YHS's strength in 18th and 19th century material." In addition, Sullivan argued that applying the more detailed museum accessioning and cataloging processes to the 10,000 prints, 500,000 photographs, 140,000 ar­chitectural drawings, and over a million Landauer items would be impossible. Con­versely, the Society's library cataloging procedures and participation in RLIN would make it possible for the collections to become accessible through library database networks. Finally, Sullivan pointed out that a recent exhibition from the Landauer collection illustrated the proper relationship between the library and the museum. The museum staff selected the material and designed the show, while the library staff kept the collection open to researchers, assisted in locating items for the exhibit, and provided background information as needed. In essence, important functions were fulfilled without interrupting normal service to scholars. Sullivan implied that no such interaction would be possible if the prints, photos, and drawings were exclusively under the aegis of the museum.

To emphasize further his opposition to the proposal, Sullivan quoted exten­sively from a memo written by Richard Koke, the museum director, which showed that he, too, opposed the transfer. Koke wrote that he considered the suggestion to move the print collections out of the library "pointless and reflecting very little knowledge of the function of the Print Department and its relation to the Soci­ety. . . . The fact that the museum, at times, draws upon the print collections for exhibitions provides no valid reason to transfer custody of this material. . . . The col­lection serves as a valuable adjunct (apart from preservation) for the use of schol­ars, researchers, and the public, which has nothing to do with exhibits." Koke concluded by saying that "the print department is not, as the [proposal]would intimate, a 'grab bag' for the benefit of the museum, and I certainly fail to see any­thing in the suggestion that it be transferred to the museum. It certainly is [in] nobody's interest to do this."