Kim,
And I'll buy the next six rounds.  Debate is good and your comments are
well taken.  And this is not directed to you, but I wish we could all walk
in each others shoes for awhile.  Then we would know.  But it doesn't work
like that and many of us (myself included) only open our mouths far enough
to change feet because of sheer ignorance (and that's not a bad word,
stupidity is).  Yes, I get ruffled when someone bashes, even lightly,
museums.  I also get upset when someone does the same to private collectors
or dealers.  If we discuss these misconceptions perhaps we can be enlightened.
 
Well, it's after 5 PM now and recollections of this day conjure up visions
of a cool glass of iced Old Heaven Hill, the finest (but only in my
opinion) of Kentucky Bourbon.  Unfortunately, I have too much to do tonight
on the computer to do much else but visualize.  Alas,......
 
Respectfully, but tiredly yours,
 
Kurt
 
 
At 11:27 AM 4/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear Kurt,
>
>THANK YOU for the response! It seems rather clear that all of us here
>share the same concerns and it's important, in a forum such as this, that
>differences of opinion can be voiced without being expected to apologize
>everytime there is a disagreement. The comment about 'simple-mindedness',
>by the way, was aimed at myself. My intent was to point out that, with
>all the multi-million dollar traveling displays being pushed on us as a
>way to stir interest, maybe there's a simpler way to achieve the same
>goals...something that has been overlooked or dismissed because it
>appeared too simple. (I'm sure most people have heard the story of the
>eighteen wheeler stuck under a bridge and the ten year old boy who
>suggested they simply let a little air out of the tires to get it
>unstuck.) I don't have the answers (obviously) or I would hold a
>directorship somewhere.
>
>I agree that the idea of displaying all or even half of the material in
>museum collections is ludicrous. There are parts of collections I will
>never care to see. But even this is getting off track.  When Wes asked
>the question of what could be done about the problem of deminishing
>support for museums and the curation of collections, the first thing that
>came to mind was, "How can we expect the general public to give time and
>money to something they can't see?" Any of us who realize the importance
>of these collections wouldn't think twice about giving a hundred or even
>a thousand dollars out-of-pocket to see the work continue.  That's why we
>form clubs and give grants and donate time.  But if you walk up to a man
>on the street who has no clue what museums are about and ask for a dollar
>donation, well...you'd be lucky to end up with five dollars at the end of
>the day. Of course, that's where all the glamourous, high-powered
>traveling displays are supposed to come in...to draw people in to see the
>animated dinosaurs...and hopefully expose them to other things the museum
>has to offer.  But that's where the concept breaks down. Sometimes, the
>promoters unwittingly misdirect the attention away from the real purpose
>of the museum system.  I know that I'm shooting myself in the foot here.
> I know that some will argue that the displays are a culmination of all
>the work and research that's been done and even debate what the real
>purpose of a museum is. But it's the importance of work itself and its
>assured continuation which somehow seems to get lost in the translation.
>
>The problem of waining support for museums (in my opinion and others) is
>only a symptom of something far more distressing and in urgent need of
>focus...the general trend away from the natural sciences.  Whether it's a
>problem with our educational system, a product of an over zealous
>campaign of environmental protectionism, or a social climate that
>stresses high technology and social services as the only acceptable
>careers, interest in the natural sciences is losing ground as evidenced
>in Wes' comments about the loss of state funding and elimination of
>museum positions.  If all those who hold the purse strings to state funds
>felt that the survival of museums was a top priority, there would be no
>problem. But, they don't...and the dominos continue to fall.  Maybe with
>enough discussion (opposing opinions or not) we can come up with some
>solutions to a complex problem.
>
>Debate is a healthy process.  It educates all those who participate. And,
>(Kurt, this is NOT directed at you) shame on anyone who wants us all to
>avoid the tough questions by blindly patting each other on the head and
>retracting anything that might ruffle a few feathers. All that achieves
>is a temporary fuzzy feeling and a flat head.  Granted, sometimes the
>spirit of a response may seem a bit abrasive but it's usually due in
>large part to the fact we can't hear voice inflection and see facial
>expression in email. I have the utmost respect for the curators, staff,
>and volunteers caring for our collections. Enough said.
>
>Respectfully sumitted,
>
>K. Hutsell
>
>P.S. Kurt, I'll buy the first round.
>