At 04:57 PM 4/19/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Wesley M. Thorsson wrote:
>>
>> The question is:  How can the collections management be preserved
>> considering the economic importance of paying visitors who do not see
>> the important collections of scientific value?
>> After reading some of the email on the plight of museum collections, it
>occurred to me that, as Wes said, the importance of scientific
>collections are largely unrealized by the average visitor, yet these
>collections are probably the single most important reason for the
>museums' existance.
>
>The problem is accesibility.  Museum directors seem to assume that the
>average visitor lacks the intelligence to warrent viewing such
>collections. But, I submit the following as an example to the contrary.
>
>In the main building of the La Brea tar pits, there is a prep lab where
>visitors can watch work in progress.  Even when there is no one actually
>working in the lab, scores of visitors still stand and stare through the
>windows, fascinated by all fossil bones and equipment.  There is even a
>mirror situated so that visitors can look into the storage area at all
>the racks full of specimens.
>
>People come to museums to see the 'Real McCoy', not plastic
>reproductions.  They want to know that that object just six inches on the
>other side of the glass really IS 50 or 100 million years old and not
>something made in a factroy last week. It is their one link with the
>past...or in some cases, the present.  Some many wonders of nature are
>being removed from public access that it's no wonder museums are losing
>funding.  'Out of sight...out of mind.'  How can we stir the interset of
>the public when everything we collect in the name of science, we also
>hide away from them?
>
>In the name of fund-raising, some museums have turned into mini theme
>parks without rides. Animatronic dinosaurs, back-lit photos, plastic
>replicas, plaques full of reading material...but nothing real. All the
>real stuff is hidden in labs and storage cabinets and, of course,
>inaccessible. Even the museum gift shops don't carry anything interesting
>anymore because of being beaten into submission by the fear of being
>labelled 'politically incorrect'. The items they sell can be found at any
>Toys-R-Us...at better prices.  What a serile, mind-numbing experience. If
>museums want to be assured of losing state and federal funding, that's a
>good way to do it.
>
>On my last visit to the Paleo department of the San Diego Natural History
>Museum, I couldn't believe the amount of material hidden away behind
>those walls. Stacks and stacks of cabinets and stacks of fossils
>everywhere! The amount of material on display compared to what was laying
>around in the department was, for lack of a better word, pathetic.  It's
>understandable that setting up displays for the public in the main
>viewing areas takes time, money, staff, effort, etc. There's no argument
>there. But if museums had viewing windows into these areas, there would
>be much less need for rotating material in and out of displays.
>
>Yes, funding is a problem.  Staffing is a problem.  Space is a problem.
>Getting the public's attention (and support) is a problem. I can't stess
>enough the importance of letting the public SEE the collections. That
>doesn't mean turning the public loose to rummage through draws, but the
>lesson to be learned from La Brea should be clear.
>
>Maybe this is all too simple-minded of an approach, but if the museums
>want the general public to understand (and support) something which
>ultimately belongs to them...open a window and let them see it.
>
>I hope I haven't offened anyone's sensibilities.  That wasn't my intent.
>But, then, you asked for it and in the words of the irreverent Dennis
>Miller, "But, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong."
>
>K. Hutsell
>
But you aren't.  I think you havehit the nail on the head!!!
 
Horatio Buck