Ross Weeks <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>To Barry Dressel, who worries along with many of us about the essential
>nature of a place called a museum:
>
>I am afraid the American Assn. of Museums, among other agencies, has
>encouraged the use of the word "museum" so broadly that it is no longer
>definitive.  Whether this is right or wrong, there are "museums" that
>obtain fine grants (restricted for museum purposes) that have no collection
>and never want to.

We have that problem over here too. They are generally called Heritage
Centres. There were a rash of them in the early 1990s in Ireland,
North and South. They were primarily thought of as tourist attractions
in most cases and there just seemed to be an airy attitude that the
museums would provide any objects required.

Some of them have turned out to be very worthwhile, such as the Navan
Centre, but others have turned out to be little more than glorified
theme parks.

One good thing is that, in the UK at least, not just any old place can
call itself a Museum. To be called a Museum a body has to register
with the Museums and Galleries Commission, a government body, and to
put in place the practices and policies apprived by them if the
registration is to be maintained.

At the core of the definition is that a Museum has objects of its own.