I would like to add an additional motive to Bill Stirrat's two:
>
> As for me, I think we need to distinguish between two different types of
> behavior in this discussion,  based on the motive of the individual.
>
> 1) the innocent mistake -- example:  individual touches an object, not
> knowing that the appropriate response with this particular object is *not*
> to touch
>
> 2) blatant disrespect -- example:  individual touches an object, knowing
> that he/she shouldn't, but also knowing that since no one is looking he/she
> can get away with it
>

And this is that visitors can recontextualize the exhibit in their own
cultural frame of reference.  I am thinking of one of Susan Vogel's (as
always) inciteful commentaries on Afro-Caribbean and Brazilian syncretic
religious shrines on exhibit.  Visitors treated them not as sterile
exhibits but as functioning shrines and behaved accordingly.

I put a painting of a very textured aquatic scene up in an exhibit.  It
was done by a Guamanian artist, Mark Del'Isola of Micronesian marine life.
Kids were constantly running their fingers along it as they walked by.  I
indignantly stopped them whenever I could and smugly reported to Mark how
I was doing my best to protect his painting by chastising the rabble. He
was taken aback and declared that he liked nothing more than
to think that people wanted to touch his painting.

Mary McCutcheon