Mr. Haberstich,

I usually do not respond to sarcastic comments such as yours, but you
seem to have missed Ms. Hunt's point completely.  She is addressing the
all too common problem of over-curation; that is, too many objects
organized in ways that make quality viewing of the exhibition
difficult.  The subject of the exhibition is, perhaps, irrelevant.  From
her comments I understood that the exhibition was organized in such a
fashion that people were not herded through like cattle, nor left
waiting for hours on end in a line that never seems to end.  It was an
ooportunity to explore and learn at one's leisure.

Though I have not visited the Van Gogh show, I have been to many
"blockbuster" exhibitions that consisted of a tremendous number of
objects coupled with poor traffic flow.  The most recent was the
Treasures of the Romanovs at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston.
Although we had tickets, and although we are museum members, and
although we arrived as close to opening time on Sunday as we could, we
waited 2 hours in a line that never moved and ultimately had to forsake
seeing the show because we had a plane to catch.

I imagine that this is exactly the scenario that Ms. Huitt was pleased
did not occur at the Titanic exhibition.

As museum professionals who tend to give quite a bit of lip service to
"serving our public" sometimes we fail to respect the public's time.
For some, waiting five hours in line to see great works of art or
historic artifacts may not be a problem.  But for others, five hours of
line waiting means five lost hours.  Should we only cater to those who
are capable of committing several hours to waiting?  Should they be the
only ones who get the chance to see Van Gogh?  Or Romanov treaures?

Lisa A. Goodgame

David Haberstich wrote:
>
>  I fully agree with Delecia Huitt that too many artifacts in an exhibit
> interfere with traffic flow. You should see all the people lined up
> outside the National Gallery of Art to view the Van Gogh show. If they
> had had the common sense to show reproductions instead of original
> paintings, the lines undoubtedly would speed up considerably. This is
> yet another reason for museums to avoid the use of original artifacts in
> exhibits. By the way, what Titanic artifacts are being shown anyway? I
> thought J. Peterman had sold everything by now. Having seen the movie, I
> certainly wouldn't devote any more of my valuable time to this subject,
> but I am curious from a museological standpoint.
>
> --David Haberstich