Bayla Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote, in part:
 
>I have yet to meet someone, from other than the museum world and >some
academics, who actually knows what a curator does.  Certainly >the concept
that curators have extensive specialized knowledge, and >are more than mere
antiquarians, is no part of the general public's >perception of the role....
 
>the indictment is of the public, if anyone, and I thought I'd made that
>clear.
 
I thought you did too, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt ;-)
 
What are the origins of these public notions about curators, and museums
generally? Who arrogates to themselves access to the objects and to the
literature? Who decides what to display and what to secure? Who has
historically written the interpretations and identifications? And for whom
have these been written?
 
I suggest that your indictment has no grounds.
 
As long as research museums view the collections as private intellectual
property and reserve for themselves the sole right to identify and interpret
those collections, then they will be identified by many as elitist preserves.
Any further mis-understanding, e.g. "antiquarians," simply goes with the
territory...
 
I encounter this general complaint periodically (from curators). It is ironic
especially in light of some of the (widely-disseminated) discussion over the
past decade about public programming in museums. I do not consider the
alternative to be edutainment, but I would suggest that a leap in terms of
the public education that museums provide is in order.
 
That, or more barbed wire and sand bags...
 
Kevin Coffee
AMNH (not NMAH)
New York (not DC)