In a message dated 8/8/2004 3:16:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Just wondering what the list would think of this article, which can be
found at:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45679-2004Aug6.html
  >>

I agree with Blake Gopnik 100%, and am relieved and heartened that he
articulated so clearly and economically what I've been advocating for years, with
more verbiage, on this list and elsewhere.  A high percentage of museum-goers
want to see interesting objects, not to read "stories."  Yes, they want some
context and explanation in the form of captions and labels for those fascinating
objects, but they don't want to read a book or even a magazine article on the
wall.  The essence of museums is collections of objects, not pedagogy, and
that's why most people visit them--to see objects.

A new museum such as the City Museum in Washington faces an uphill battle to
attract visitors.  It needs to be able to advertise that it has interesting
artifacts, especially in the face of stiff competition from other museums
nearby; educational texts, however engaging, and state-of-the-art display techniques
aren't enough to draw visitors.

Gopnik rightly suggests that it isn't just an issue of subject matter either.
 Interests vary; one kind of artifact or subject area interests one person,
but not another.  Nevertheless, it's the objects that count, whatever kind may
be your cup of tea.

He writes: "...Museums can't simply become teaching tools; they have to
preserve their roots as places to wonder at and about stuff.

"If your real goal is to learn about a subject, there's no point in going to
a museum.  It takes three hours, probably more, to get to a museum and then
give it a decent once-over.  In that time, you could learn more by staying at
home and reading a book or surfing a few good Web sites.  You go to a museum
because extraordinary objects have a power that goes way beyond the specific
lessons they can teach.

"Likewise, there's no point starting a museum if you don't have fascinating
stuff to put in it.  For a museum to work, the objects can't be optional
illustrations to a schoolroom lesson; they have to be the reason for the museum's
existence."

(I'm reminded of a Museum-L message from a year or two ago in which someone
said he and some friends had cobbled together a couple of million dollars to
start a museum and wanted advice on what to collect.  I had to restrain myself
from suggesting that they spend the money on brain transplants instead.  Wait,
that's too harsh--I should give them credit for knowing that they needed
collections.)

Gopnik's article was great.  I hope it stimulates discussion and rethinking
in the museum community, which in my opinion has too often veered away from
what Gopnik calls the mainstream of museum history.  Some venerable museums,
caught up in the frenzy to make their institutions more "educational" and
"relevant" (sometimes by hiding away some of their most unique--and
popular--artifacts, in order to devote more space to grand themes and didactic texts) ultimately
risk alienating their public, which eventually may figure out that the neat
stuff they thought they were going to see isn't on display any more.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).