The problem of defining "what is a museum?" is that whatever definition
ICOM, AAM or whomever else devises will always have organizations that
consider themselves to be museums that fall short of the definition.
Take for example the AAM definition of a museum as "an organized and
permanent non-profit institution, essentially educational or aesthetic in
purpose, with professional staff, which owns and utilizes tangible
objects, cares for them, and exhibits them to the public on some regular
schedule." There are certainly some organizations considered to be
museums in the United States that have little or no collections such as
some art centers, science centers, and planetariums. (By the way... this
is taken from Edward Alexander's Museums In Motion)

So, yes, I stick to my assertion that Madame Tussaud's should be
considered a museum.  It does have "collections," can be considered to
be "educational or aesthetic in purpose," and I'm sure has to have some
form of "professional staff," etc.  The only thing lacking is the
non-profit status, but then again since the Madame Tussaud's I'm talking
about is in London and this status does not apply (from my experiences
anyway most British museums charge admission, with some admission prices being
no more hefty than the charge for Madame Tussaud's).

Needless to say, fine if anyone out there personally doesn't regard
Madame Tussaud's as a museum.  I never expected the response I got!  I
for one, however, have my own opinion and do not believe that our
American bias over definitions should be applied outside our borders.

Laura McMann
Museum Studies Program
George Washington Univ.
<[log in to unmask]>