-->As far as I can tell, all this concern about glitz started with the Met
in
>the late 60's.  The upshot of that glitz is that the met has grown into,
>arguably, the greatest encyclopedic museum in the world.  So I wouldn't
>despair, unintended consequences can be beneficial as well as destructive.
>
I think you're certainly right.  I am convinced that everyone subconsciously
models behaviour, and we are often not picky about the appropriateness of
the behaviour we model on (in the wider world this explains a lot of
generations-recurring social pathologies in the absence of positive models.)
But ever since Hoving made the mummies dance this has been the model for art
museums, and, I suspect, an influence on the way all museums pursue mission.
Usually in aesthetics the original model works--that's why it's emulated--it
is the mis-application of it subsequently--like Bauhaus or the Classical
Revival in architecture at times--that pollutes the perception.  I think
every museum and every audience is different, and we ought be very
analytical about the models we adopt and why.  Often, I don't think we are.