>On Wed, 19 Oct 1994 Key Yellis wrote:
 
>Even if the exhibit were signed by the curator -- and I don't think NASM
>does that -- it is the MUSEUM, not the curator, that presents the exhibit,
>and the Smithsonian at that.  Surely that makes some kind of a
>difference.  Moreover, think of who goes there:  Almost everybody from
>just about everywhere.  None of us can make any assumptions whatever about
>what knowledge they bring with them, their ability to evaluate critically
>what they see and read and to put it into context, what the
>traditional viewpoint that is being revised even was, and so on.  At the
>risk of sounding like Jesse Helms, I'm not convinced the veterans groups
>were so very out of line.  After all, even if you put out a comment book
>in which I can register my anguish at what is exhibited and how it is
>interpreted, the exhibit is still up when I leave the building,
>essentially unchanged and with the weight of the Smithsonian's authority
>behind it.
 
A good point. Is the museum exhibition a thesis, developed by the curator,
and articulated with help from a professional team or is the exhibition an
institutional statement representative of those who govern, administer and
support the museum. The answer I was brought up with is the former. Does
that still hold up today? Are academic freedom and curatorial perogative a
legitimate concern of the museum or has the exhibit become so important as
an audience attraction and institutional image-definer that it is more
important to please than to present.
 
Paul Apodaca
[log in to unmask]