Donna Miller wrote:
>
>     The debate I came across - whether museums should attempt to display
> their entire collections, is simple in my mind. First, displays should
> change over time. That means bringing items from reserve collections and
> replacing items that have been displayed. That way, people have a reason
> to come back, knowing that there will always (or, at least, often) be
> something new to see.
> Second, for those of us who have separate galleries for temporary
> exhibitions, items in reserve collections are essential.
> Third, reserve collections allow us to cooperate with other museums and
> galleries, lending them items to include in temporary exhibitions.
> Fourth, we have the question of study collections. A hundred wooden
> planes would not be of interest to the average visitor. A dozen would be
> adequate to slake their interest. But for the true student, the more the
> better.
> I have seen small museums which showed everything. They were something
> like junk shops, with a confusing array of items and absolutely no story
> line that anyone could identify.
> Without our reserve collections - at least 3/4 of the total - we would
> be very limited in what we can do. Instead, we can pull interesting
> artifacts from storage for guessing games with visiting school classes.
> We can lend items to classes (with careful selection to ensure nothing
> particularly rare or valuable is placed in danger. We can do all sorts
> of things which serve the community, and serving the community is what
> we're all supposed to be about.
>
> Bill Clarke
> Director
> Restigouche Regional Museum
> Dalhousie, N.B.
> Canada

Can you imagine how large a building the Smithsonian or the British
Museum would need to display their *entire* collection??
Many items are received in an undisplayable state, many items are too
fragile to display for long even after conservation and many items are
of no interest to the general public.