I have been enjoying this discussion because I think it really shows how much
the role of museums in society has changed, as well as how much we really
haven't changed with time.

I was really struck by Julia's statement of "inculcation of the middle-class
ideal to the masses" perception, something that really is a hold over from the
19th century. Museums grew and flourished in the 19th century (at least in
parts of Europe) because museums were viewed as a way to give the "unwashed
masses" a taste of culture. At the risk of sounding cynical, don't we still do
that to some degree even in the 1990's. Maybe not overtly, but certainly in our
desire to serve society. And we are serving a society that cannot agree on what
our cultural stories are or should be.

I like the idea that museums are moving towards being venues where all of
society has a voice, but it seems to me, as others have mentioned, that giving
voice is not the same as outright endorsement. We really walk a fine line in
the preparing exhibits, and it is a fine line separating various viper filled
pits. We must give voice without sacrificing good scholarship, appease donors
who may not like controversy, entertain and educate those who come through our
doors and visit our displays, and continue to justify our existence and value
to legislative bodies. Not an easy task at all.

This whole discussion has been great!

--john chadwick
[log in to unmask]