Carol Morgan ([log in to unmask], Sat May 04) has raised the interesting question of what really makes a museum. I am not offering a direct answer, but am going to make a wider point: what are museums and galleries for? From the viewpoint of a layman, who has never been employed in a museum or gallery but who has had a lifelong fondness for visiting them, their purpose could fall into one or more of the following broad classes: 1. Storage and conservation of artefacts and archives. 2. Research and scholarship, in-house and extramural. 3. Education: formal and informal at different levels. 4. Pleasure and Entertainment. 5. Inspiration. All these 5 categories merge to some extent. None are mutually exclusive. Education and Entertainment are particularly blurred: as the public drifts through an exhibition, some people will pay closer attention than others, and learn something. Others will treat it as a social occasion: chat, glance at the exhibits with pleasure perhaps, and then seek out the coffee bar with a happy feeling of having done something cultural. It is category 5 that particulary concerns me: that a child who is brought in may find something to trigger a new enthusiasm, an interest or even a passion that will grow to be important to that person for much of their life, and maybe even shape their career. This is most likely to happen if the youngster can touch things, even manipulate ("play with") exhibits. I fear that those professionals with the highest aims and ideals for "their" establishment might be too close to the details to see this in perspective. There was a comment in a maritime history group a few months ago, from a father who had taken his family on a tour of some maritime museums. The museum that was the biggest hit with the children, who remembered and talked about it for some time afterwards, was an unpretentious little museum where visitors could handle a serving mallet, look through a telescope, heft a caulking hammer, and roll the cannon balls around. By now, those curators who have in the past posted indignant messages about the abominable tactile habits of the public, and those who insist on all their staff wearing gloves, will be on the verge of apoplexy. Don't get me wrong: I am not suggesting that visitors should be allowed to touch Renaissance frescos, and no one would wish to see mediaeval ivories or textiles fumbled from sweaty hand to sweaty hand. Clearly, many artefacts must be protected: from handling, from environmental damage, even from light. But things like 19C heavy engineering tools and cannon balls will come to little harm and even if they wear out after years of constant handling, they can generally be replaced by similar sturdy artefacts. None of my 5 categories are mutually exclusive. A museum or gallery can have high art, carefully conserved, researched and cherished, and at the same time can have some touchable exhibits. It is important, especially for the youngsters, but also for adult members of the public who are not particularly attracted to "culture", that museums should all try to have some accessible element of "fun". Children will develop negative attitudes towards museums and galleries where everything is: "Don't touch. Keep quiet. Behave nicely now..." and in time these places may find themselves with fewer supporters. ...... Stand by to receive flak :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin H Evans e-mail: [log in to unmask] .Sun 96-05-12 111 High Street, Linton, Cambridgeshire CB1 6JT, UK =====================================================================