Responding to Bernice
Thank you for the detailled reply, which to me is convincing,
even if scientific can not be other than part of the human heritage,
but my formula conveys perhaps a little bit a more passive
attitude towards appreciation. You are certainly right in regard
to legal instruments outside and above ICOM.

In your answer to  Peter Tyrell you talk about the single words
proposed to be added and you mention "document" , which
I introduced into my proposal for change of the definition -
you seem to cite it in the sense of a substantive, as another
category of objects. That is not what I am after - I was
proposing it as a verb, as one of the crucial activities of
a museum: to document - it may not be used as a verb in
English that much.

I congratulate you to this very short and so appropriate
defintion. Do you think that this definition might make it
necessary to change / adapt other parts of the statuts or
the code of ethics ? I think it might be worth while to check.
I'll have a look, but I think we would be well advised
to be more to do so.

Thank you, Bernice, and best regards

Hans-Christoph


Hans-Christoph von Imhoff
Assist. Coordinator of the ICOM-CC-WG
Theory and History of Conservation
31, Blvd. de Pérolles
1700 Fribourg / Switzerland
tel  0041 (0)26 321 14 44
fax 0041 (0)26 321 14 40
[log in to unmask]


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernice Murphy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:44 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of a Museum


> Responding to Hans-Christoph von Imhoff (4 November 2003):
>
> Please excuse me, Hans-Christoph:  I had already responded to Stephen de
> Clerq's message before seeing your message.
>
> I have thought about your comments on "scientific and cultural heritage",
> and suggestion of a shorter, summarising use of "human heritage".
> I continue to think that the response I made after Steven's suggestion is
> the better one: (..."promoting knowledge, appreciation and conservation of
> the natural world and the cultural and
> scientific heritage of humanity".....) rather than condensing the
reference
> as tightly as you have proposed: (...."promoting knowledge, appreciation
> and conservation of the natural world and the heritage of humanity").
>
> To my mind, there are two crucial underlying concepts structuring the
> definition I proposed:
>
> (a)  "knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural world" -  is
> a phrase to acknowledge the important responsibilities we have to the
> 'world we inherit' and all the creatures and interconnecting life-systems
> it supports (i.e. our biosphere responsibilities);
>
> (b) "....and the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity" - is a
> phrase to summon up all aspects of the 'world we create' as human beings,
> through language, structured kinship, value systems, social organisation,
> rationalisation of a relationship between different phases of time
> (history), and the huge spectrum of structured, purposive activities we
see
> as branching into all aspects of the sciences and arts (i.e. our
> sociosphere responsibilities).
>
> Your suggested "heritage of humanity" alone would leave us with a much
> smaller expression trying to carry a huge number of activities about the
> human-created world, and it could easily seem that science (especially)
> might have been devalued.
>
> My further reason would be that more particularised descriptions are
> important components of the international legal instruments for protection
> of what you have called "human heritage" world-wide. (There are a number
of
> recurrent, differently arranged, but fundamental distinctions operating if
> you look at the contents of UNESCO conventions, for example).
> e.g.
> 1972: Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
> Natural Heritage. Paris, 16 November 1972
> or:
> 2001:  Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.
> Paris, 2 November 2001
>
> (notice that this latter convention, with shipwrecks especially in mind,
> distinguishes 'cultural heritage' within the underwater (or
> Fr.'sub-aquatic) biosphere - an important distinction within the purposes
> and terms of the convention)
>
> Meanwhile I thank you very much for your comments, Hans-Christoph.
> Bernice Murphy
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
> archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html