MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Jim Rubinstein <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:07:45 EST
Comments:
Converted from OV/VM to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
Reply-To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
*** Resending note of 03/04/98 15:32

>>>>Barry Dressel <[log in to unmask]> wrote (much snipped by me...)

>It was understood that part and parcel of maintaining a collection was
>visitors coming to museums to experience real things with their
>significance explained. (I wonder at the studies that surface saying
>the authenticity of artefacts is not a priority among visitors, at
>least to history museums.)

I respond:

This is why the curator/light bulb jokes are relevant to this list and
why the best of them had the punchline "what do you mean CHANGE?"

Perhaps the notion of going to museums to experience real things was
indeed the primary reason people once went to museums. And perhaps it
still is a reason why some, even many, still go. But your statement that
you "wonder" about recent studies that "surface" which say otherwise
seems a tad unfair. Are you implying that the researchers and evaluators
who conduct these studies are not to be taken seriously? aren't really
doing the research? fudging data? doing bad research? By saying
"surfacing" you seem to imply that these are not the result of serious
work. Just what studies are you talking about anyway? Care to back up
your wonder, and your thoughts otherwise, with any hard evidence to the
contrary. I'm not saying that evidence isn't out there, but one really
can't discount the work of others based on a hunch. Visitor Research and
Evaluation is a bonafide discipline, and it can be used as a tool to
help museums change as our society changes. Why is this research so
easily ignored or discounted by the researchers that hold curatorial
positions, and who would surely be dismayed if their research was simply
ignored or discounted?

Mr. Dressel, I don't know if you are a curator or what, that's not the
point. The point is peoples' attitudes change, the role of museums has
and will continue to change. For instance, NPR had a story this morning about
a new museum opening in Japan that contains no original artwork, just
reproductions of hundreds of the worlds "masterpieces," and you can even
touch them...Do you suppose no one will show up?

As they say, just my two cents...

Jim Rubinstein
Exhibit Developer, NMAI

ATOM RSS1 RSS2