I am really taken by Dean De Bolt's comment on the devaluation of the name
'museum' by pseudo-museums, which I guess is what's meant by 'roadside
museums'.  I'm troubled by the research that shows that the name 'museum'
is a real turn-off to many people, who don't feel at home with the idea let
alone the reality.  But it's certainly a widespread perception.  The state
politician who controls the future of our (still embryo) town museum
regards it as the kiss of death, and insists that the joint (when it
finally gets going) be called a cultural and heritage centre.  This
mouthful is a mask for a wonderful (planned) museum, engineered by
terriffic, dedicated people who will run the smartest, liveliest, most
accessible contemporary museum you ever saw, but noone in the community
will know what the hell it is.  Perhaps that's what the politician in
questions wants.
 
But in the broader sphere than my local politics, how can we redeem the
ancient and honourable title 'museum'?
 
Linda Young
Cultural Heritage Management (see, I don't mind the name for a teaching
program; it's got a logical meaning here)
University of Canberra (Australia)
[log in to unmask]