Greetings, Museum-L-ers!

I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my query a couple weeks ago
about public knowledge of/interest in museum behind-the-scenes activities.
I received some very thoughtful, interesting comments.  Our thread was even
quoted in the Newsletter of the Illinois Heritage Association!

In summary, all of the responses seemed to have two things in common:
1) Everyone agreed that it is important for the public to understand our
behind-the-scenes activities.  Many offered anecdotal evidence of successful
exhibits and programs on these themes.  2) Everyone who answered was a
museum professional who already understands museum-based collections and
research, thinks they're important, and works in the field not for money (as
other
threads have established), but out of a commitment to these principles.

Is this what they mean by "a biased sample"?

I of course agree with everything that's been said.  I, too, work in a
museum, know about collections-based research, and believe it is very
important.  But I have my doubts as to whether our audience wants or needs
to know about it.  Are we in our self-referential exhibits and programs,
like this thread, merely preaching to the converted?

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.  When I buy a book, I have
no particular interest in Gutenberg and the history of books in Eropean
tradition; or in the business of publishing (setting type, printing,
marketing finished books, etc.); or even in the author him/herself, beyond
a tiny blurb on the back jacket.  That's not why I buy books.  I buy them
to read what the author has written.  And if every book contatined these
other distractions, I'd get rather annoyed.

Will this information make me a better consumer?  Will I buy more books,
or encourage my friends to buy them, because I have this background?
Will it make me a better reader?  Will I understand the contents of the
book better if I know the process that went into making it?

By foisting this information on the unsuspecting reader, what need is
filled -- beyond the publisher's self-gratification?

If publishers want a larger book-buying audience, or a more loyal audience,
or a "better" one -- however that may be defined -- would they not reach
those objectives most effectively by simply publishing better books?  Which
is what the book-buying audience buys, anyway.

Substitute "museum professional" for "book publisher," and tell me if the
analogy holds any water?  Or am I all wet?

Yours,
Gene

Eugene W. Dillenburg
Coordinator, Special Projects
Exhibits Department
The Field Museum of Natural History
Chicago, Illinois  60605-2496
V: (312) 922-9410 x636
F: (312) 922-6973
E: [log in to unmask]

"Never pay more than minimum wage for a shirt."

                                -- Bruce Elliott