Why do we have museums?

[Frozen_Feet]

I think something has been lost in this discussion, or at least not sufficiently dwelled upon. Namely:

Museums predate easy means of photographing, replicating etc. the originals, nevermind sharing them. The idea that you can just take a picture of something and have it be available to everyone instantly has not really been feasible save for last two or three decades.

For majority of history of museums, having the objects on public display somewhere was the only feasible way to keep them known to the public. Period.

[LeSwordfish]

Also there's something very special about seeing the originals. I had a massive picture of the ISS on my wall until i was twelve, and it wasn't one hundredth as special as the night I saw it fly overhead, even though it was a tiny speck of light. Real objects have emotional value to us: I loved seeing some real apollo capsules at the science museum.

[Jay R]

Can we really blame the owner for that? If that thing hung in my house I would have elbowed it much sooner....

We're not "blaming" the owner. We're merely pointing out that it happened in a private collection, not a public museum.

[Serpentine]

So I did a Graduate Diploma of Museum Studies a couple of years ago, and the OP may be edified to know that pretty much every question he asked here was also asked in my lectures. For example, a photo of the Mona Lisa similar to this was put up:



and compared to something more like this:



And we were asked something like: Do you really get anything more from seeing it in real life compared with a high quality photograph? And we were also asked something like: Does seeing it behind tinted bulletproof glass, behind a barrier, and behind a huge crowd really count as seeing it in real life, anyway?

There's lots and lots of answers to that, many of which have been covered here already (including, as in the dinosaur fossil case, "sometimes copies are as good or even better than the real thing, or an unfortunate necessity). But I just wanted to say that all of my lecturers would probably have the cockles of their hearts warmed if they could read this:

Spoiler

Show

The quick, easy answer is that you have made some assumptions that, if accepted, would lead to the conclusion you have reached. But the people making the decisions clearly don't agree with your assumptions.



The straightforward answer is that "the public" aren't subhumans; they are us.

The ultimate form of preserving archival integrity is to wall the artifacts up behind a stone wall that will never come down. Then their survival is assured, and nobody will ever see them. The more people you will allow to see them, the more available they have to be to people. How many people should be allowed to see them and, as a consequence, how much risk should be allowed? That is a hard, complex question that people can legitimately disagree on.

The owners of the collections seem willing to take on more risk than you are, to allow more people to see the artifacts. And since they own them, they get to decide.

But based on what we see in museums, it seems clear that these people don't see "the public" as a horrible threat, but as the purpose of the display.



In third grade, I walked by an exhibit of a brontosaurus skeleton (yes, it was called a brontosaurus then) in the Houston Museum of Science and Technology, and realized, far more than any dinosaur book or photo could have shown me, the enormous size of them.

In sixth grade, I saw a working telecommunications switch in the Dallas Science Museum, and was fascinated. I now have seven patents for telecom switching systems.

In eighth grade, I saw a Museum of Natural History showing me many stuffed animals, most of which I already knew, but presented in context with each other, showing relative sizes.

In 1968, at the Seton Library and Museum, I saw the skin of the wolf Lobo. I'd read his story, but to actually see him was very emotional.

In 1968, at the Kit Carson Museum, I was shown how to shoe a horse, and I made a horseshoe nail at the forge at Kit Carson's actual home.

In the early 1990s, I saw a Soviet Space exhibit, and was in awe when I reached out and touched a probe that had actually been to Venus.

In the nineties, I saw a traveling exhibit of weaponry and armor from the Landeszeughaus in Graz. In one room, they had set up horse barding and lances as if a galloping charge, aimed at the door we walked in. The moment I walked in and saw the lances all aimed at me, I learned something visceral about Renaissance battle that decades of reading had not made as clear.

In 2001, I was able to visit the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and it put the colonization and development of Canada into a complete perspective.

In the early 2000s, I had a great afternoon's enjoyment going through a museum exhibit of Lord of the Rings props and techniques. I learned some things about movie-making techniques that day.

I'm no artist, but seeing real paintings of great masters means a great deal more to me than seeing photos of them.

Last year I saw a full-sized Sistine Chapel traveling exhibit, and learned far more about the paintings than I had in over sixty years of seeing photographs and records.

My wife, an SCA costumer, has been able to get some costuming details from Renaissance painting in person that she had tried and failed to work out from photographs.

I'm not a major museum-goer, but all of these are experiences I treasure. Note that not one of these examples (except the telecom one) has anything to do with my actual research, which is in Operations Research. Nonetheless, they all helped me to learn, to understand, and to value learning.



Unless "historical science" owns the collection, this question is simply irrelevant. The city who owns the collection gets income, respect, and reputation out of it. The rich person who owns the collection gets the joy of seeing other people enjoy it, and usually gets their names on the exhibit or building. The university that owns the collection gets visiting researchers and applications from potential faculty or students who want to study the collection, and monetary donations from impressed alumni. The owner of the castle gets to keep her castle by using guided tours to generate income. The famous person who owns the collection (like the Roy Rogers museum) gets extended fame from it.

There are lots of reasons for museums, and "historical science" is only one of them.



It's not true that the public is just as edified. School kids who are not going to read those books are taken to museums. Three-dimensional displays and seeing things full sized increase what we get out of them.

And it's not true that it's always more secure that way. Many collections are preserved specifically by the income of the museum displaying them.



Because the owners of the collections don't agree with you about the relative importance of sharing with the public vs. keeping things from the public.

Consider this quote from Ernest Thompson Seton, displayed at the Ernest Thompson Seton Memorial Library and Museum:

"Because I have known the torment of thirst, I would build a well where others may drink."

[Bohandas]

I'm not questioning why we archive objects and records of historical interest; we get better at archaeology all the time, so it is clearly to our benefit to store them for the benefit of future, more capable scholars.

What I cannot understand is why, having created these archives, we subsequently decide to compromise their archival integrity by permitting the public to wander around and look at them. What benefit do they gain from seeing the objects themselves rather than photographs and records of them?

Well, back in the day it wasn't so easy to just pull up photos any time you wanted.

It just seems like a lose-lose situation to me when compared to just securely archiving everything of interest and making copies of the resultant records available for public perusal (after embargo, of course).

My understanding is that a lot of stuff these days is copies, especially when it comes to traveling natural history exhibits; a full fossilized (large) dinosaur skeleton is simply too heavy to conveniently ship but a cast of the skeleton can be made out of a much lighter material.

This is kind of a shame because this is exactly the kind of thing where people need to be able to see the real thing itself and see that it exists.

[dehro]

I have the entirely arbitrary notion that the vast majority of people who work in the field of whatever subject you can find in a museum, be it arts, science or history, were, at some point, inspired to do so by a visit to a museum.
This may become less true now that the internet is so much faster and the materials are so much more accessible.. but they wouldn't be if not for all the work that went in conservation and display.
Sure, you can show a kid a box of bones and tell him that those are the front paws of a dinosaur. Will he get as emotionally invested as if you showed the same bones within a frame, in a display, showing the entire animal based on the parts you have and the reconstruction of what is missing?
Also, that way you can show it to dozens of kids at the same time.
If we stopped showing things, people would lose interest and ultimately stop caring about the conservation of all sort of things.. funding would diminish and stop..and finally we would lose all that stuff.. until one day someone presses a wrong button and deletes the recordings too.. and that way well lose first hand testimony of the past, and anyone will be able to rewrite it as they see fit.
Give it a few hundred years and we'll start forgetting who we are and what we know now.

[Rockphed]

"... just the feeling"? When you are trying to understand human decisions, treating emotions as a minor consideration will almost always lead you astray.

I think I took someone to task about politics on facebook for discounting the feelings of their opponents. Emotion is a very real thing to humans. Discounting it will lead to your sorrow.

[Wardog]

Museums are essentially, a colonial institution that serves the same purpose that cathedrals and palaces did in the feudal age. "Behold," they tell the viewer, "the owners of this museum are mighty and powerful to have collected such artifacts, and you are but a man; it would be best if you did not cause trouble." The educational aspects are tightly entwined with this indoctrination.

That might be true for some museums or collections.

It's certainly not the case for many (I suspect most) museums.

http://www.bakelitemuseum.net/
http://www.barometerworld.co.uk/
http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to...machine-museum

Not to mention most local history museums.

[Mith]

Really, the question should be: what's the point of collecting all these artifacts if we're NOT going to put them on display?

This question strikes home for me due to recent family events.

My grandfather found a stone dish/saucer when he was out ploughing fields helping a friend ~80 years ago (this being in Alberta, Canada). It was obviously of First Nation work. He kept it, as it is a lovely thing to look at and hold, as well as there not really being a First Nations establishment to really return it to at the time.

Fast forward to the present, my aunts were looking at giving the bowl away, as none of their kids were interested, and were considering museums.

However, all museums we contacted said they would likely keep the saucer in storage, and not display it.

We contacted the university of the town near where the saucer was found, and they said they would take it, display it, and use it as part of their Native Studies Program. Plus, if we ask, we can likely arrange to have them keep us updated on what they may find out about the saucer.

Turns out the rock was likely from the other side of the Rockies, and that it is evidence of a permanent settlement, as nomads wouldn't carry much stone.

The University is a much better arrangement, eh?