Hello all at Museum-L, Great to see the current discussion about "museums wihout collections" and interactive/children's museums here on the list. As long as discussions like these occur, at least the intellectual future of museums should look promising! ("evil MacMuseums" or not!) There is sometimes a tendency among museum/heritage professionals, to hide behind "history", "artifacts", "material objects". As if this would automatically imply a more "objective" preservation of the cultural heritage ( with "objective history" as a result? ). Related to this attitude you often find a slight distaste for contemporary life, its' society and cultural issues. Hiding behind "preservation" can mean unnecessary fear of change. Some of the views expressed in this current discussion reflect this attitude. Museums may be about collecting, sharing and spreading knowledge about collected/assembled culture (places we visit or use to tap into our "collective memory"). But museums are not primarily concerned about preserving "the past" for the peoples of the past! It's primary concerns lie in presenting it for people of today and of the future! I would argue, since museums are made up of both staff and visitors, they actually belong to contemporary culture and contemporary society (what is a museum without staff or visitors? Possibly an unmanned, temperated storage space.) There is a distinct social dimension to why, where and how we interact with our collective past. In my opinion museums are therefore inseparable from contemporary life, culture and society - call them art galleries, childrens' museum/exploratoriums or archaeological sites. We have yet to see museums with 17th century original artifacts, curated by original 17th century staff!! (cloning, anyone?) Is this what the museum community is striving for? This is often the dilemma for anyone associating themselves with interpretation and preservation of heritage. When and where does history "begin"? Am I history? What is authenticity? Do computers belong in museums? The dilemma lies in getting to terms with being part of a contemporary world. To find that "history" may also include "the contemporary". For instance, take the situation in preservation of the architectural heritage. During post-war times, concrete tower blocks and shopping centres from the 50's, 60's and 70's were deemed as being unsightly with no physical or aesthetical merits whatsoever. Legislation in European countries has often set up a timespan of at least 30 years, in order to grant a building "historical merit" of some kind. As a result, these post-war buildings and the architecture and planning efforts associated with them, are are today (30 years later) regarded as a natural part of our common arhitectural heritage and are being preserved (The organisation of DOCOMOMO works under UNESCO) Suddenly "modern" became "history"! But is there really such a time-divide? Do we need it? Here's the point: being part of contemporary life and culture often makes it difficult to discern contemporary cultural patterns in our society. More important; the changing of those patterns. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try make out those "patterns" or changes. Can computers be good for museums and exhibitions? How do visitors experience and react to information and knowledge? Two Swedish ethnologists, Billy Ehn and Orvar Lofgren, once published the book "Kulturanalys", translated freely as "Interpretive analysis of cultural patterns". Ehn and Lofgren have developed a method for studying contemporary cultural meanings, by working with themes(not uncommon in exhibitions). The hardest part when searching for significant cultural meanings in contemporary life, is to disconnect from your own cultural being. It envolves going deep in to what seem to be "trivial aspects" of everyday life. In a way becoming the observer of yourself. Working with themes like "male/female", "health/sickness", "wealth/poverty", may help in the process. The themes are continously matched with historical data, critically analyzed and interpreted to form possible patterns. So where does the museum definition come in? Without going into lengthy analytical methods like the one described above, I believe the museum community should recognize more that as heritage professionals we are not detached from culture or "history" - we are in it. And the way in which we shape our institutions and perform in knowledge-sharing is also a form of culture, belonging to both "history" and "contemporary society". Not either or. Then I believe the heritage community will find it easier to come to terms with contemporary phenomenons, like the use of "flashy media" and popular presentation formats to present history - now. Museums are about change! Paul Henningsson, Sweden (freelancer in heritage multimedia) --------------------------------------------------- Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com ========================================================= Important Subscriber Information: The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://museums.state.nm.us/nmmnh/museum-l.html. You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes). If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).