>And I have seen department-store displays that were more attractive,
>entertaining and informative than some big-bucks museum exhibitions.

>Hank Burchard


True, and in recent years department stores have learned much from museums,
according to my friends in the retail biz.  They have begun to combine
lessons from the museum world with the savvy of Madison Avenue quite
effectively.

Yet I still contend that the intent of the department store is not
interpretation and education as in a museum exhibit.  Department stores use
museum interpretation techniques to market goods.  Museums use (or should
use) marketing strategies as a means to interpret and educate.  Of course I
am speaking only of truly interpretive exhibits (see my earlier definition
below).

>All the nuspeak in the world will not actually alter the world.

What's "nuspeak?"  If this is a reference to some new (nu) 90s way of
defining terms, relax.  I formulated my definitions of exhibit, display,
etc. over a decade ago.

HBC


>On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Henry B. Crawford wrote:
>
>> Exhibit vs. Exhibition
>>
>> My whole take on this question has to do with the interpretive nature of
>> the presentation.  Exhibits are interpretive, and usually focus on a
>> cultural, (in the anthropological sense) historic, or scientific theme and
>> content.  The more interdisciplinary, the better.  Exhibitions show
>> artistic collections and are not particularly interpretive.  Just read
>> almost any art exhibition label.  They don't tell you much beyond the
>> artist's name, date, dimensions, and medium.  There's not much
>> interpretation going on there.
>>
>> I try to avoid the word "display."  IMHO, displays are for department stores.

*****************************************
Henry B. Crawford        Curator of History
[log in to unmask]     Museum of Texas Tech University
806/742-2442           Box 43191
FAX 742-1136             Lubbock, TX  79409-3191
*********All opinions expressed are mine**********