On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Hank Burchard wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Doug Lantry wrote:
>
> > Hank Burchard's conception of museums as "showbiz" troubles me.  If he
> > means keeping audiences engaged and interested, then good....
>
>      I do indeed. Remember: Shakespeare is showbiz; grand opera is showbiz.
>
>      Hank Burchard * [log in to unmask] * Washington DC
>

Museum, muse eum, the room of the muses. We may sit with the spirits
contained within the artifact and try and learn from them something about
the world or about ourselves.  It isn't showbiz. Civilization and culture
are  more valuable than simple entertainment. Why do museums require
educated people with degrees to simply put on showbiz entertainment? Any
huckster can do that. Too many directors, programmers, board members, and
museum critics are slipping into the banality that museums can help to
prevent.  We must remember our history and learn from it or be doomed to
watch our fall. The P.T. Barnum cynicism that museums can be reduced to is a
loss for our children and theirs. Culture is only maintained by those who
practice it. Many curators and educators have endeavored to practice the
best disciplines of their cultures through academic application of
exhibits as articulated thesis to add to our civilization. That such
efforts can be cast aside for the showman's promises of ticket sales is
at least a stumbling here at the end of the twentieth century. As one who
has benefitted from the WWII generation's efforts, I would hate to think
that all they fought and died for was a marketplace of entertainment.
Maybe museums will pass the torch back to the academie, one way or
another that light is what I believe we work for.

Paul Apodaca