Of course, almost all of the history and natural history museums in the
West began as collections of oddities, curiosities, etc.
Professionalization was in large measure the substitution of a taxonomic
hierarchy for this assortment of wondrous miscellaneities.  Hence around
the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century, museums -- at least
the professionally managed ones -- become collections of epitomes.  With
another radical epistemological shift, right after World War II, these
hierarchies are challenged, and sometimes displaced -- and museums begin
to see themselves as collections of typicalities.  But even that depends
upon an authoritative editorial voice, and it has been itself challenged
by the apparently more democratic ethos of montage, or piling up snippets
of oddly disconnected elements.  Hence in our own time, evidenced by the
Internet itself, we are more fascinated by oddities once again.
Richard Rabinowitz
American History Workshop
Brooklyn, NY
[log in to unmask]

On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, AUDREY B. DAVIS wrote:

> What do people consider an oddity to exhibit in museums? So far bad
> art, sex, body parts, shoes, tupperware, etc. have been singled out.
> Why stop with any subject or piece? Isn't the purpose of the museum
> to show the unusual, outstanding, attention getting, etc.? Is there a
> connection between the oddness of the museum and the number of
> visitors? Does the type of museum considered odd reflect the national
> psyche which changes over time? Are there studies of what makes a
> "good acceptable" museum in contrast to a museum of oddities?
> Just a few questions in case anyone has reflected on the topic a bit
> more than I have.
> The fake or "come-on" type of museum is an exception
> or should be singled out in a separate category since it is usually
> set up to make a profit from gullible folks and is one of many
> schemes to do this.
> Audrey Davis
> National Museum of Dentistry
> [log in to unmask]
>