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