Objects or people

One response to this thread insisted on the primacy of objects, 'Are you an objects person?' he or she was asked and continued to ask of museum staff. (Well, I am, but that's beside the point). How can you possibly be an 'objects' person without being a 'visitor', or at least a 'people' person? Who (with the exception of natural history specimen) made the objects in the first place? Who is studying, classifying, conserving, displaying them? Martians? For whom is the stewardship?

The whole point, surely, of a museum is that we preserve, conserve, display, explain, enhance, contextualise objects FOR PEOPLE. We recognize the work of people of the past, we communicate with people of the present, we preserve for people of the future. Moreover we museum professionals are also people (well, some of us are, I know a few I've got my doubts about) - and also the most constant of visitors. We are not supposed to sit on our hoards like dragons! (and if we don't get through to our visitors NOW, we won't even be there to hand on the results of our 'stewardship' to the future).

Heleanor Feltham Powerhouse Museum

BRAVO, Heleanor!

Good for you, Heleanor! Spoken with passion!

Carol DzG

This was my anecdote, and in fairness to Edward P. Alexander, who was the questioner (to me), what he meant was, did I have an interest in objects, as opposed to the traditional historian's exclusive interest in manuscript or primary sources. He never implied objects versus people. The reason I dragged that anecdote into the discussion was not to say that museums should make a choice between objects and people

*** Resending note of 03/04/98 15:32

I respond:

This is why the curator/light bulb jokes are relevant to this list and why the best of them had the punchline 'what do you mean CHANGE?'

Perhaps the notion of going to museums to experience real things was indeed the primary reason people once went to museums. And perhaps it still is a reason why some, even many, still go. But your statement that you 'wonder' about recent studies that 'surface' which say otherwise seems a tad unfair. Are you implying that the researchers and evaluators who conduct these studies are not to be taken seriously? aren't really doing the research? fudging data? doing bad research? By saying 'surfacing' you seem to imply that these are not the result of serious work. Just what studies are you talking about anyway? Care to back up your wonder, and your thoughts otherwise, with any hard evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying that evidence isn't out there, but one really can't discount the work of others based on a hunch. Visitor Research and Evaluation is a bonafide discipline, and it can be used as a tool to help museums change as our society changes. Why is this research so easily ignored or discounted by the researchers that hold curatorial positions, and who would surely be dismayed if their research was simply ignored or discounted?

Mr. Dressel, I don't know if you are a curator or what, that's not the point. The point is peoples' attitudes change, the role of museums has and will continue to change. For instance, NPR had a story this morning about a new museum opening in Japan that contains no original artwork, just reproductions of hundreds of the worlds 'masterpieces,' and you can even touch them...Do you suppose no one will show up?

As they say, just my two cents...

Jim Rubinstein Exhibit Developer, NMAI