Just to put in my two cents worth:
I visited the storage area of my local art museum for the first time just
this week.  I fell in love with it and actually found it just as interesting
as what was in the gallery portion of the museum.  Perhaps this was a
combination of "treasure hunting" as well as an educational fascination with
the objects that are rarely seen by the general public.  Studying lesser
known pieces is valuable for a variety of reasons already mentioned by Mr
Haberstich (although I realize that all of the pieces down there were not
necessarily lesser known)  However, Mr. Martinson can not be totally wrong
for being concerned with the public's view of the museum or the collection.
After all, it is true that not everyone will have the time or the ambition
to research every piece.  Therefore, it seems to me that the museum has
several roles.  First, to maintain and continue to study the information
that already exists about art and art history, and second, to provide an
educational and exciting place for visitors to come and learn.
Christian Trabue
[log in to unmask]
 >From: "David E. Haberstich" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Definition of a MUSEUM
>Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:29:18 EST
>
>In a message dated 00-12-06 10:58:37 EST, John Martinson wrote:
>
><< And
>  not every "John Q. Public" is going to go do research, more come to see
>  things that are on exhibit.  They really don't care what is stored back
>in
>the  vaults or available for research.
>
>  It is not looking at the "dictionary" for terms, but understanding what
>the
>  public sees and wants a museum to be.  The public and "education" is the
>focus of
>  what the museum is about, and not just having a "collection" that sits
>waiting
>  for someone to dig through piles of dust.  Such a collection is useless.
>
>  I think some of your thoughts are back in the stone age, and opening up
>  the mind <<click click>> helps one see that museums are "public"
>  institutions, than dusty rooms (which was one of my definitions used)
>full of
>  old objects....  >>
>
>Well, John, I have this stone-age idea that the historic artifacts
>collected
>by museums are evidence of the past and are equally valuable for either
>public exhibition or more esoteric scholarship.  Many museum exhibitions
>are
>utterly dependent upon the expertise of scholars who brush away the "piles
>of
>dust" in order to make sense of the past and discern and interpret objects
>which will resonate with the public when they are placed on exhibition.
>Some
>artifacts are not pretty or sexy enough for display, it's true, but they
>help
>provide the knowledge and context upon which exhibitions are based.  I'm
>not
>sure what class of objects or "collections" you deem "useless" (care to
>elaborate?), but I find your prejudice a curious, although not uncommon,
>phenomenon among short-sighted museum folks.
>
>My office is located on an exhibit floor of the National Museum of American
>History, so I'm accessible to the public and I get a lot of feedback from
>people who drop in every week to ask why they can't find certain objects on
>display that they expected to see.  They're generally fascinated to learn
>that the majority of the objects in our collections are not on display and
>they want to know more about what's behind the scenes.  They ARE interested
>in knowing what's in storage (and question decisions not to put on exhibit
>certain objects which would interest them'), in contrast to your
>assumptions,
>unsupported by evidence, documentary, statistical, or anecdotal. This tells
>me that we're missing great opportunities to inform them about how museums
>operate, how they collect, and how they determine what to display.  The
>nearby Presidency show, which attracts crowds, contains many objects which
>formerly were in long-term storage--things which some staff mistakenly
>assumed no one wanted to see--or which they didn't want to show because
>they
>didn't fit a curatorial agenda.  Do you assume that people simply don't
>care
>about what isn't on exhibition, regardless of its nature, or are you
>assuming
>that museums can automatically be relied upon to exhibit the most
>interesting
>stuff and that anything not selected must have been rejected because it's
>obvious dross?  Would you assume, for example, that if for some reason the
>National Museum of Natural History failed to exhibit the Hope Diamond and
>consigned it to "dusty" storage that no one would be interested in it?
>
>In my years of direct contact with members of our museum visitors--due to
>my
>fortuitous office location--I have some understanding of "what the public
>sees and wants a museum to be" and I can tell you that it often doesn't
>match
>what the staff wants them to see and wants the museum to be.
>
>The relationship between research or study collections and public
>exhibition
>is pretty fluid in many museums.  Something in storage this year may be
>selected for exhibition next year.  One reason for special, short-term
>exhibitions is precisely to draw upon material normally "gathering dust" in
>storage in order to highlight it and rotate it into view.  While it is in
>storage, it can still be viewed on a limited basis by both scholars and
>members of the public who simply have a special interest, if the museum
>staff
>has an open, enlightened attitude toward its collections and their
>relationships to the many varied audiences who visit museums --as opposed
>to
>the John Martinsons who disdain objects in storage as "useless"--as much a
>Stone Age, philistine attitude as if I've ever heard.  Most art museums
>have
>print study rooms, for example, which scholars, students, and print
>aficionados are encouraged to visit to view material not on exhibit, and
>which, I might add, is usually kept in as dust-free an environment as
>possible.  In our museum many storage collections are open to members of
>the
>public by appointment, and some units have active behind-the-scenes
>collection tour programs for special-interest organizations.  Obviously,
>the
>number of people who can be accommodated in this way is limited, but those
>who participate are well aware that they are getting a special experience;
>do
>you really think the objects they see in storage are "useless"?  Graduate
>students and scholars are attracted from around the world by our fellowship
>programs, which provide them with opportunities to study collections which
>are not available in exhibitions--isn't this a valid and valuable use of
>collections in storage?
>
>(Notice Mr. Martinson's rhetoric, which relies upon well-worn negative
>stereotypes of museums: "piles of dust" indeed.  I find it very
>interesting--and appalling--that so many people associated with museums
>subscribe to and perpetuate the know-nothing prejudices of the past.  One
>reason I'm interested in maintaining the identification of the word
>"museum"
>with collections, to admit my own thinly veiled agenda, is that I think
>attempts to diminish the significance of this fundamental link with
>collections derive partly from an unfortunate misunderstanding of and
>prejudice against the traditional museum enterprise.  Such a prejudice has
>often been articulated on this list and I think it's a case of not seeing
>the
>trees for the forest.)
>
>If the purpose of museums is "education", there are glaring inconsistencies
>in Mr. Martinson's scenario.  In the first place, the varied audiences of
>museums include a substantial proportion of "tourists" who are seeking only
>a
>superficial exposure to "highlights" of what the museum has to offer--they
>want to see neat objects.  No matter how carefully your exhibitions are
>crafted to tell a narrative, advance a social or cultural agenda, or
>proactively "educate" people, many receive a disjointed, fragmented view as
>they bounce around looking for objects which will resonate with them and
>their preconceptions, and never "get" the point you're trying to make.
>Sometimes more "education" is absorbed by people who know enough to get
>beyond the exhibits.  (Not that I discount the superficial exposure that
>tourists get in their fragmented approach--the mere museum ambience and the
>"aura" of the specific objects they do see is an important component of the
>learning process and an adjunct to their general knowledge.)
>
>Research collections are about "education" too, John, whether or not
>they're
>ever placed on public exhibit.  Frankly, I think you're the one who needs
>to
>open up his mind.
>
>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).

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

=========================================================
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).