>>> Byron Johnson <[log in to unmask]> 28/July/1996 08:13pm >>>
In reality, the role of the curator has a lot to do with the mission and
customer base of the museum. If 90% of the museum audience visits for
educational leisure time activities (i.e. exhibits and programs), then
collecting will be co-equal or of secondary imnportance.

I do not understand why the character of the public that a museum
serves should effect the importance of its collections? No matter how
central its audiences are, and I do believe that museums exist today
primarily for the public and not its collections, this need not decrease the
importance of collections. After all without them wouldn't museums just
be like any other theme park-don't they put on exhibitions for both
education and entertainment. In SA, where musems are seriously on the
brown bread line and have much to prove to maintain their existence,
their is a tendancy to react to the complete lack of concern for the public
shown by museums in the past by focussing almost entirely on this
aspect of their work. It seems like an over-repeated statement but what
makes museums special from other cultural and educational institutions
are their collection. So why must it always be an either or
debate-collections vs education/PR? Aren't they integral to each other?

Kathryn Mathers
Pretoria