In a message dated 00-12-05 13:51:35 EST, John Martinson wrote:

<< To me a museum is:

 A gathering place for the community
 A community/historical/national treasure
 A place of learning
 A place of knowledge
 A place where people discover who they are; of self
 A place of personal and community understanding >>
[etc.]

...to which one might add:

A place to go to the bathroom
A place to read a book
A place to meet people
A place to commit murder (see Margaret Truman's "Murder at the Smithsonian")
...etc.

The point, of course, is that many of the items on Mr. Martinson's list are
not unique to museums and hardly define a museum.  Most of them don't concern
the essence of a museum, which in my opinion, revolves around collections.
It's pleasant for museums to have such amenities as restaurants, for example,
but hardly essential. Mr. Hunter would be well advised to begin his quest
with a dictionary.

Those on the list who recall my previous posts on this topic will think,
"There he goes again," citing the dictionary definition, but I honestly think
it's sufficient.  We are so caught up in the excitement of evolving museum
traditions that we're likely to forget the fundamental issues.  The
"collectionless" museum, for example, is a contradiction in terms, however
worthy such an institution might be and however much it might depend upon
museum traditions, standards, and ideals.  We are confused about how to
define a museum precisely because we have overworked the word, massaged it
and stretched it across multiple points of reference and multiple agendas,
thereby making it a very slippery and amorphous concept.  The primary
function of language is communication, and overworked, hyperextended words
communicate less.  I think the mania for deliberately redefining words
subverts communication, and that the most satisfactory way to cope with a
rapidly evolving society, new ideas, new concepts, and new ideals is to
invent new names for them, not to stretch the old words out of shape until
you have to explain your usage just to facilitate an intelligent conversation.

The dictionaries I've consulted define a museum as an instituton which
collects and preserves historic and/or aesthetic artifacts and makes them
available for study--nothing more, nothing less.  Note that this does not
even include public display.  While public display is a logical, efficient,
and convenient way to make artifacts available for study, it does not
necessarily mean that exhibition is the essence of a museum; indeed, a
museum, by dictionary definition, is not required to do exhibitions, however
logical, beneficial, and advisable they might be.  When we mistakenly equate
museums with exhibitions, we run the risk of muddying the waters by thinking
of every exhibition as a museum.  "Exhibit" and "exhibition" are very broad
words which encompass a wide variety of installations and events; baseball
games and airshows are exhibitions, but that doesn't make them museums,
except in a metaphorical sense.  Indeed, in our zeal to produce ever more
"compelling" exhibitions, I see a trend toward making undisplayed artifacts
progressively less accessible for study, ironically undermining the essence
of a museum.

The attributes by which many would seek to define their ideal
museums--superior exhibitions, relevant outreach programs, exciting shops,
etc., etc., are like frosting on a cake.  For many the frosting may even be
the best part, and a cake without frosting may be a lousy cake, but frosting
doesn't define a cake.

Since the issue of the non-profit status of museums in the AAM and ICOM
"definitions" has been mentioned, I'll close by saying that I think this
concept further complicates matters unnecessarily and weighs down the basic
definition with extra baggage.  ICOM and AAM are stipulating terms of
membership and outlining their area of concern, which they have every right
to do, but I don't think they have a right to refine and limit the dictionary
definition, which is meant to be a description of common usage.  Perhaps
that's overstating the case: the opinons of professional groups can and
should have an impact on language usage in their field, and terminology may
evolve in time as a result of that impact, but I believe in a critical
approach to language.  These organizations would do well to divorce their
preferences from their definitions.  It seems to me that the attempt to
"define" museums as non-profit entities produces awkward results.  There are
profit-making institutions which in all other respects function as
museums--what do we call them if they're not museums?  It would be simpler to
subdivide museums into profit vs. non-profit.

Just my opinions, of course, but I hope well reasoned.  I await the deluge of
disagreement.

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).