On 11/9/03 11:01 PM, "Bernice Murphy.com.au" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Colleagues:
We have a revised version of museum definition Suggestion 1 that I perhaps
missed in my tabulations. The two versions of Bernice's definition are as
follows:

Suggestion 1:
Museums are institutions that serve society by promoting knowledge,
appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the cultural and
scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories, sites and
processes they care for, research, and interpret for public benefit.

Suggestion 1A:
Museums are PERMANENT institutions that serve society by promoting
knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the
cultural and scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories,
sites and processes they care for, research, and interpret for public
benefit.

The difference is the addition of the word "permanent." This word has been
discussed, and apparently, the need for its inclusion is arguable. Questions
posed include:
What does permanent mean?
Do we mean a permanent "institution" as an physical entity?
Does the sense of "permanent" mean tangible in which case does that exclude
virtual or digital museums?
How long is permanent? (The concept of holding collections "in perpetuity"
[meaning forever] has been abandoned by many museums due to the unavoidable
fact of physical deterioration [whether from "inherent vice" or molecular
activity], as well as the need to remove objects for a variety of reasons
including repatriation.) Do those very real and often necessary situations
negate the concept or intent of permanence?
Is permanence a physiological, psychological, or legal attribute?
Is permanence determined by the laws of the country in which the museum is
established? If it is a political or governmental decision can ICOM properly
include that requirement in the definition?
How is permanence guaranteed?
In some countries, the government places objects in a particular museum, and
may remove them as they wish. Is that factor in conflict with the notion of
permanent?

In many instances, permanence is determined by the enabling documentation
used to establish the museum. The concept of permanence is qualified by
having a clear statement of "dissolution." What is to happen to the
resources of the museum when it can no longer care for the items placed in
its custody. If we are considering this approach to the concept of
permanence,  then we must give attention to our previous discussions about
non-collecting institutions, as well as museums and centers that have
instructional exhibitions intended for use by the visitors. (I am thinking
specifically of science centers.)

I am not speaking for or against the word "permanent" rather I am
anticipating the discussion from the membership when the definition is
proposed for adoption.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue!
Gary Edson




> Responding to Milton Bloch (Friday 7 Nov 03 ) and request to Gary Edson
> (responding to your message Friday 7 Nov  03):
>
> Dear Milton and Gary,
> As I remarked to colleagues in my last message offered to the ICOM-L list,
> I also have had my own regrets each time I saw definition #1 again - that I
> had let the word "permanent" fall away in my effort to get the definition
> as short as possible.
>
> In fact my second (current) version is both shorter and slightly improves
> the conceptual arrangement of what I proposed at first.  I also believe -
> having reflected on other opinions offered - that whatever new definition
> is finally adopted, it should not be soft, abstract or vague, but clear and
> strong.  I stress 'strong' .
>
> I do believe "permanent" is better restored.
>
> Therefore my final request, Gary, is:
>
>> Suggestion #1 to include 'permanent' and therefore to read:
>> Museums are permanent institutions that serve society by promoting knowledge,
>> appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the cultural and
>> scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories, sites and
>> processes they care for, research, and interpret for public benefit.
>
> Responding once more to Hans-Christoph von Imhoff (Thursday 6 Nov
> 03).....and reference to  Peter Tyrell's message earlier (Mon. 3 Nov 03):
>
> You are right, Hans-Christoph, and I thank your for raising it: I did
> misunderstand Peter Tyrell's earlier reference, reading his message
> quickly, and assumed 'document' to be used as a noun.
> But I confirm that it IS very commonly used in English also as a verb.
>
> However I continue to be of the view that this important function - of
> 'documenting' collections - is covered by the nuances of two terms already
> used in the suggestion I have offered:
>
> 1. 'care for':  if we work with the public's already well-developed ideas
> about museums, 'care for' includes making good arrangements and good
> records of things that come into museums' control, temporarily or permanently;
> 2. 'research': again arouses existing public knowledge about museums -
> which generally includes the idea that research would involve books
> (libraries) and record-keeping.
>
> Therefore I would still prefer to view 'documenting' as covered implicitly,
> and not wish to push it up to be included in the main definition.
> However, by restoring 'permanent' Peter T would no doubt be pleased, given
> his concern about this value appearing clearly.
> Thank you for your comments.
> 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