On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, Paul Apodaca wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Hank Burchard wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Doug Lantry wrote:
> >
> > > Hank Burchard's conception of museums as "showbiz" troubles me.  If he
> > > means keeping audiences engaged and interested, then good....
> >
> >      I do indeed. Remember: Shakespeare is showbiz; grand opera is showbiz.
> >
> >      Hank Burchard * [log in to unmask] * Washington DC
> >
>
> Museum, muse eum, the room of the muses. We may sit with the spirits
> contained within the artifact and try and learn from them something about
> the world or about ourselves.  It isn't showbiz. Civilization and culture
> are  more valuable than simple entertainment. Why do museums require
> educated people with degrees to simply put on showbiz entertainment? Any
> huckster can do that...

     Sorry to drag the dust of the streets in here, Professor Apodaca,
but museums originated as the "cabinets" kept by aristocratic Europeans
for the attraction and amusement of guests. Upper-class raree shows, in
other words.

     It doesn't actually hurt anything to make information interesting.
While "definitive" often *does* amount to "dull," this is not inherent
but is an artifact of the education process. Learned gentlemen and
ladies fence in their academic preserves with thorny hedges of jargon to
avoid the embarrassment of having it widely known that they spend their
days splitting hairs and spitting rivals.

     The vivid and vigorous presentation of facts and ideas does not
preclude intellectual rigor, it demands it.

     And where did you get the idea that people with degrees are
necessarily educated? My experience has shown that to be a most dangerous
assumption, Sir.

      Hank Burchard * [log in to unmask] * Washington DC