On         Thu, 5 Jan 1995 Alan Hawk (Nmhm Afip) <[log in to unmask]>
said:
 
>        There is another side to this cultural patrimony issue.  While
>        these artifacts have been removed from their native counties, the
>        artifacts have also been disbursed.  This means that the artifacts
 
>        are not concentrated in one place (the national museum) and
>        prevents the destruction of an entire cultural patrimony through
>        war, major accidents, natural disasters and acts of God.  If one
>        collection is destroyed, at least examples of that civilization
>        will survive in other places.
 
I agree with Alan Hawk, for his and for additional reasons.  The
distribution of the works of other cultures has served and will continue to
serve as the foundations needed to establish cultural bridges and to
promote mutual understanding and appreciation of other cultures.  Although,
certainly, colonial activities may have at first served and may continue to
serve as the means by which such collections were put together, I submit
these same works and the motives that sent them so far from their origins
have had a reciprocal effect on the collector nation, permitting the
infusion of new ideas and new peoples into "colonial" cultures -- which are
all the better for the influence.  This turbulence often has an enriching
effect on civilizations.  Indeed, as art historians, we tend to study
cross-cultural effects on artifacts of societies, be these societies large
civilizations, economic entities or merely personal interactions.
 
I'd suggest (contrary to current thinking) that perhaps the best course a
culture can follow is one that induces them to export their artifacts
cultural product to foreign locales.  We do this all the time in
exhibitions; and exhibitions are wonderful vehicles for this purpose.  Even
better, however, is the permanent collection.  Eric Siegel noted some time
ago (I hope I got this right.) that the permanent collection of museums, a
friendly environment, visited time and time again, will tend to have a
profound influence upon the viewer.  The museum becomes a kind of second
home, its artifacts, its slices of history and cultures become an extended
family.
 
Some time ago museum-l readers were submitting the names of books and
movies in which museums played a significant role.  I wonder whether an
analysis of how museums are treated in this literature will support the
above contention or contest it.  At first glance it would seem that museums
in fiction (indicative of how we think about musea--museums understood
generically) present three faces: 1) places of mystery and enchantment,
inner sancta of privacy and communion, i.e. attractive,  2) storehouses of
obscure and forbidding artifacts with potentially malevolent powers over
the visitor, i.e. dangerous and 3) collections of the artifacts collected
by elite aesthetes, i.e. out of touch.
 
One wonders what role museums play in countries that do not have wide
ranging collections, but whose archaeological, cultural and ethnic
histories and products alone stand to define culture within its
institutions.
_____________________________
Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont, NY 10538
[log in to unmask]