Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:14:54 -0400 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I'd be curious to know if there is some kind of split between
art/history museums and science/natural history museums. In my short
career I have worked for a science center and a natural history museum,
both of which expanded significantly. I was hired for those expansions
and understood that I would be "let go" when the project was finished
(even before the exhibits open!). So, I wonder if science museums are
having different experience than art or history museums in terms of
financial backing. I don't know about state funds, but it seem that the
public is behind building/expanding science centers. It also seems that
expanding museums hire temporary exhibits staff and permanent
education/programs staff. Of course, programs are a critical interface
with the public, but without exhibits, what would the museum be? It
seems to me that money would be well spent rotating a percentage of the
exhibits regularly, and keeping staff on site to do it. Any thoughts?
Ross Weeks said:
>I'd be interested in reactions to the hunch that sources of
>funding for museum educational programs (and collaboration in them from >the 'educational establishment') are on the wane.
>Public investment in education is a matter of political choice. Are we
>non-governmental museums "included" in that choice, or are we actually >a bit of icing on the educational cake?
|
|
|