Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 28 Feb 1996 16:19:31 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>
>On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, Eric Siegel wrote:
>
>> This thread gets weirder and weirder: are museums "agents of social
>> reproduction?" And if so, what does that mean? And does this tie back
>> to the thread about sex in the diorama?
>>
>> Eric Siegel
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
And Mr. Perry replied:
>"Museums are agents of social reproduction" means that museums aid in the
>perpetuation of the social hierarchy, that the children of working-class
>parents end up in working-class jobs while the children of upper-class
>parents inherit their positions, as well. Museums are avowed to transmit
>knowledge that is useful for circulation within the uppermiddle strata,
>and these places are made friendly to those who already "know" what to do
>in a museum and are somewhat conversant with the traditions and fetishes
>of academic (read "high") art.
{snip}
>Richard Perry, UC San Diego, [log in to unmask]
So, perhaps the way to put it concisely would be "Museums re-inforce the
status quo" and cement the position of the elite"? Still a loaded
statement, if less kinky?
--
- The free mind must have one policeman: Irony.
-- Elbert Hubbard
[[neil hathaway [log in to unmask]]]
|
|
|