>>> Byron Johnson <[log in to unmask]> 28/July/1996 08:13pm >>> In reality, the role of the curator has a lot to do with the mission and customer base of the museum. If 90% of the museum audience visits for educational leisure time activities (i.e. exhibits and programs), then collecting will be co-equal or of secondary imnportance. I do not understand why the character of the public that a museum serves should effect the importance of its collections? No matter how central its audiences are, and I do believe that museums exist today primarily for the public and not its collections, this need not decrease the importance of collections. After all without them wouldn't museums just be like any other theme park-don't they put on exhibitions for both education and entertainment. In SA, where musems are seriously on the brown bread line and have much to prove to maintain their existence, their is a tendancy to react to the complete lack of concern for the public shown by museums in the past by focussing almost entirely on this aspect of their work. It seems like an over-repeated statement but what makes museums special from other cultural and educational institutions are their collection. So why must it always be an either or debate-collections vs education/PR? Aren't they integral to each other? Kathryn Mathers Pretoria