I've been half-reading this discussion, half-amused and half-annoyed by its
tone of "I'm right and you're wrong."  The reference to Haussner's caught my
eye, however, in part because it was one of my favorite restaurants for all
the reasons cited.

This remark by David, however, seems to be something rather important.

<<The varied associations, opinions, and experiences which people attribute
to
something don't necessarily represent part of its basic definition.
However,
since these associations can become so powerful that they can result in
altering public perception of the nature of an object or institution, they
can find their way into a dictionary definition by default.  Some people
consider this phenomenon a natural, healthy evolution of the language, but I
advocate a critical approach to language, in the interest of clear
communication.  My feeling is that museums have a duty to their publics (and
to our common language) to remind the public of their essential nature.  If
people--including those who work in museums--equate one component of
museums,
such as the educational museum exhibition, and/or ancillary features, such
as
outreach, community gathering place, etc., with the museum itself, the
unique
essence of a museum can become lost in the shuffle.  My fear is that one
educational function of museums, the availability of collections for
research,
can be downplayed or forgotten, by an overemphasis on an incomplete
understanding of museums, and I think this is already happening in some
museums. >>

Neither the idea of the museum nor language is inherently static.  Anyone
can establish something they call a museum (and certainly the sense of
Haussner's clientele was that the place was both restaurant and museum) and
anyone can use a word in any way that they wish.  I may find certain
"museums" laughable and I may find certain shifts in language intolerable,
but I can only ignore the former and resist the latter.

Inasmuch as we are museum professionals, however, I think a conservative
position best serves the past and prepares for the future.  I use
"conservative" here in the literal and not in the ideological sense.  It is
the secure tripod of collecting, conserving/preserving, and
interpreting/educating that makes a museum, I believe, the thing about which
we are all so obviously passionate.  Within each museum's unique community,
mission, and needs, the importance of any leg of the tripod may wax or wane.
Moreover, the opportunity for new perspectives or original thinking is even
greater when a museum makes a change, installs an exhibition, or whatever,
when that change or exhibition stands in strong contrast to the expectations
and experience of its audience.

However, my metaphor of a tripod does not mean that I believe that each leg
should be equal in length and substance at all times.  I believe that a
"balanced" approach is determined over time.  Over long periods of time.
Eventually, one might discover that just as a word as fundamentally changed
its locus in language, one might also discover that there has been a change
in the definition of a museum.  However I also believe that there is value
in the regular application of brakes to the process.  I believe that change
and challenge are essential to many aspects of the museum, from its
definition to its public offerings.  I think that positions in the core
identity of a museum that are extreme relative to the traditional definition
of a museum are worrisome.

By way of a postscript, I would also like to add that the list is some ways
puts me in mind of recent newspaper and magazine essays on the problems that
email has brought to families.  The tendency to speak quickly in email, and
the odd neutrality of  the medium, both seem to encourage misunderstanding.

Happy Holidays to you all.

Ellen B. Cutler
Aberdeen, MD
----- Original Message -----
From: David E. Haberstich <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of a MUSEUM


> In a message dated 00-12-11 12:21:26 EST, John Martinson wrote:
>
> << However, you are out in left field when you assume you know my policy
and
>  my experience in collecting and exhibiting an object. >>
>
> John, when did I indicate that I thought I knew your policy or your
> experience?  I was replying to what I thought were your attitudes, based
of
> your response to my message, lo, these many days ago.  When you
characterized
> undisplayed collections in storage as "useless" I don't think you made it
> clear that you were quoting members of the public rather than citing your
own
> opinion.  If this constituted jumping to conclusions, I apologize, but it
> appeared that you were expressing your personal ideas.  If, as you are at
> pains to suggest in the remainder of this post, we agree on so many
things,
> perhaps we have nothing to debate.  Yet you had characterized my ideas as
> being of the "stone age", which appeared to be your personal opinion, so I
> thought some elaboration of my viewpoint was appropriate.
>
> I frankly find it a bit difficult to follow your argument, in which you
seem
> to be agreeing and disagreeing simultaneously.
>
> It is certainly true that no museum can be all things to all people.  But,
as
> you say, we were talking about definitions.  I hardly think that the sum
> total of varied reactions by members of the public, some of whom
appreciate
> certain kinds of museums, others who like all museums, and still others
who
> don't care for museums at all (and may think everything museums have to
> offer, whether on display or in storage, is totally "useless") can yield a
> workable definition.  Yes, museums can be community-oriented gathering
> places, as you suggest, for example, but they can also be places where one
> can get lost in a crowd.  These aspects don't define a museum, as far as I
> can see.  As I originally stated, I don't think opinion or attitude
surveys
> of "what a museum means to me" are useful in constructing a definition.
>
> Within recent memory Haussner's, a legendary restaurant in Baltimore,
closed,
> and much regret was expressed about its passing because people went there
as
> much to view its art collection as to eat.  Although the art was not to
> everyone's taste, many people considered the exhibits the primary
attraction,
> not the food.  Nevertheless, the primary business of the place was as a
> restaurant.  I daresay that even if every restaurant in the country had an
> art collection, this feature would not alter the basic definition of
> "restaurant" as a place where one pays to eat.  Haussner's art collection
was
> the private passion of the owners, but an important adjunct to their
> business.  While it was like an art museum in many respects, it did not
meet
> the basic definition of a museum as an institution where artifacts were
> "preserved"--when the restaurant went out of business, the collection was
> sold off, along with the kitchen equipment and furniture.  It was an
> educational site, yet education was not its essential function.
Similarly,
> many museums have restaurants and other amenities and attractions, but
these
> auxiliary functions don't define the essence of a museum.   My point is
that
> the definition of any object, institution, or other entity has to deal
with
> essences, or it's not a definition.  To quote myself, frosting doesn't
define
> a cake.  You can put cake icing on a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make
the
> fire hydrant a cake.
>
> The varied associations, opinions, and experiences which people attribute
to
> something don't necessarily represent part of its basic definition.
However,
> since these associations can become so powerful that they can result in
> altering public perception of the nature of an object or institution, they
> can find their way into a dictionary definition by default.  Some people
> consider this phenomenon a natural, healthy evolution of the language, but
I
> advocate a critical approach to language, in the interest of clear
> communication.  My feeling is that museums have a duty to their publics
(and
> to our common language) to remind the public of their essential nature.
If
> people--including those who work in museums--equate one component of
museums,
> such as the educational museum exhibition, and/or ancillary features, such
as
> outreach, community gathering place, etc., with the museum itself, the
unique
> essence of a museum can become lost in the shuffle.  My fear is that one
> educational function of museums, the availablity of collections for
research,
> can be downplayed or forgotten, by an overemphasis on an incomplete
> understanding of museums, and I think this is already happening in some
> museums.  Eventually, in the public mind it might be hard to differentiate
a
> restaurant like Haussner's, with its educational exhibition, from the the
> distinctive functions of a "true" museum.  While I'm all for creativity
and
> poetry in observing similarities and analogies in our experience of the
> world, I favor holding to a fairly rigid, critical approach to definitions
to
> facilitate communication.
>
> If the public doesn't appreciate or understand the "collections" basis of
> museums, I think it would be useful for museum folks to continually remind
> visitors about it, regardless of whether or not they're interested in the
> specifics of what's in storage.  I'm glad to know you consider collections
> important, John, and regret that I "jumped" to a conclusion about your
> personal attitude, but it wasn't clear exactly whose opinion about the
> uselessness of unexhibited collections you were citing.
>
> 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).

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