At the risk of upsetting those non-collecting organisations calling
themselves museums, I have to come out in favour of the "museums must
have collections" camp. In most cases this also means that the
institution not only maintains its existing collection but keeps adding
to it (within a carefully defined acquisition and collections care
policy) and researching it. If an institution exhibiting objects doesn't
have its own collection then it's not a museum, it's a gallery. The
owning and maintenance of a collection is the crux of the museum. To be
a museum rather than just a collection requires the institution to
interpret and display the items it holds to the public for their
education, entertainment, etc. The UK Museums Association's definition
sums up a museum as "an institution which collects, preserves, exhibits
and interprets material evidence and associated information for the
public benefit." That seems to say it all.

Does this just make me a reactionary? I gather from the postings I've
seen that the US experience is much less coherent than the one suggested
above, and all manner of institutions can call themselves museums, and
justify the name too.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * < > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael Cooper
Nottingham Museums Registrar                   [log in to unmask]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * < > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *