In a message dated 12/8/00 8:30:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<snip..snip>

"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."

David, I totally agree.  If you would simply understand the original question
was
a gentleman was asking for answers to the definition(s) of what a museum
was.  I gave many examples, of which, not all did I disagree.  A majority of
those definitions I have received by the public and as a professional in my
field working with the public.  Indeed, some people see museums as "piles
of dust," others as "edutainment centers," while others as professional
education and exhibit houses, and so on and so forth.

I was simply giving explanations and answers.

Yes, oh yes I understand and agree with you that 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 shortsighted museum folks."

My context was again referred to by answers I have received by the public.
And again
it was simply a "general" grouping of definitions I have heard.  Some museums
collect useless things, old rusting guns with no explanation or reason for the
artifact in the collection, and items that have nothing to do with the scope
of
collection for that museum.  To me, yes, such things would be "useless" items.

There are also those who would argue that what is in an exhibit, may not be
in context with what the originator (the maker) had intended the item to be
used for.  Interpretation can be taken wrong by the present, and thus the past
is erroneous changed to fit present thinking.

You said (and I have the same thing with my work) "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."

However, you are out in left field when you assume you know my policy and
my experience in collecting and exhibiting an object.

You said, "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?

Again, you are over reacting, to what was only generalities of a simple
question.
My reply was not an overall thesis on collection management, the educational
mission of
museums or museology in general.

Indeed, museums intent is to display those things that are of importance to
its
public, but case in point, the fact is that not all museums are the National
Museum
of Natural History and they do not have the Hope Diamond.  A majority of
museums also do not have the budget, the space, the visitation, the staff,
the professionalism, and so
forth that this larger metro museum has.  Often, the small, rural (or even
larger
museums) do not have the budget or space to show everything, and it would be
foolish
to even think it is possible.  It simply is damaging to the artifacts.

Yes, the public(s) want to see the collection, and as a curator that is why
you
have special Director or curator tours to the storage items for the public,
to take them back into the collection and show them the dusty shelves and
things that are not commonly shown to the public.

However, a majority of the public, in my experience, are not that pressuring
to see all and understand things in a museum.  Most people simply don't have
the time or interest in doing that.

David said:  "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."

However, David...a museum cannot be "all" to everyone.  There is a point in
time
collection management, and following the museum's mission has to be followed.
 WE cannot be everything to everyone.  It is impossible.  And I think the
public
is totally aware of that.  For example, I am interested in the Civil War, so
I will
go out of my way to visit such museums, but I am not interested in UFO museums
or related issues (of course this is just an example).  So, I go  to the
museums I am interested in, and when I arrive, I understand the collection,
the exhibits, and expect
to see items of a Civil War nature.  And like I said, a professional museum
has
policy and objectives it must follow, it cannot be everything to everyone.
The public thus relates to what they are interested in and visits those
museums of their interest and target those objectives.

Yes, it is true and I fully agree with you, that often the staff (if all
museums
have that many staff members) have different objectives than those (of us) in
the back offices or outer pastures.

David said,  "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."

David, you are taking things out of context.  Again, you don't know my
collection
management or how I work.  What's the deal?   I totally agree with you, and
AGAIN my original posting was to give general definitions, not write a
collection management policy.

Yes, oh yes, I understand that things must be rotated to show things that are
in storage, and I know that a "majority" of most collections are in storage,
and
that all cannot be on exhibit.  As mentioned, it is nice to give tours to the
public
to the collection (but not all museums have the staff and time that you
express; I think not).  I believe that most museums are doing all they can to
let the public
see what they have hidden in their storage.

<snip>

You said, "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"?"

Indeed, there are useless items in all collections that must be
deaccessioned, and
did I say all things in storage are "useless"?  I think not.  What you said
is true about
allowing the public to tour the vaults is valid, but again only if the museum
has the staff, budget and time to provide tours beyond their normal exhibit
tours.

And as you said, "(g)raduate 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?

I agree!  It is part of the education goals of a museum.  David, you are
jumping to conclusions.  I have students, professionals, researchers wanting
to visit our secured storage collection often.  My use of "useless" was
simply, again related to what some of the public in the past (and even today)
think is a definition of museums, i.e., artifacts on dusty shelves.   And if
the items are not of their interest to a visitor, such things would be get
it, "useless" to them.  But to someone else...it could be a "priceless" piece
of history and of wealth and value beyond measure.  ;0)

So, David you are missing my original point when you say, "(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."

David, these same stereotypes are provided not only by the public but museums
themselves.  You work in a "big" museum, are YOU taking into account the
small museums, especially those out in rural areas?   Have you toured these
museums and seen their collections?  I have been into many dusty old storage
areas, into storage areas with leaking roofs and piles of dust and messes.
Indeed, they have many things that need to be exhibited, but often they are
left back on the dusty shelves, and in that "context" are in "piles of dust."
 And there is nothing at all wrong with that, they simply do not have the
budget to exhibit or show the items, but are
striving to preserve something of their community or interest.

I am 100% in agreement with you that museums HAVE to be associated with a
collection.  I am also 100% in favor of preservation of collections and
artifacts. And, yes, I am in full agreement with you that collections should
have public access or they remain stored in back rooms and in that context
are "useless" items.

So, yes I agree with you that ". . . 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.)"

David, but I do not believe that the total "purpose of museums is
"education.''" As I
originally stated, they are gathering places, places to meet, places to
experience
the past, places to research, places (as you said use the bathroom), places
to be entertained, to eat, to shop, to socialize, to have meetings, and on
and on.
Doesn't it all depend on the person, their objective and focus, and why they
are
visiting the museum.  At one point it could be an educational visit, another
time
coming to meet a friend, another time to attend a meeting in the basement
conference room (that the museum rented out) for a meeting on "How to
do genealogy" -- and it is an art museum.  Great!  The museum is thinking!  It
is adapting to the needs of its public.  It is marketing itself as more than
an education resource, but is a gathering place of "many" interest and things.

And David, oh boy..that is the beauty of museums.  They are the (or can be)
the central vortex of a community.  They are as the first museums, temples
of learning (and that includes more than education).   People learn in
different
ways, and museums must be opened to entertaining, interpreting, selling,
marketing, providing hands-on experiences, and on and on.

No, I disagree with you, "there are glaring inconsistencies
 in Mr. Martinson's scenario."  But, yes, there are "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."  However, too, David there are the visitors who
want everything all details of the museum (as you said see the back rooms),
but there are those who only want to come out of the cold and have a cup
of coffee.  There are those who only want to see the "Hope diamond," and do
not care about anything else.  And that is also the beauty of museums, we
have a wide array of public and it does present a challenge to the museum....
both big and small.

Thus, this refers back to the original question.  The gentleman was looking
for answers and definitions to and of their audience.  Audiences are varied,
and museums thus as you said David, "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."

But who can take the blame for that?  Not the public, but the museum itself.
Was
the interpretation correct?  Is it clear?  Does the exhibit have any
relevance to
the rest of the collections, and so forth.  And is it the museums duties "to
get their
point across or "trying to make," or in as in educational theory, allow the
visitor
to determine what the exhibit has to say.  That is the learning process.  Then
the visitor goes home, learns and things start to click on what the museum was
saying (with the exhibit).  I strive to let the exhibit  (or original object)
speak for itself,
and not try to put in my own bias opinions.  In my work, the public wants to
see exactly how things actually were used, not a trump up Disneyland exhibit.

Yes, "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.)

But, I don't think the public comes all "fragmented" and lacking any idea of
what they are see.   They don't always need the museum to tell them what they
are seeing, and the object as related, can speak for itself.   The public
often
has more knowledge of an item than the museum staff may has.

Oh, yes, David, "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."  But, David you need to expand your mind beyond the
collection
(and I'm not disagreeing with you there) simply adding that museums are MORE
than dusty shelves, artifacts on shelves or educational institutions.  They
are vital historical and community resources.   You missed the boat and
assumed things that I did not say, and that is where I see the fault in your
concepts.

Best, John
Curator of Collections

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