>On Wed, 19 Oct 1994 Key Yellis wrote: >Even if the exhibit were signed by the curator -- and I don't think NASM >does that -- it is the MUSEUM, not the curator, that presents the exhibit, >and the Smithsonian at that. Surely that makes some kind of a >difference. Moreover, think of who goes there: Almost everybody from >just about everywhere. None of us can make any assumptions whatever about >what knowledge they bring with them, their ability to evaluate critically >what they see and read and to put it into context, what the >traditional viewpoint that is being revised even was, and so on. At the >risk of sounding like Jesse Helms, I'm not convinced the veterans groups >were so very out of line. After all, even if you put out a comment book >in which I can register my anguish at what is exhibited and how it is >interpreted, the exhibit is still up when I leave the building, >essentially unchanged and with the weight of the Smithsonian's authority >behind it. A good point. Is the museum exhibition a thesis, developed by the curator, and articulated with help from a professional team or is the exhibition an institutional statement representative of those who govern, administer and support the museum. The answer I was brought up with is the former. Does that still hold up today? Are academic freedom and curatorial perogative a legitimate concern of the museum or has the exhibit become so important as an audience attraction and institutional image-definer that it is more important to please than to present. Paul Apodaca [log in to unmask]