I am delighted that this discussion about access to museum and archival
collections by lawyers is taking place because it highlights what to me is
the heart of the museum enterprise--collecting and preserving evidence of the
past for study.  I have always maintained that museum collections embody
historical evidence in almost a forensic sense, but perhaps I was too
timid--I should have deleted the "almost".  Despite the pertinent and
well-stated cautions about access to collections by lawyers, it seems to me
that it would be ethically and intellectually indefensible to try to deny
such access.  Museum and archival collections of historical artifacts exist
to facilitate the study of the past for a variety of reasons.  As it has been
correctly stated, lawyers and litigants are taxpayers and members of the
public too, and an institution probably runs a greater risk of being sued or
sanctioned for NOT providing impartial access to historical evidence than for
providing it.  The point about museums maintaining a policy of neutrality
regarding the use of their collections by lawyers is well taken, and I would
suggest that such a policy be extended in some measure to other publics and
audiences of museums as well.  In our zeal to proactively educate and/or
entertain museum visitors with our brilliant exhibition concepts, let's not
forget that there are people who want to study or contemplate historical,
scientific, or creative objects without reference to someone else's
interpretation or contextualization.

It is fashionable to condemn or criticize the motives of "traditional"
museums of the 19th century as "temples" of art, industry, or science with
condescending attitudes toward their publics, and to decry their attempts to
impose taste and ideology.  Yet contemporary museums, with their fervor about
"interpreting" objects and "educating" visitors through entertaining
exhibitions, often simply seek to impose alternative ideologies.  Ideologies,
agendas, and the desire to produce interesting narratives in exhibitions
inevitably inform or determine collecting and exhibition plans, and there is
no way around that reality.  Since you can't collect everything (as Stephen
Wright might say, where would you put it?), you have to be selective, and
this selection process will vary with individual curatorial perspectives and
the tenor of the times.  Yet those objects which we collect often have other
stories to tell and contain information and evidence in addition to the
stories, interpretations, and aspects which we want to present.  I think it's
part of a museum professional's job to make those artifacts available and to
facilitate research and uses which don't necessarily match our own selective
agendas, interpretations, and exhibition concepts.  A good museum can
be--perhaps should  be--far richer than the exhibits it presents.

This all ties in rather nicely with discussions about "collectionless"
museums.  Not only does a "museum" without a collection of original artifacts
have few concerns about conservation, issues of legal ownership, stewardship,
and the like, it need not fear incursions of lawyers seeking evidence.  A
"restaurant" that didn't serve food wouldn't have to worry about
inadvertently poisoning patrons, annoying visits from health inspectors,
etc., either, would it?

Just some not-so-random thoughts as a footnote to the more specific
discussion, which I obviously found provocative.  Pardon my tangent...

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/museum-l.html. 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).