Matthew Kocsis's question about how non-professional, non-historical
institutions display and interpret material culture and history stirs a can
of worms that most have chosen to ignore.  The difficulty is that to
criticise our amateur colleagues, specially in full knowledge of the
often-awful conditions they put up with, seems so uncharitable that one
just doesn't can't do it.  Moreover, they do the best they can with
precious little 'professional' help - which ought to make us chary of
casting stones. The fact is that lots of heritage material survives (not
highly conserved, but it survives) in the care of amateur groups, and we
ought to be grateful to them for soldiering on.

1)What CAN museum professionals do to help?  They can take serious policy
decisions to devote funds and staff resources to small museum assistance.
This might include having amateurs as interns for whatever period they can
manage, AND to sending staff out occasionally.  This can have wonderful
effects on the confidence and self esteem of amateurs, and it's quite a
healthy experience for professionals in well-funded museums too.  But it
does require a committment which I haven't seen among many 'professional'
museums.

2) Can private individuals and institutions consistently be appropriate
stewards for material culture and its interpretation?  Yes of course!  The
fineness of this question ("consistly be appropriate") is such that it
could well be turned on some 'professional' museums too.  We must also
grapple with the negotiation of what is realistic, what is possible.  The
care of material culture is such an enormous task that even the biggest,
best museums cannot achieve it on their own.  We must share the job with
amateurs.  That means sharing responsibility for training, funding,
advocating etc.  At the same time, I have to say I believe some local
(Australian) attempts to train volunteers in conservation etc aim too high.
If we want professional standards (whatever they are - it usually requires
money), we need to introduce professionals onto the job.  We need to accept
that amateurs will not do as satisfactory a job, but to acknowledge that it
is much better than nothing, and that many of them do it pretty bloody well
anyway.

3) What are the effects of such collections and displays on museums and
their collections and relations with the public?  This is an interesting
question, because it contains just the hint that amateur museums may be
turnoffs to the public.  Alas, it's true that the musty-dusty image of
museum is often perpetuated in amateur museums.  But it's also true that
lots of people actually like it!  I'm sure many of us 'professionals'
sometimes regret the spare, thematic presentations that are de rigeur these
days.

This whole issue needs not just discussion, but action.  I know many
'professional' museum people volunteer on the side, but we ought to be
campaigning for better state, federal and other support for amateur museums
if we really believe the rhetoric of community museums and the value of
material culture.

Linda Young
Cultural Heritage Management
University of Canberra
[log in to unmask]