Carol Morgan ([log in to unmask], Sat May 04) has raised the
interesting question of what really makes a museum. I am not offering
a direct answer, but am going to make a wider point: what are museums
and galleries for?
From the viewpoint of a layman, who has never been employed in a
museum or gallery but who has had a lifelong fondness for visiting
them, their purpose could fall into one or more of the following broad
classes:
1. Storage and conservation of artefacts and archives.
2. Research and scholarship, in-house and extramural.
3. Education: formal and informal at different levels.
4. Pleasure and Entertainment.
5. Inspiration.
All these 5 categories merge to some extent. None are mutually
exclusive. Education and Entertainment are particularly blurred: as
the public drifts through an exhibition, some people will pay closer
attention than others, and learn something. Others will treat it as a
social occasion: chat, glance at the exhibits with pleasure perhaps,
and then seek out the coffee bar with a happy feeling of having done
something cultural.
It is category 5 that particulary concerns me: that a child who is
brought in may find something to trigger a new enthusiasm, an interest
or even a passion that will grow to be important to that person for
much of their life, and maybe even shape their career. This is most
likely to happen if the youngster can touch things, even manipulate
("play with") exhibits. I fear that those professionals with the
highest aims and ideals for "their" establishment might be too close
to the details to see this in perspective. There was a comment in a
maritime history group a few months ago, from a father who had taken
his family on a tour of some maritime museums. The museum that was the
biggest hit with the children, who remembered and talked about it for
some time afterwards, was an unpretentious little museum where
visitors could handle a serving mallet, look through a telescope, heft
a caulking hammer, and roll the cannon balls around.
By now, those curators who have in the past posted indignant messages
about the abominable tactile habits of the public, and those who
insist on all their staff wearing gloves, will be on the verge of
apoplexy. Don't get me wrong: I am not suggesting that visitors should
be allowed to touch Renaissance frescos, and no one would wish to see
mediaeval ivories or textiles fumbled from sweaty hand to sweaty hand.
Clearly, many artefacts must be protected: from handling, from
environmental damage, even from light. But things like 19C heavy
engineering tools and cannon balls will come to little harm and even
if they wear out after years of constant handling, they can generally
be replaced by similar sturdy artefacts.
None of my 5 categories are mutually exclusive. A museum or gallery
can have high art, carefully conserved, researched and cherished, and
at the same time can have some touchable exhibits. It is important,
especially for the youngsters, but also for adult members of the
public who are not particularly attracted to "culture", that museums
should all try to have some accessible element of "fun". Children will
develop negative attitudes towards museums and galleries where
everything is: "Don't touch. Keep quiet. Behave nicely now..." and in
time these places may find themselves with fewer supporters.
...... Stand by to receive flak :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin H Evans e-mail: [log in to unmask] .Sun 96-05-12
111 High Street, Linton, Cambridgeshire CB1 6JT, UK
=====================================================================
|
