Just a thought from an undergrad museology course:  we were taught that
an exhibit implied one, self-contained unit of display and interpretation
on a specific topic (for example, an exhibit of Viking costume), and that
an exhibition referred to the integrated system/series of exhibits
covering a larger topic (for example, and exhibition on Viking life and
society).  My understanding regarding art museums was that one artwork
could make up an entire exhibit (along with its interpretive label copy),
so t hat you would have "American Gothic" as an exhibit in the Art
Institute of CHicago, while the same museum would have an exhibition of
Monet's Haystacks paintings.  In other settings, it would seem more
difficult to have one object stand alone as an entire exhibit (one
projectile point does not an exhibit make).  Just my take, though.
Others surely have other opinions, and perhaps it doesn't actually matter.

Stephanie Coon
[log in to unmask]

On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Hildegard wrote:

> What *is* the difference between an exhibit and an exhibition?
>
> I have always thought (and had it firmly engrained in my education) that an
> "art" museum has exhibitions, and exhibit implies a historical, natural
> history, material culture, etc. museum.
>
> Now, when I hear the word exhibit being used to refer to contemporary art,
> I cringe.  Trouble is, I've recently changed jobs and everyone on the staff
> of my present museum uses the word exhibit in just such a way.
>
> Any thoughts on the current wisdom, or this all neither here nor there, and
> just an elitist assumption on the part of "art" museologists?
>
> Barbra Brady, Curator
> Art Museum of Missoula
>
> Babs Brady
> [log in to unmask]
>