I don't really know what you guys are arguing about, but I do know that
'irreguardless' isn't in the dictionary.

**************************************************************************
Mark Nielsen
Exhibit Designer/Preparator
University of Michigan Museum of Art
[log in to unmask]      313/647-2068

On Tue, 15 Oct 1996 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> At 10:43 AM 10/15/96 PDT, you wrote:
> >Further to Wayne's comment
> >
> >I assume this means that any institution holding a retrospective of the work
> >of any living 'artist', using the term in its broadest definition, is
> >'stupid' .  'Costume and textiles' is a major area of human interest and
> >creativity, involving ritual, status, magic-working, glitz, glamour and
> >aesthetics, so why not celebrate the work of a living designer?  Or is it
> >only respectable when its tribal art or a dead artist?
> >
> >Heleanor Feltham
> >Sydney Mint Museum
> >15 October 1996
> >[log in to unmask]
> > ----------
> Wake Up and Smell the Coffee Ms. Feltham,
>
>         You have missed the point completely.  Any institution which sells
> its integrity and the integrity of its historical exhibit to the highest
> bidder has committed a stupid act.  Irregardless of the past prestige or
> stature of the institution such an act should not be copied by succeeding
> organizations.
>
>         At the Museum of Valor we use military uniforms as key elements of
> our exhibits.  Our WWI ANZAC exhibit, for example, uses Australian and New
> Zealand "costumes" to great advantage to tell the story of their
> participation in the Great War for Civilization.  EXHIBITS! NOT ADVERTISING!
> No one purchases the perspective shown at one of our exhibits.
>
> Wayne Hart, Director
> Museum of Valor
>