In a message dated 01-01-08 04:51:23 EST, Audra Oliver writes:

<<    I must concede to David that we can easily fall into pompus twit mode.
 Have we, with our arguments that we are "the" home for significant items,
 taken our foundation and inflated it to that point? Or do significant items
 belong in museums as the keepers of our heritage and culture?  Are private
 collectors another filter? Do they pick up what we deem beneath us and
 surrender it in the future when we covet it? >>

Indeed, the very existence of many museums depended upon the foresight,
knowledge, connoisseurship, love and dedication--and sometimes arrogance and
greed--of private collectors.  One can think of many private collectors who
amassed great art collections, or a wide variety of other types of
collections, and eventually created and/or funded museums to house them.
This is one reason museums should never disdain, criticize, or minimize the
importance of private collectors--it can be a good way to eliminate your
institution from the running when a private collector decides to part with
his/her treasures.  And there is nothing wrong--absolutely nothing
whatsoEVER--with being a responsible private collector who never donates to a
public institution.  (There are many ways to be a responsible collector and
share the wealth, so to speak, with the rest of the world.  There is no law,
including any moral law, which stipulates that a collector MUST donate all
the goodies to charitable trusts.)

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . 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).