Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:30:58 EDT |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
As Chris says, I think we've said enough about salaries to last us a
lifetime. To see this discussion breakdown into teensy bitsy stuff like
statistics and psychology and whatnot is sort of long-winded. Sometimes
curators do become administrators. Sometimes directors don't come from
the museum field. Sometimes we try to communicate more than we need to.
It has been a very healthy discussion. Why don't we talk about it as a
free-for-all panel discussion in the next AAM meeting? I'm not gonna be
heading the show. Find someone with a thicker skin. Maybe I'll just sit
in the audience.
O
Olivia S. Anastasiadis, Curator (it's me talking here)
Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace
[log in to unmask]
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 16:47:38 GMT Hodcarry <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>To drone on a bit more. My concept of a curator's position is one
>that is
>responsible for a "collection" that collection can be rocks, bugs,
>guns,
>shoes, garden tools or even buildings. Part of that responsibilty is
>having in-depth knowledge of that collection. Being a curator should
>be a
>career path by itself. A curator is, again in my view, not an
>administrator not someone who is putting in a couple of years before
>they
>can move up to being a director or assistant director. Of course,
>every
>year far more historic sites of one sort or another open than close so
>overall employment goes up. Art museums and natural history museums
>are a
>different kettle of fish and are areas where I have much less
>experience..
>
|
|
|