Object ID
For more information about Object ID please contact Robin
Thornes at: robin.thornes@dial.pipex.com
Object ID is an international
standard for describing art, antiques, and antiquities. It has been developed through the
collaboration of museums, cultural heritage organisations, police and customs
agencies, the art and antiques trade, appraisers, and the insurance industry.
The
Importance of Documentation to the Protection of Cultural Objects
The illicit trade in cultural objects is now widely recognized as
one of the most prevalent categories of international crime. There is widespread agreement that
documentation is crucial to the protection of cultural objects, for stolen
objects that have not been photographed and adequately described are rarely
recoverable by their rightful owners. Unfortunately,
very few objects have been documented to a level that can materially assist in
their recovery in the event of theft.
Even for objects that have been so documented, the information recorded
is extremely variable. It is important,
therefore, that efforts be made to increase awareness of the need to make
adequate, standardized descriptions of cultural objects in both public and
private collections.
It is one thing to encourage the compilation
of descriptions of objects as a security measure, but quite another to develop
effective means of circulating this documentation to organisations that can
assist in the recovery of the objects if they are stolen. Ideally, the information that can identify
a stolen or illegally exported object should be able to travel at least as fast
as the object itself. This will mean
that the information may have to cross national borders and be circulated among
a number of organisations. The development of electronic networks makes this effort
technically possible. But the existence
of digital information and computer networks to transmit information solves
only part of the problem; also needed are standards that will make it possible
to exchange information in a form that is intelligible to both systems and
people.
Discussions between the Getty Information
Institute and leading national and international umbrella agencies and
government bodies in 1993 established that there was a consensus on the need to
collectively address issues relating to documentation practices and the
implementation of international standards.
In July of that year the Institute convened a meeting in Paris to
discuss the possibility of developing an international collaborative project to
define documentation standards for identifying cultural objects. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Conference for
Security and Co-operation in Europe (now the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe), the Council of Europe, the International Council of
Museums, Interpol, UNESCO, and the U.S. Information Agency. The participants
agreed on the need for such an initiative and recommended that it should focus
on developing a standard for the information required to identify cultural
objects, and on the mechanisms for encouraging the implementation of the
standard. As a result of these
consultations, a project was defined and initiated, with the following primary
objectives:
l To
provide a collaborative forum for organisations that have demonstrated an
interest in the protection of cultural objects.
l To
recommend an international “core” documentation standard for the identification of cultural objects.
l To encourage the
implementation of the standard.
The new standard is not seen as an alternative to existing standards,
but rather as a minimum standard created for a specific purpose--that of
describing objects to enable them to be identified. As such it can be incorporated into existing systems and nested
within existing standards. It is a type of
standard sometimes called a “core” standard: core because it comprises certain
minimum categories of essential information that are common to a number of
documentation systems, making it easier to record, use, and exchange
information across systems. An
important aspect of a core standard is that it provides the key to further
information held in the database, both within an individual organisation or
elsewhere, but does not seek to make organisations conform to systems which are
incompatible with their own needs. Moreover,
these standards are designed to be capable of being implemented in traditional,
non-computerized ways of making inventories and catalogues as well as in
sophisticated computerized databases.
Threats to cultural objects are of concern to organisations charged
with their management, interpretation,
and protection, as well as those bodies responsible for their recovery in the
event of theft. Museums, law-enforcement and customs agencies, commercial art
theft databases, the art trade, appraisers, and insurance companies around the
world all create and hold documentation on cultural objects. From the outset, the project has recognized
the need to work collaboratively with organisations in six key communities:
l Cultural heritage organisations
(including museums, national inventories, and archaeological
organisations)
l Law-enforcement agencies
l Customs agencies
l The art trade
l Appraisers
l The insurance industry
The information needs of these organisations inevitably vary, but all
need documentation that makes it possible to identify objects. Building broad consensus across these
communities on the categories of information needed to identify objects has
been the essential precondition to a successful outcome for this initiative,
for a universally applicable standard can be developed only by understanding
and responding to the specific needs of these different communities.
The first step toward establishing consensus on this core information
was to identify and compare the information requirements of each of these communities,
to gain an understanding of the purposes for which their information is
collected, and to determine how it is
used and with whom it is shared. These
requirements were identified by a combination of background research,
interviews, and, most importantly, major international questionnaire
surveys. The first of these surveys,
carried out between July and December 1994 by the Getty Information Institute,
was endorsed by the Council of Europe, the International Council of Museums,
and UNESCO. The survey elicited
responses from organisations in 43 countries, including many major museums and
galleries, heritage documentation centers, Interpol, and a number of national
law-enforcement agencies. The survey also took account of existing standards
and standards-making initiatives in the museum world, including those of the
International Council of Museums, the Museum Documentation Association (UK), the
Canadian Heritage Information Network, and the Getty Information Institute.
The results of this preliminary survey--published
in July 1995 in Protecting Cultural
Objects Through International Documentation Standards: A Preliminary Survey--demonstrated
that there did, indeed, exist a broad consensus on many of the categories of
information that are candidates for inclusion in the proposed standard. Encouraged by these findings, the project
went on to survey the information needs of other key communities, namely the
art trade; appraisers of personal property; art insurance specialists; and
customs agencies. Over 1,000 responses
were received from organisations in 84 countries and dependencies, making this
survey the largest of its kind ever carried out.
The findings of the questionnaire
surveys were used to inform a series of roundtable meetings of experts drawn
from the communities concerned. The
first of these was a meeting of conservation specialists, held in Washington,
D.C. in August 1994. This was the first meeting of an international
Conservation Specialists Working Group organized jointly by the Getty
Information Institute and the Getty Conservation Institute. It was followed by a meeting of museum
documentation experts, held in Edinburgh in November 1995. The third meeting was with art-insurance
specialists, and was held at Lloyd’s of London in March 1996. The fourth
meeting--held at the Winterthur Museum in Delaware--brought together organisations
representing dealers and appraisers of art, antiques and antiquities. The final
meeting, held in Prague in November 1996, was for representatives of law-enforcement
agencies and commercial organisations that operate computerized art theft
databases. It was organized in
partnership with UNESCO and the Czech Ministry of Culture.
The surveys and consultations established that there is strong
agreement on the categories of information that should constitute the
standard. The resulting standard--or
Object ID, as it will be known--has been developed
in response to an identified need, and is simple to understand and easy to
implement. Moreover, it represents a
true consensus because it reflects current opinion and practice in the
communities responsible for protecting cultural objects.
Implementing the Standard
Object ID is best
defined in terms of the ways in which it can be implemented:
l It provides a checklist of the
information that is required to identify
stolen or missing objects.
l It is a documentation standard that
establishes the minimum level of information needed to describe an object.
l It is a key building block in the development
of information networks that will allow
diverse organisations to exchange descriptions of objects rapidly.
l It provides a solid basis for training programs that teach the
documentation of objects.
An international conference held in Amsterdam in May 1997 gave an
enthusiastic welcome to Object ID.
Speakers included representatives of the Council of Europe, the
International Council of Museums, Interpol, the Italian Carabinieri Artistico,
the UK’s Metropolitan Police, the Appraisers Association of America, the
Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers (UK), and the Art Dealers
Association of America. Participants at
the conference heard of the many ways in which Object ID is already being
implemented, and many of those present declared their intention to promote its
use.
Around the world there is growing, broad-based support for the new
standard. The Object ID checklist has already been translated into Arabic,
Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Persian, Russian,
and Spanish.
The Arabic, Chinese and Russian
translations have been made by UNESCO, which has also reproduced it in its
recent handbook: Preventing the Illicit
Traffic in Cultural Property: A Resource Handbook for the Implementation of the
1970 UNESCO Convention (UNESCO, 1997).
The tenth meeting of UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting
the Return of Cultural Property (Paris
25-28 January 1999) endorsed Object ID “as the international standard for
recording minimal data on movable cultural property” and invited the Director
General “to bring this recommendation on “Object-ID” to the attention of the
General Conference and to recommend that all UNESCO Member States adopt
‘Object-ID’ and use it, to the fullest extent possible, for identification of stolen
or illegally exported cultural property and international exchange of
information on such property” (Resolution 5).
UNESCO, with the help of Getty, also plans to establish a web site
database to which State Parties to the UNESCO Convention of 1970 can post
descriptions of missing cultural objects.
The Council of Europe has collaborated with the Getty Information
Institute on a publication: Documenting
the Cultural Heritage. This book,
which is available in English and French, brings together the Council of
Europe’s core data standard for historic buildings, the Council of Europe/ICOM
core data standard for archaeological sites, and Object ID.
Law-enforcement agencies around
the world assisted in the development of Object ID and a number of agencies are
already using the standard. At the
international level, the project is working with Interpol to develop a manual
of guidance that will enable staff at Interpol National Central Bureaus around
the world to translate information received in Object ID format into Interpol’s
Crigen format. In addition, Interpol is
to include the Object ID checklist--together with an explanatory text--on a CD-ROM
of stolen art. In the USA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has adopted
Object ID for its art theft database--the National Stolen Art File. In the UK,
the Metropolitan Police is now using the Object ID checklist to compile
descriptions of stolen art and, along with a number of regional forces, is
using it in crime prevention initiatives.
It has been established that the
Object ID checklist is compatible with the majority of art theft databases,
including those of Interpol, the Italian Carabinieri, the Czech Republic, and
the International Art Loss Register.
The United States Information
Agency (USIA)--one of the original partners in the project--has adopted Object
ID for its web site database of types of illicitly traded objects.
The involvement of the museum community, and of ICOM, in
particular, has been very important for the project. In August 1997, the Executive Council of ICOM adopted a
resolution put forward by the Council’s Documentation Committee (CIDOC) stating
that
“A museum should be able
to generate from its collection information system such data (preferably
according to the ‘Object ID’ standard) that can identify an object in case of
theft or looting.”
This
statement has since been accepted by ICOM’s 19th General Assembly as
part of Resolution No. 4: Consolidation of the Movement Against
Illicit Traffic in Cultural Property, during its triennial meeting in
Melbourne, Australia, October 1998.
In The Netherlands, the Inspectorate of Museums is promoting
Object ID, and the standard is also being used in a Dutch project that has developed a museum documentation system for use
in museums in Mali and Vietnam. In the UK, the Museum Documentation
Association--a participant in the project--has made small changes to the
SPECTRUM standard in order to make it compatible with Object ID.
A number of insurance companies in
Europe and North America are now promoting the standard, including AXA
Nordstern Art Insurance, Chubb & Son, General Reinsurance Corporation,
Hiscox Insurance, Mannheim Insurance, and Swiss Re.
In 1998 AXA Nordstern Art Insurance, in
collaboration with General & Cologne RE (Kölnishen Rück) and the Getty
Information Institute, organized a one-day conference on Object ID in Cologne.
The Object ID checklist has
been circulated by a number of organisations representing the art trade,
including CINOA, the London and Provincial Art Dealers Association,
Private Art Dealers Association of Canada, the Association of Dealers in
American Art, and the British Antique Dealers Association. Object ID has also
attracted support from organisations representing appraisers, and it has
already been endorsed by the Appraisers Association of America, the American
Society of Appraisers, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in the UK,
and the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers (UK).
To increase the use
of Object ID, the Getty Information Institute has published a training Manual--Object ID: Guidelines for making Records
that Describe Art, Antiques, and Antiquities. The book summarises the evolution of Object ID, explains the Object
ID categories, and gives guidance on their use. It also sets out guidelines for photographing cultural objects,
including choosing viewpoints, selecting backgrounds, and positioning lighting.
Recent Developments
On July 1, 1999, the Getty Information Institute
established a new home for Object ID at the Council for the Prevention of Art
Theft (CoPAT) in the United Kingdom.
CoPAT has been involved in the project from an early stage, playing a
significant role in the development of Object ID, and being one of the first organisations
to formally endorse the standard.
Established in 1992 as a not-for-profit organisation,
CoPAT’s mission is to promote crime prevention in the fields of art, antiques,
antiquities and architecture. At
present it works through five specialist sub-committees: Trusts and
Associations, Professions and Trade, Law Reform, Law Enforcement, and
Insurance. Members of the committees
are drawn from the law-enforcement community, experts in various aspects of
crime prevention, heritage organisations, historic house owners, the insurance
industry, and the art trade.
For more information about Object ID please contact Robin
Thornes at: robin.thornes@dial.pipex.com
Object ID Checklist
Take
Photographs
Photographs
are of vital importance in identifying and recovering stolen objects. In addition to overall views, take close-ups
of inscriptions, markings, and any damage and repairs. If possible, include a scale or object of
known size in the image.
Answer
These Questions
What type of object is it (e.g., painting, sculpture, clock, mask)?
Materials & Techniques
What materials is the object made of (e.g., brass, wood, oil on canvas)?
How was it made (e.g., carved,
cast, etched)?
Measurements
What is the size and/or weight of
the object? Specify which unit
of measurement is being used (e.g., cm., in.) and to which dimension the
measurement refers (e.g., height, width, depth).
Inscriptions & Markings
Are there any identifying markings,
numbers or inscriptions on the object (e.g., a signature, dedication, title,
maker’s marks, purity marks, property marks)?
Distinguishing Features
Does the object have any physical
characteristics that could help to identify it (e.g. damage, repairs, or
manufacturing defects)?
Title
Does the object have a title by which it
is known and might be identified (e.g., The
Scream)?
Subject
What is pictured or represented
(e.g., landscape, battle, woman
holding child)?
When was the object made
(e.g., 1893, early 17th century,
Late Bronze Age)?
Maker
Do you know who made the object? This
may be the name of a known individual (e.g., Thomas Tompion), a company
(e.g., Tiffany), or cultural group
(e.g., Hopi).
Write
a Short Description
This
can also include any additional information, which helps to identify the object
(e.g., colour and shape of the object, where it was made).
Keep
it Secure
Having documented the
object, keep this information in a safe place.
CoPAT was established in the
United Kingdom in 1992 to promote measures designed to protect our cultural
heritage from theft, damage or destruction by criminal activity. It works
through a number of specialist committees, which draw their membership from
heritage organisations, museums, historic house owners, the art trade, the
insurance industry, legal profession, police, and experts in various aspects of
crime prevention. CoPAT is a registered charity (no. 101753) and depends on the
donations and voluntary efforts of those who support its aims.
Partnerships with the Police
Every
police force in England and Wales now has a “due diligence” officer responsible
for liaison with the art trade and with other police forces.
Crime Prevention
CoPAT
encourages crime prevention measures such as the use of security systems,
object marking, and is the home of Object
ID--the international standard for describing art, antiques, and
antiquities.
Crime Intelligence
CoPAT’s Crime & Intelligence Digest carries
reports of art and antique thefts, attempted thefts and sightings of suspicious
persons. It is circulated on a confidential basis to police and heritage
organisations throughout the UK.
How to Contact CoPAT:
Robin
Thornes
Chief
Executive
The
Estate Office
Stourhead
Park
Warminster
BA12
6QD
United
Kingdom
Tel/Fax:
+44.1747.841540
Email: robin.thornes@dial.pipex.com