Jason Jones wrote: “The following hinges on: I don't believe the dresses were museum objects.” and goes on to conclude that it “wasn’t harming anything”.

But that’s an assumption that you have no evidence for – the evidence of impropriety was the blogger’s own statement “My friend Lesley and I used to work at a museum and one day after work we snuck some brilliant dresses off some mannequins”.

Textile collections are incredibly fragile, and historic clothing worn for the trivial reason of a few photographs in a blog was without a doubt damaged – stress, sweat, grass, dirt - without the consent of the museum. It is inexcusable, and it’s not art, or at least not art that should be supported by museum professionals.

If the items were reproductions, fine, or the blogger’s own vintage, OK, but that’s not what she said.

Costume collections seem to tempt people more than other sorts of objects. It’s a struggle for those who manage collections to protect them from inappropriate and damaging wear.

And that has nothing to do with creative expression, or education. There are professional and appropriate ways to share clothing collections with the public. This is not one of them.

Carol Ely

Louisville

The following hinges on: I don't believe the dresses were museum objects. As explained before.

Considering they took it down off the original site, the way I see it: this group of museum professionals just helped to censor an artist's creative expression.  An expression the wasn't harming anything, but the museum professionals' own sense of decorum regarding the sacredness of language about collections. Even if it was "real", shouldn't museum professionals know how important it is to challenge popular conceptions? Were would we be without artists and academics challenging our beliefs?

I find condemning artist expression of this nature to be a very slippery slope. Were does it end? No more loaning of objects? No receptions in galleries? No more visitors in the museum?

How do we use our objects to educate, if we can't use our objects (or in this case the idea of the object)?

We should protect artistic expression (especially challenging expression), and find ways to use to create an educational dialog - not keep it from being seen.


I'm 100% for protecting our collections. I'm 100% for protecting artistic expression. I'm 100% for using objects and ideas to educate.

I believe more than 100% that museums' have an obligation to make sure these 3 happen, and never disappear. Even at our own expense.


I think this points to the larger issue of museum survival. If museum professionals and current practices can't be questioned (especially artistically), then how do we expect to adapt our institutions to meet the demands of a changing society? 



Jason

--

GREAT MUSEUMS
 
             

To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1