Rather than taking a colleague to task for provocative remarks, I'd like
to take a small part of David Haberstich's response out of context.  In this
seciton David expresses frustration with museums' view that items of
significance belong only in museums:
    "But I get very tired of hearing arrogant museum people sniffing that
great art or important historic artifacts rightfully "belong" in museums.
That's just another variety of greed, in my book."
    Having worked largely in small local history museums, I've maintained
that however significant a piece is to us that if the family treasures it,
if it retains its value to the family, and that if they wish to retain it,
it then belongs in the family.  On the other hand, I have concern about
items that get moved to the antiques market. Here they often loose their
individual history and become another nick-nack as a "collectable."  Often,
family treasures come with a confused history (what the family maintains
does not jibe with the artifact - an "1840s" quilt has 1920s and 1930s
fabric and nothing older) that must be delicately sorted through in
interpretation.  On the other hand, items that have made their way onto the
market have little chance of being united with their history.
    Earlier on the list we touched briefly on the effects of programs like
"Antiques Road Show" on history museums' collecting efforts.  Some people
expressed an appreciation for the educational value when the program was
accurate; others felt that the program drove people to expect to sell items
rather than donate them or even keep items which they might have otherwise
donated.
    Museums argue that they belong to the public and that their holdings are
for the public.  At the same time, we have more objects than we can exhibit,
many of those objects must be on display only for a short period of time for
their preservation with the result that they are seldom seen by the public.
Private collectors may loan items to a museum periodically.  Ideally, this
serves the public, the museum and the collector.  But for the large part,
the private collection remains for private viewing until such time as it is
sold or donated to a museum.
    What blend of public/private collecting do we look for to serve our
public?  Is the argument about significant pieces belonging in a museum,
valid?  While we hold some significant pieces (certainly there are very few
items that a museum in a different location would covet) to be tactful many
items border upon the tangential.
    I must concede to David that we can easily fall into pompus twit mode.
Have we, with our arguments that we are "the" home for significant items,
taken our foundation and inflated it to that point? Or do significant items
belong in museums as the keepers of our heritage and culture?  Are private
collectors another filter? Do they pick up what we deem beneath us and
surrender it in the future when we covet it?

Audra Oliver

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).