Warning: This is another lengthy exposition, folks.

In a message dated 00-12-08 16:56:30 EST, Nesdon Booth wrote:

<< I must apologize to David for my distortion of his position. I have reread
 some of his older posts which had led me to unfairly stereotype him as
 excessively isolationist. His remarks on this issue have been consistently
 moderate, and I believe that while he does have an admitted bias toward
 preservation, he does truly support a museum's mission of exhibition and
 education. >>

Nesdon, thanks.  Apology accepted, and I thank you for your thoughtful
message.  I cringed a bit at your characterization of my "bias toward
preservation," as i think it indicates that I'm still being misunderstood.
My "bias" lies simply in (a) my contention that the traditional museum and
its collections play a unique role in the advancement and preservation of
knowledge, which differs fundamentally and qualitatively from the roles of
all other "educational" constructs, including those which mimic museums in
their programs, interests, and activities, and (b) that it is useful to
preserve distinctive language which will facilitate intelligent discourse
about "tradtional museums" without conflating them with institutions and
programs with which they share certain characteristics.

I conceive of historic artifacts as authentic evidence of the past in very
much a forensic sense.  Evidence of a crime, to be useful in a courtroom,
must be preserved intact and untainted and its chain of custody (call it
provenance) must be documented and uncompromised in order to help prove guilt
or innocence.  It may need to be scientifcally analyzed to learn more about
its composition and possible links with the suspect.  Historic artifacts in a
more general sense embody many kinds of information, sometimes of scientific
interest (geological, anthropological, chemical, technological, etc.), but
also cultural, social, and aesthetic.  Historic artifacts are evidence,
residues of the past, which increase (and often constitute the source of) our
knowledge of history.  We have documentation of the past in the form of
first-hand witness accounts, later recollections, second-hand descriptions,
scholarly interpretations, photographs and art.  Objects from the past  are
survivors, silent witnesses with stories to tell if we can decode them and
supply missing information about context, etc., etc.  Objects need to be
studied, analyzed, compared with other objects, and deconstructed in many
ways to yield information upon which we build our knowledge of the past.
They are inherently educational. .

Historic artifacts constitute a repository of information which help
historians reconstruct the past.  Historians learn to identify them and
appreciate their significance, sometimes on scientific principles, sometimes
through aesthetic understanding, sometimes intuitively, sometimes through
comparative methodologies.  Art historians learn to differentiate original
Greek sculpture from later Roman copies, and in the process learn much about
both Greek and Roman society, technical practices, ideals, and many
intangibles.  The details of analysis may be arcane and of interest only to
specialists, but the conclusions are of potential interest and impact to a
broad audience.  Historic artifacts are often neglected, vandalized, and
destroyed, thereby destroying knowledge.  Others are "restored" and repaired,
sometimes clumsily and insensitively, destroying or masking information in
the process.  Others lie unknown at the bottom of the ocean or under tons of
earth and debris, awaiting discoveries which may never occur.  Still others
are preserved intact and may find their way into museums.

"Traditional" (dare I say "true"?) museums house these residues of the past,
and if they're doing their job, make them available for study, enjoyment, and
interpretation.  In museums, scholars have access to the objects for
continued study and analysis which might not be available when they're
hoarded in private collections. Some objects are placed on public display,
augmented by explanations (labels and captions) derived from the preceding
scholarly study and interpretation.  Public display is often a highly
politicized act, and historic artifacts are sometimes subjected to
interpretive recontextualization which may enhance the educational value of
the artifacts or may disguise, mask, or misinterpret information.

Museums which collect and preserve (and may or may not display) these
objects--these direct residues of the past--contribute to our understanding
of the world and its history in ways that no other educational enterprise can
match.  It's education with a capital E.  The distinctive, fundamental,
unique role of traditional museums is to preserve and present this evidence
of the past, which is the sine qua non of much of our historical knowlege.
Only archives of original documents are like traditional museums in their
preservation of authentic originals.

Public exhibition is fraught with problems--just as the treatment, care, and
preservation of objects not on display is--but more so.  The very act of
exhibition can compromise the integrity of the objects, stimulate their
deterioration, and mislead the viewer by removing them from their original or
habitual context.  Sometimes replicas are made, whether imperfectly or
slavishly accurate, and substituted or placed with originals, confusing and
undermining the quality or quantity of information conveyed.

Despite these problems, the original artifacts of history possess an
undeniable power of authenticity and have an educational value which is
unmatched in any other form.  The traditional museums which hold these
objects in trust are true keepers of the past, whether they warehouse them in
inaccessible locations, maintain them in accessible storage or "open"
storage, display them in dull, dingy, mediocre, unattractive exhibits, or
glorify them in flashy blockbuster shows.   Museums may provide secondary
visual information about them in illustrated catalogs or website images, and
data in databases, interpretation in publications, etc.

Museums which own or hold in trust original artifacts have a complex array of
problems and issues which no other type of institution does--interrelated
questions of provenance, registration, conservation, security, safe storage,
safe display, etc. Some institutions share some of these problems, but not
all of them.  Dealers of art, antiquities, collectibles, original
manuscripts, etc., experience most of these issues on a limited temprary
basis, but handling historic artifacts as commodities for a limited time
limits responsibility.  "Collectionless museums", art galleries, and
exhibition venues which borrow artifacts for limited exhibition have
similarly limited responsibilties.

There are many ways and strategies to advance knowledge and to educate.
Libraries, traditional schools, and a wide variety of hybrid institutions and
innovative programs perform valuable services and have their place in the
constellation of education.  Effective education and the advancement of
knowledge largely depends upon talented, dedicated, imaginative individuals.
Many kinds of exhibitions of replica objects, visual aids, sensory
experiences, and other forms of non-traditional education perform valuable
services.

But traditional museums, as keepers of the actual evidence of history, are
distinctive, key institutions in the preservation and presentation of
knowledge.  Their role is unique.  How they use their objects to disseminate
knowledge and educate their constituencies is subject to debate, change,
innovation, and variable strategies.  Some do it poorly or inadequately,
others do it superbly; others risk eviscerating or compromising the innate
power and information embodied in artifacts by using them as mere
illustration or punctuation in verbose, idea-driven exhibits.  However well
or poorly they do their job, museums of historic artifacts are radically
different from all other educational insitutions.  There can well be debate
about how effective museums can really be as educational institutions;
perhaps on some levels and for some people historic artifacts can distract
and inhibit the learning process.  Perhaps all the current excitement about
museums is just a phase our culture is going through and society ultimately
will decide that we spent 'way too much money on museums in the twentieth
century and museums will revert to being mere custodians of the past.  We'll
be so surfeited with original objects from all periods, especially the
commercial detritus of the twentieth century, that we'll be sick ot if and
realize that museums, even with flashy exhibits and electronic enhancement,
never were as much fun as just experiencing directly the here and now, the
hell with the past.  Grizzled, eccentric, relic-hunting curators and bored
custodians with forklifts will extract historic objects from warehouses for a
fee on the rare occasions that anyone, primarily lawyers and grizzled,
eccentric scholars, needs a firsthand glimpse of history for some oddball
project.  And yet...

And yet what "traditional museums" have and do is unique in a very real
sense.  What is the point of conflating the distinctive role of museums with
the programs of other types of institutions, however worthy, by appropriating
the word "museum" for all of them?  What is the point of downplaying the
significance of this role?  Yes, I know about the derivation of "museum" and
that it originally did not describe what we now call a museum, but I feel
that the word has been stabilized for a fairly definitive concept for many
decades, and that that stability deserves a certain amount of linguistic
respect.  I mean that this stability has practical utility--I'm not arguing
that "museum" is some holy concept--although I do think the work of true
museums is a particularly noble endeavor.  I'm suggesting that an
overemphasis on contemporary museum exhibition values--exhibitions which in
many respects can be duplicated by institutions which are not museums--has
introduced fuzzy thinking.  My ethical concern about the fallout from this
confusion of equating "museums" with "exhibits" is that it accompanies a
trend in museums to de-emphasize their permanent collections.  If "education"
unites them, their common label is "educational institution", which is vague
enough that no one will be confused.  How does calling them all museums
facilitate discourse?

David Haberstich

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