Dear Colleagues
Like so many, I have been fascinated with the discussions about a revised museum
definition. I think the progress has been wonderful, but, like Bernice and others,
I am concerned that we have a short, well written definition. To this end, I
propose a few, small changes:
Museums are permanent institutions that serve society by promoting knowledge,
appreciation and conservation of the natural , cultural and scientiic world through
the collections, memories, sites and processes they care for, research, and
interpret for public benefit.
Ann Davis
Gary Edson wrote:
> On 11/9/03 11:01 PM, "Bernice Murphy.com.au" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues:
> We have a revised version of museum definition Suggestion 1 that I perhaps
> missed in my tabulations. The two versions of Bernice's definition are as
> follows:
>
> Suggestion 1:
> Museums are institutions that serve society by promoting knowledge,
> appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the cultural and
> scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories, sites and
> processes they care for, research, and interpret for public benefit.
>
> Suggestion 1A:
> Museums are PERMANENT institutions that serve society by promoting
> knowledge, appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the
> cultural and scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories,
> sites and processes they care for, research, and interpret for public
> benefit.
>
> The difference is the addition of the word "permanent." This word has been
> discussed, and apparently, the need for its inclusion is arguable. Questions
> posed include:
> What does permanent mean?
> Do we mean a permanent "institution" as an physical entity?
> Does the sense of "permanent" mean tangible in which case does that exclude
> virtual or digital museums?
> How long is permanent? (The concept of holding collections "in perpetuity"
> [meaning forever] has been abandoned by many museums due to the unavoidable
> fact of physical deterioration [whether from "inherent vice" or molecular
> activity], as well as the need to remove objects for a variety of reasons
> including repatriation.) Do those very real and often necessary situations
> negate the concept or intent of permanence?
> Is permanence a physiological, psychological, or legal attribute?
> Is permanence determined by the laws of the country in which the museum is
> established? If it is a political or governmental decision can ICOM properly
> include that requirement in the definition?
> How is permanence guaranteed?
> In some countries, the government places objects in a particular museum, and
> may remove them as they wish. Is that factor in conflict with the notion of
> permanent?
>
> In many instances, permanence is determined by the enabling documentation
> used to establish the museum. The concept of permanence is qualified by
> having a clear statement of "dissolution." What is to happen to the
> resources of the museum when it can no longer care for the items placed in
> its custody. If we are considering this approach to the concept of
> permanence, then we must give attention to our previous discussions about
> non-collecting institutions, as well as museums and centers that have
> instructional exhibitions intended for use by the visitors. (I am thinking
> specifically of science centers.)
>
> I am not speaking for or against the word "permanent" rather I am
> anticipating the discussion from the membership when the definition is
> proposed for adoption.
>
> Thank you for your consideration of this issue!
> Gary Edson
>
> > Responding to Milton Bloch (Friday 7 Nov 03 ) and request to Gary Edson
> > (responding to your message Friday 7 Nov 03):
> >
> > Dear Milton and Gary,
> > As I remarked to colleagues in my last message offered to the ICOM-L list,
> > I also have had my own regrets each time I saw definition #1 again - that I
> > had let the word "permanent" fall away in my effort to get the definition
> > as short as possible.
> >
> > In fact my second (current) version is both shorter and slightly improves
> > the conceptual arrangement of what I proposed at first. I also believe -
> > having reflected on other opinions offered - that whatever new definition
> > is finally adopted, it should not be soft, abstract or vague, but clear and
> > strong. I stress 'strong' .
> >
> > I do believe "permanent" is better restored.
> >
> > Therefore my final request, Gary, is:
> >
> >> Suggestion #1 to include 'permanent' and therefore to read:
> >> Museums are permanent institutions that serve society by promoting knowledge,
> >> appreciation and conservation of the natural world and the cultural and
> >> scientific heritage of humanity through collections, memories, sites and
> >> processes they care for, research, and interpret for public benefit.
> >
> > Responding once more to Hans-Christoph von Imhoff (Thursday 6 Nov
> > 03).....and reference to Peter Tyrell's message earlier (Mon. 3 Nov 03):
> >
> > You are right, Hans-Christoph, and I thank your for raising it: I did
> > misunderstand Peter Tyrell's earlier reference, reading his message
> > quickly, and assumed 'document' to be used as a noun.
> > But I confirm that it IS very commonly used in English also as a verb.
> >
> > However I continue to be of the view that this important function - of
> > 'documenting' collections - is covered by the nuances of two terms already
> > used in the suggestion I have offered:
> >
> > 1. 'care for': if we work with the public's already well-developed ideas
> > about museums, 'care for' includes making good arrangements and good
> > records of things that come into museums' control, temporarily or permanently;
> > 2. 'research': again arouses existing public knowledge about museums -
> > which generally includes the idea that research would involve books
> > (libraries) and record-keeping.
> >
> > Therefore I would still prefer to view 'documenting' as covered implicitly,
> > and not wish to push it up to be included in the main definition.
> > However, by restoring 'permanent' Peter T would no doubt be pleased, given
> > his concern about this value appearing clearly.
> > Thank you for your comments.
> > Bernice Murphy
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
> > archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
> archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change ICOM-L subscription options, unsubscribe, and search the
archives at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html
|
