I think that your response to this issue is useful, pointing
out the continuum between libraries and museums. I would,
however, question your distinction that a museum is not a
museum unless it owns original objects. In the United
States, this has been a bone of contention, choking a
dialogue instigated by the American Association of Museums.
(BLOCK THAT METAPHOR!) They were drafting a code of ethics
for museums professionals and boards, and got totally hung
up, as I recall, on this particular issue. There was a
recent issue of curator magazine (published by the American
Museum of Natural History) where Bob MacDonald, from the
Museum of the City of New York, and a former president of
AAM, eloquently spoke for the need for the distinction you
offer. Just as eloquently, and I think ultimately more
convincingly, Alan Friedman of the New York Hall of Science,
disputed the importance of the distinction between original
object-owning and more interpretation-based museums.
Alan was of course, arguing that science centers were
museums for all intents and purposes (mostly
funding, I speculate), while Bob argued for the importance
of owning original objects is defining museums.
Lots of heat, little light.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|