It seems to me that the "stretching" of the definition of a "museum" has
occurred through the AAM's (and similar organizations') desire to have
short, recognizable names, i.e.: not the "American Association of Museums,
Zoos, Art Galleries, Archives, Science Centers, etc."  Such groups are
emphasizing that they do not use "Museum" in the title with the intention of
excluding all the others.  Also, it recognizes that there is enough
commonality amongst such member institutions so as to be able to apply
knowledge and skills across the semantic boundaries implicit in the
institutional titles.  Such a broad (inclusive) definition also seems to
have come into common usage within the context of museology.  It only seems
natural then, that this broad definition should migrate from professional
discussion into public usage.

I would argue that a collection of some sort is part of  the classic narrow
definition of "Museum."  Thus "collectionless museum" is an oxymoron.  If
using the narrow definition, a place that mounts such educational
exhibitions as "Mathematica" is more properly a "Science Center" than a
"Science Museum."  On the other hand, even someplace with only a "use"
collection (intended to be used, with the recognition that it will someday
be used up/worn out and will need to be replaced/repaired) is still a
"Museum," even without a classic "conservation/study" type collection.

The broader definition of "Museum" has escaped into general usage, and I do
not believe that this genie can be put back in the bottle.  However in my
mind, a "collectionless museum" must still evoke something of the classic
definition in order to rate the appellation "museum."  Otherwise, the
definition may blur further.

This was written while trying to get out on a Friday evening, so I hope the
gist of my point comes through!

-Larry Burke

-----Original Message-----

> To those who insist
> that "education", not collections, is the core of museums, I'd say this is
a
> semantic misunderstanding.  Education and/or knowledge is the context
within
> which museums exist and the reason they are organized, but the core,
essence,
> or unique characteristic of a museum is its collections.

Only by David's limited definition. Some of us, to the opposition of those
such as David, have been defining science centers and children's museums as
museums, and I am arguing that this is appropriate, and does not dilute the
essence or definition of museum so as to make its meaning less particular or
useful. Including in the essential definition of a museum the display and
interpretation of edifying objects for the purpose of education seems to
pose little danger to the preservationist function. On the other hand, this
opposition to these supposedly collectionless museums by those who feel that
conservationist collections are the essential element, are in fact a threat,
(indeed one I suspect that is intended) to these types of exhibits and
institutions.

>As someone else on the list adroitly but simply asked recently, if it's all
about education,
> what's the difference between a museum and a school?

The way a museum differs from a school is that a museum displays objects as
it's primary educational tool, while a school uses teachers as it's primary
tool, just as a library uses books as their primary tool.

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