Dear Colleagues Like so many, I have been fascinated with the discussions about a revised museum definition. I think the progress has been wonderful, but, like Bernice and others, I am concerned that we have a short, well written definition. To this end, I propose a few, small changes: Museums are permanent institutions that serve society by promoting knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural , cultural and scientiic world through the collections, memories, sites and processes they care for, research, and interpret for public benefit. Ann Davis Gary Edson wrote: > On 11/9/03 11:01 PM, "Bernice Murphy.com.au" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues: > We have a revised version of museum definition Suggestion 1 that I perhaps > missed in my tabulations. The two versions of Bernice's definition are as > follows: > > Suggestion 1: > Museums are institutions that serve society by promoting knowledge, > appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the cultural and > scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories, sites and > processes they care for, research, and interpret for public benefit. > > Suggestion 1A: > Museums are PERMANENT institutions that serve society by promoting > knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the > cultural and scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories, > sites and processes they care for, research, and interpret for public > benefit. > > The difference is the addition of the word "permanent." This word has been > discussed, and apparently, the need for its inclusion is arguable. Questions > posed include: > What does permanent mean? > Do we mean a permanent "institution" as an physical entity? > Does the sense of "permanent" mean tangible in which case does that exclude > virtual or digital museums? > How long is permanent? (The concept of holding collections "in perpetuity" > [meaning forever] has been abandoned by many museums due to the unavoidable > fact of physical deterioration [whether from "inherent vice" or molecular > activity], as well as the need to remove objects for a variety of reasons > including repatriation.) Do those very real and often necessary situations > negate the concept or intent of permanence? > Is permanence a physiological, psychological, or legal attribute? > Is permanence determined by the laws of the country in which the museum is > established? If it is a political or governmental decision can ICOM properly > include that requirement in the definition? > How is permanence guaranteed? > In some countries, the government places objects in a particular museum, and > may remove them as they wish. Is that factor in conflict with the notion of > permanent? > > In many instances, permanence is determined by the enabling documentation > used to establish the museum. The concept of permanence is qualified by > having a clear statement of "dissolution." What is to happen to the > resources of the museum when it can no longer care for the items placed in > its custody. If we are considering this approach to the concept of > permanence, then we must give attention to our previous discussions about > non-collecting institutions, as well as museums and centers that have > instructional exhibitions intended for use by the visitors. (I am thinking > specifically of science centers.) > > I am not speaking for or against the word "permanent" rather I am > anticipating the discussion from the membership when the definition is > proposed for adoption. > > Thank you for your consideration of this issue! > Gary Edson > > > Responding to Milton Bloch (Friday 7 Nov 03 ) and request to Gary Edson > > (responding to your message Friday 7 Nov 03): > > > > Dear Milton and Gary, > > As I remarked to colleagues in my last message offered to the ICOM-L list, > > I also have had my own regrets each time I saw definition #1 again - that I > > had let the word "permanent" fall away in my effort to get the definition > > as short as possible. > > > > In fact my second (current) version is both shorter and slightly improves > > the conceptual arrangement of what I proposed at first. I also believe - > > having reflected on other opinions offered - that whatever new definition > > is finally adopted, it should not be soft, abstract or vague, but clear and > > strong. I stress 'strong' . > > > > I do believe "permanent" is better restored. > > > > Therefore my final request, Gary, is: > > > >> Suggestion #1 to include 'permanent' and therefore to read: > >> Museums are permanent institutions that serve society by promoting knowledge, > >> appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the cultural and > >> scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories, sites and > >> processes they care for, research, and interpret for public benefit. > > > > Responding once more to Hans-Christoph von Imhoff (Thursday 6 Nov > > 03).....and reference to Peter Tyrell's message earlier (Mon. 3 Nov 03): > > > > You are right, Hans-Christoph, and I thank your for raising it: I did > > misunderstand Peter Tyrell's earlier reference, reading his message > > quickly, and assumed 'document' to be used as a noun. > > But I confirm that it IS very commonly used in English also as a verb. > > > > However I continue to be of the view that this important function - of > > 'documenting' collections - is covered by the nuances of two terms already > > used in the suggestion I have offered: > > > > 1. 'care for': if we work with the public's already well-developed ideas > > about museums, 'care for' includes making good arrangements and good > > records of things that come into museums' control, temporarily or permanently; > > 2. 'research': again arouses existing public knowledge about museums - > > which generally includes the idea that research would involve books > > (libraries) and record-keeping. > > > > Therefore I would still prefer to view 'documenting' as covered implicitly, > > and not wish to push it up to be included in the main definition. > > However, by restoring 'permanent' Peter T would no doubt be pleased, given > > his concern about this value appearing clearly. > > Thank you for your comments. > > Bernice Murphy > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > > Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the > > archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the > archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html