In a message dated 00-12-06 10:58:37 EST, John Martinson wrote:

<< And
 not every "John Q. Public" is going to go do research, more come to see
 things that are on exhibit.  They really don't care what is stored back in
the  vaults or available for research.

 It is not looking at the "dictionary" for terms, but understanding what the
 public sees and wants a museum to be.  The public and "education" is the
focus of
 what the museum is about, and not just having a "collection" that sits
waiting
 for someone to dig through piles of dust.  Such a collection is useless.

 I think some of your thoughts are back in the stone age, and opening up
 the mind <<click click>> helps one see that museums are "public"
 institutions, than dusty rooms (which was one of my definitions used) full of
 old objects....  >>

Well, John, I have this stone-age idea that the historic artifacts collected
by museums are evidence of the past and are equally valuable for either
public exhibition or more esoteric scholarship.  Many museum exhibitions are
utterly dependent upon the expertise of scholars who brush away the "piles of
dust" in order to make sense of the past and discern and interpret objects
which will resonate with the public when they are placed on exhibition.  Some
artifacts are not pretty or sexy enough for display, it's true, but they help
provide the knowledge and context upon which exhibitions are based.  I'm not
sure what class of objects or "collections" you deem "useless" (care to
elaborate?), but I find your prejudice a curious, although not uncommon,
phenomenon among short-sighted museum folks.

My office is located on an exhibit floor of the National Museum of American
History, so I'm accessible to the public and I get a lot of feedback from
people who drop in every week to ask why they can't find certain objects on
display that they expected to see.  They're generally fascinated to learn
that the majority of the objects in our collections are not on display and
they want to know more about what's behind the scenes.  They ARE interested
in knowing what's in storage (and question decisions not to put on exhibit
certain objects which would interest them'), in contrast to your assumptions,
unsupported by evidence, documentary, statistical, or anecdotal. This tells
me that we're missing great opportunities to inform them about how museums
operate, how they collect, and how they determine what to display.  The
nearby Presidency show, which attracts crowds, contains many objects which
formerly were in long-term storage--things which some staff mistakenly
assumed no one wanted to see--or which they didn't want to show because they
didn't fit a curatorial agenda.  Do you assume that people simply don't care
about what isn't on exhibition, regardless of its nature, or are you assuming
that museums can automatically be relied upon to exhibit the most interesting
stuff and that anything not selected must have been rejected because it's
obvious dross?  Would you assume, for example, that if for some reason the
National Museum of Natural History failed to exhibit the Hope Diamond and
consigned it to "dusty" storage that no one would be interested in it?

In my years of direct contact with members of our museum visitors--due to my
fortuitous office location--I have some understanding of "what the public
sees and wants a museum to be" and I can tell you that it often doesn't match
what the staff wants them to see and wants the museum to be.

The relationship between research or study collections and public exhibition
is pretty fluid in many museums.  Something in storage this year may be
selected for exhibition next year.  One reason for special, short-term
exhibitions is precisely to draw upon material normally "gathering dust" in
storage in order to highlight it and rotate it into view.  While it is in
storage, it can still be viewed on a limited basis by both scholars and
members of the public who simply have a special interest, if the museum staff
has an open, enlightened attitude toward its collections and their
relationships to the many varied audiences who visit museums --as opposed to
the John Martinsons who disdain objects in storage as "useless"--as much a
Stone Age, philistine attitude as if I've ever heard.  Most art museums have
print study rooms, for example, which scholars, students, and print
aficionados are encouraged to visit to view material not on exhibit, and
which, I might add, is usually kept in as dust-free an environment as
possible.  In our museum many storage collections are open to members of the
public by appointment, and some units have active behind-the-scenes
collection tour programs for special-interest organizations.  Obviously, the
number of people who can be accommodated in this way is limited, but those
who participate are well aware that they are getting a special experience; do
you really think the objects they see in storage are "useless"?  Graduate
students and scholars are attracted from around the world by our fellowship
programs, which provide them with opportunities to study collections which
are not available in exhibitions--isn't this a valid and valuable use of
collections in storage?

(Notice Mr. Martinson's rhetoric, which relies upon well-worn negative
stereotypes of museums: "piles of dust" indeed.  I find it very
interesting--and appalling--that so many people associated with museums
subscribe to and perpetuate the know-nothing prejudices of the past.  One
reason I'm interested in maintaining the identification of the word "museum"
with collections, to admit my own thinly veiled agenda, is that I think
attempts to diminish the significance of this fundamental link with
collections derive partly from an unfortunate misunderstanding of and
prejudice against the traditional museum enterprise.  Such a prejudice has
often been articulated on this list and I think it's a case of not seeing the
trees for the forest.)

If the purpose of museums is "education", there are glaring inconsistencies
in Mr. Martinson's scenario.  In the first place, the varied audiences of
museums include a substantial proportion of "tourists" who are seeking only a
superficial exposure to "highlights" of what the museum has to offer--they
want to see neat objects.  No matter how carefully your exhibitions are
crafted to tell a narrative, advance a social or cultural agenda, or
proactively "educate" people, many receive a disjointed, fragmented view as
they bounce around looking for objects which will resonate with them and
their preconceptions, and never "get" the point you're trying to make.
Sometimes more "education" is absorbed by people who know enough to get
beyond the exhibits.  (Not that I discount the superficial exposure that
tourists get in their fragmented approach--the mere museum ambience and the
"aura" of the specific objects they do see is an important component of the
learning process and an adjunct to their general knowledge.)

Research collections are about "education" too, John, whether or not they're
ever placed on public exhibit.  Frankly, I think you're the one who needs to
open up his mind.

David Haberstich

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