As with every post in this thread, I feel compelled to point out at the
start that people have been arguing the definition of museum for many, many
years, and have never settled the issue.  I do not propose to do so here.

I keep saying that.  It’s like the FBI warning at the start of video tapes:
a lovely old tradition I’ve grown rather enamored of, and cannot bear to
dispose of now.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:11:00 EDT, David E. Haberstich <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Gene, I'm curious about how you know what the Iraqi people thought of the
>museum and how they didn't consider it a museum.  Can you substantiate this
>or is it just an assumption?  So some of the people took their heritage
>back--and smashed it to smithereens.  Is that what they think of their
>heritage?  Others apparently were professional thieves, according to
experts
>quoted in the newspapers, who carried off this "heritage" to sell it
outside
>Iraq.
>

Reading the blogs one will find a diversity of reports, actions, statements
and opinions.

(Oh no, are we back to the blogs now?  Seems appropriate; what follows may
pass for a “Fisking.”  Sorry, Tim.)



>So there weren't any exhibits--despite the fact that smashed exhibit cases
>are visible in the photographs.  Ah, but very few people saw the exhibits,
>therefore they didn't exist?  I see.  How many viewers does it take to make
>an exhibit an exhibit?  What do we call a would-be exhibition before anyone
>sees it?
>

I have recently hired a Curator of American History to research my ugly tie
collection.  I have hired a conservator to preserve it (those mustard
stains on silk are murder).  I have hired registrars and collections
managers.  I’ve retained the services of a top-flight exhibit design firm.
We have constructed a beautiful set of display cases, interpretive text and
graphics, interactive components, and multi-media displays, all examining
the role of the ugly tie in late 20th-Century American culture.  These are
now all locked away in my closet.  No one will ever see them.  Are they an
exhibit?

Of course not.  They fail the Klein test: there is no audience.  As one who
is fond of words, I find that “exhibit” is both a noun and a verb.  The
verb sense means “to show, to display.”  If no one sees my ties, then no,
they are not on exhibit, no matter how gloriously mounted and subtly lit.
Exhibit cases do not make for an exhibit.  In both this and in the Iraqi
instance, they are simply a very inefficient collections storage system.

You want to argue phenomenology and epistemology?  I’m down with that.  I
exhibit; therefore, I am.


>If the Museum of the American Indian is not a museum until it opens to the
>public, what is it before then?  What do we call it?  Please provide a word
>so that we can name it to your satisfaction.
>

I believe a previous post already described this as a museum-to-be, or a
museum under construction.


>Two other Smithsonian museums are currently closed for renovation, the
>National Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
>Apparently by your reasoning they have ceased to be museums.  If so, what
do
>we call them in the interim while they're closed?  What's the word?
>Wait--the Portrait Gallery recently held an exhibition in another
>building--did it become a museum again during the course of that
exhibition,
>or doesn't that count because it was in another building?  If it did count,
>is the Portrait Gallery currently a non-museum again?  Should closed
museums
>be pressured to rename themselves?  Is a "Gallery" still a gallery when
it's
>closed?  Would "collection" do?  (The American Art Museum used to be called
>the National Collection of Fine Arts--even when it was open and had
>exhibitions.)
>

I do not understand this insistence on a single word.  “Closed museum”
or “museum closed for renovations” works for me.  If an organization mounts
exhibitions, it passes the first test in trying to lay claim to the
name “museum.”  The site in which it was held may or may not.  The First
Amendment, however, allows institutions and organizations in the United
States to call themselves pretty much whatever they want.


>For that matter, does a museum cease to be a museum when it closes for the
>evening?  Yes?  What is it, then?  No?  Why not?  How many hours, days, or
>weeks does a museum have to be closed to the public before it ceases to be
a
>museum?
>

Hey, how about that!  * I * was a great trial to MY mother, too!  Another
thing in common!


>Since you seem to agree (gasp! at last we agree on something!) that some
>institutions with exhibitions, such as airports, shopping malls, etc., are
>not museums, what's that extra something that makes an institution a
>museum--or am I making too great a leap in assuming that you agree that a
>museum is an institution of some sort rather than an exhibition per se?
Why
>don't all exhibitions define a museum?  Is it fair to assume that you're
now
>admitting that the bald assertion that exhibitions define museums was
>incomplete?
>

I may be bald, but my assertion was that without exhibits, you do not have
a museum.  The inverse, that if you DO have exhibits, you ARE a museum, was
never my claim, and I apologize if I was unclear.

The same cannot be said for collections.  If you DO have a collection, you
may or may not be a museum.  If you DON’T have a collection, you may or may
not be a museum.  The presence or absence of collections plays no role in
the definition.

The “extra something” was, I believe, described in an earlier post.
(Though, to be fair, I get Museum-L in digest form and sometimes lose track
of who has written what when.)  It is that exhibition is a primary purpose
of the organization.

Klein then added, and so very rightly, that the organization must serve a
public audience.

Another one of my fans wrote privately to ask that I add another
requirement to my definition of museum: that the exhibits be of an
educational or enlightening nature, so as to differentiate them from, say,
Pirates of the Caribbean, which may also be an “exhibit,” but is intended
purely for entertainment.

Thus, the ever-evolving Dillenburg Definition of a Museum – and the only
proper response to that bit of pomposity must be “who the hell is
Dillenburg?” – thus becomes: an institution or organization with a primary
purpose of presenting public exhibits for education, enlightenment, and/or
interpretation.  (I do not see “permanent” or “non-profit” as necessary
conditions, though they do help in clarifying that purpose.)  This, of
course, is a work-in-progress; see the caveat at the top of the post.

Re-reading earlier posts, I don’t believe we ever settled the issue of why
a collection of art, artifacts, or even ugly ties, when in private hands,
is not a museum, but when it is in the Smithsonian’s hands, it is.


>Finally, if a museum does not need to have a collection to be called a
>museum, what do you call a museum (an institution of some sort with
>exhibitions) which also has collections?  What's the word?
>

Museum.

Having a collection does not make you a museum.  NOT having a collection
does not NOT make you a museum.


>(Obviously, I think my dictionary definition of a museum is easier to
explain
>and utilize.  I find an implicit need to submit candidates to a single
person
>to see if they qualify as museums a bit cumbersome.)
>

As long as I get to be the single person, I have no problem with it.  ;-)

Yes, your definition is simpler and easier.  But it leaves out a lot of
institutions laboring under the notion (and the article of incorporation)
that they are museums.  It leaves out a lot of professionals, including
many on this list, who seem to think they work for museums.  It leaves out
millions of visitors who go to these institutions under the illusion that
they are attending a museum.  All this, from the definition of a single
person.

Yes, your definition is simpler and easier.  But if it is also incorrect,
that rather limits its usefulness.


>About that analogy concerning the chemical constituents of a 150-pound
person
>and their limited value: I don't think anyone ever said they added up to a
>person--just a human body.  Getting the words right is important.
>


It is late, and I am tired.  The following therefore may come across
sounding ruder than I intend.

That loud noise you just heard?  That was the point, zooming over your
head.  That is precisely what I was saying.  150 pounds of oxygen,
nitrogen, etc. may give you a human body, but not a human being. 150 ugly
ties, conserved, preserved and catalogued, gives you a collection, but not
a museum.  Only when they are exhibited do you stand a chance of crossing
that threshold.

As one schooled in the humanities, I reject the notion that language follow
the invented rules of science.  Words can have more than one meaning; that
is their strength.  What is this thread if not an elaboration of that very
point?  Remember, Orwell’s dystopian “1984” was set in a world where
synonyms were outlawed.

This has been a fascinating discussion, which has helped me think more
clearly (hah!) about museums.  I can only hope that others listening in
have had the same benefit.

And so to bed…

-- Eugene Dillenburg

=========================================================
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).