Dear Gary:

Thank you very much for the exercise of separating the museum definition
from the addition statement. I agree with you that the change is not a
minor one, as you point out, but significant. I also agree with Milton
that, separated, it is the definition that convinces me the most.
Thank-you for translating into Spanish.


Yani Herreman

-----Original Message-----
From: International Council of Museums Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary Edson
Sent: Martes, 17 de Febrero de 2004 03:18 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Definition of a Museum 2004


This message is going to all ICOM-L subscribers, all National Committee
Presidents, and all International Committee Chairs.

Dear ICOM colleagues:

The quest for a definition of a museum continues. During the past month
I have given attention to the responses received and the questions asked
about the benefits of a revised definition of a museum. As I have
stated, I believe consideration of the issue is important for the museum
profession, regardless of whether a decision is made to change the
definition or not.

I certainly endorse the idea that as many members of ICOM as possible
should have the opportunity to consider this issue. This notion is
endorse by many people and efforts are being made to provide a range of
discussion options. One of the ways to continue the investigation of
this issue is ICOM-L and ADCOM (National and International Committee
presidents and chairs). I have been asked to continue this electronic
discussion as one part of the process. We are working toward the meeting
in Seoul where there will be a time for further deliberation on this
subject. Be assured that it is the General Assembly of ICOM that has the
ultimate authority to approve or disapprove the definition.

In the mean time, perhaps we can consider the issue from another
perspective. The statement was made that the current definition has been
in place for the past 30 years and that it should remain unchanged. In
fact, the definition adopted in 1974 by the Eleventh General Assembly of
ICOM, Copenhagen,  separated the museum definition (Article 3) from the
in addition (definition qualifying) statement (Article 4). Whereas the
definition adopted by the 20th General Assembly of ICOM, Barcelona,
Spain, 6 July 2001, arranges the definition and all the qualifying
elements into one continuous shopping list of institutions and
activities. That arrangement may seem minor, however this change is
significant in that the resulting definition is very complex and
descriptive.  I believe a definition should convey the fundamental
character of the museum rather than describe the variables.

As a point of consideration, we might look at the current definition of
a museum, but separate the qualifying conditions.

The definition of museum would read as follows:

<A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service
of society and of its development, and open to the public, which
acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes
of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and the
environment.>

A separate article could make reference to this definition and add the
qualifying institutions and activities.

This approach may be a starting place for those persons who are
concerned about changing the definition.

I will have this document translated to Spanish and French for
distribution.

Gary Edson
[log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the archives
at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at:  http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html