After all the discussion about this issue, I appreciate Weeks' assertion
that "it is always appropriate to give consideration to all parties involved."

I have been involved in the design of a number of buildings/exhibits/work
spaces within museums in the U.S.  My personal experience suggests that
architects and museum staff all too often come to the table with
interpretations and expectations which they are unable to resolve.

Architects have the knowledge of building materials; museum staff have the
knowledge of artifacts; conservators have the knowledge of artifact
materials.

Sometimes these areas of knowledge are mutually exculsive.  An architect
may design for light; museum staff may design for interpretation;
conservators may design for the ages.

You can have two out of three.

Three out of three if the light/temperature/humidity is controlled within
currently accepted standards.

From my personal experience our Canadian colleagues are to be complemented.
They have considered the input from all available sources and have made
decisions which make the best compromises on behalf of the public *and* the
artifacts in their care.

Jack

>From:    "Ross Weeks Jr." <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: controversy

>I believe that a museum -- as a public trust -- ought to be as inclusive as
>possible of  relevant viewpoints and perspectives.  From that follows the
>policy that in a "public" controversy (as opposed to a purely internal one),
>it is always appropriate to give consideration to all parties involved.
>This does not mean that it is necessary to follow their advice, but at least
>to listen to it and acknowledge them.

Jack C. Thompson
Thompson Conservation Lab
7549 N. Fenwick
Portland, Oregon  97217

503/735-3942  (voice/fax)

www.teleport.com/~tcl

"The lyfe so short; the craft so long to lerne."

Chaucer, _The Parlement of Foules_ 1386.