Bayla Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote, in part: >I have yet to meet someone, from other than the museum world and >some academics, who actually knows what a curator does. Certainly >the concept that curators have extensive specialized knowledge, and >are more than mere antiquarians, is no part of the general public's >perception of the role.... >the indictment is of the public, if anyone, and I thought I'd made that >clear. I thought you did too, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt ;-) What are the origins of these public notions about curators, and museums generally? Who arrogates to themselves access to the objects and to the literature? Who decides what to display and what to secure? Who has historically written the interpretations and identifications? And for whom have these been written? I suggest that your indictment has no grounds. As long as research museums view the collections as private intellectual property and reserve for themselves the sole right to identify and interpret those collections, then they will be identified by many as elitist preserves. Any further mis-understanding, e.g. "antiquarians," simply goes with the territory... I encounter this general complaint periodically (from curators). It is ironic especially in light of some of the (widely-disseminated) discussion over the past decade about public programming in museums. I do not consider the alternative to be edutainment, but I would suggest that a leap in terms of the public education that museums provide is in order. That, or more barbed wire and sand bags... Kevin Coffee AMNH (not NMAH) New York (not DC)