On Fri, 24 Jun 1994, Robert Guralnick responded to my comment:
        Overall, museums are highly respected as sources of information and
        enlightenment, but they are marginalized whenever questions of
        allocations of resources (time or money -- either personal, corporate
        orgovernmental) come into question.
>
        Robert stated: I agree with this too, but I think it misses the point
        of Jim's comments.  As I understood, Jim Swanson does NOT consider
        museums as being highly respected sources of information and
        enlightment (sic).  THIS IS A CRUCIAL DISTINCTION and I dont want it
        lost in the shuffle.  Jim's point is that museums are just another
        entity trying to convince the world that it has something worthwhile,
        or at best, a place to store old artifacts.  I think this is a very
        negative and inaccurate description of museums.  The question is not
        marginalization by outside influences but the value of museums in this
        world...
>
        Although I too evaluate the tone of Swanson's communication to
have been "negative," what I contend with here in your response is a continuing
 
internalist-externalist dichotomy: museums vs "outside influences."  Museums
are in and of the world, they are socially constructed and socially-bound
institutions, occupied by staffs and volunteers and members and donors and
such, all of whom are continually behaving within cultural conventions and
norms and social expectations and rules.  Any such institution is always
in the process of convincing others to approve its existence so that
it can secure what it needs to "live well and prosper."
 
In historical context, a postmodern world occupied by C-SPAN and MTV and
timeless  spaceless valueless events and commentary (this of course reads
like an oxymoron), the notion of archiving of ideas, any ideas, seems fated
to have little chance of creating or maintaining value.