Raelyn Campbell wrote:
> IMHO a "museum without a collection" is at least at a terrible disadvantage wh
en
> trying to carry on activities we still seem to recognize as museum activities
.
> And someone somewhere must still provide the tangible objects, right? So the
se
> "museums without collections" exhibit or publish about material from other pe
op
> le's or group's collections, I would assume. That means the "musum without co
ll
> ection" curators (if they have them) have limited access to the material befor
e
> an exhibition, and surely scholarly efforts must suffer to some extent - OR is
t
> he entire exhibit assembled somewhere else, like in a traveling show, in which
c
> ase why even have curators? (Some directors dream of this, I think). In any e
ve
> nt, it would seem there would be a need for at least one "museum with collecti
on
> s" somewhere to support those without, or as I said the "museum without collec
ti
> ons" faces a real challenge in rounding up and researching tangible objects.
>
> I wonder why these institutions don't call themselves interpretive centers, le
ar
> ning centers, cultural halls, science centers, and so on; that just seems to f
it
> better to me.
Well, we are talking about definitions, not subjective concepts of
practicality or efficiency. I have not yet read a definition in the
dictionary which qualifies the definition of a Museum based on
whether it carries out its mission well or not. Just because
something/someone is at a "terrible disadvantage" or "faces a real
challenge", doesn't exclude it/them from the unqualified definition.
If that were the case, would a boat cease to be a boat because it sinks?
Would an athlete cease to be an athlete if they are quadriplegic*? Would
a blind* student cease to be a student because they can't see?
Of course one could make certain assumptions about the challenge or
disadvantage faced by a boat or athlete or student when engaged in
specific tasks usually associated with being a boat or athlete or
person, but they are what they are.
The Association of Small Boat Owner's could state in their By-laws that
a Boat must be able to float to satisfy THEIR definition of a boat, but
that is only an exclusionary definition for the purpose of belonging to
that organization.
I also agree that language does change. But the less it does change, the
more precisely we can can communicate. When you write in your E-mail
that there are 8,000 museums in the country, (lacking a definition from
you)I would like to be able to look up the definition of "museum" in a
current dictionary and know that we are talking about the same thing.
As of today, there are no references to any requirements of non-profit
or curatorial standards in any dictionary to which I have referred.
I think that is one of the great things about discussions like this.
Constant evaluation of concepts and definitions helps us to be certain
that we are communicating with precision. For instance, when the
question about how many Museums were in the US was asked recently on
this list, the AAM could have answered one number and the person seeking
the data could have assumed it included for-profit museums as well.
Greg Stemm
*So there is no misunderstanding relating to my comments, I am making
the point that you CAN be an athlete or student if you are blind or
quadriplegic.
|
