- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have to disagree. Telling the story is the single most important role a museam has to offer. Museams are not, and should not be, just about the artifacts. What good is an artifact if you dont understand any historical context? What good is the artifiact if you dont know a thing about it? Museams are a form of public history and they serve a vital role. In my opinion our national war museam is one of the few that actually tells the story and brings the patron into the historical context that is ever so important.
I had the pleasure of speaking with Tim Cook last week (First World War Historian at the National War Museam) and got to hear his take on all of this. He was involved in the museam overhaul in the early part of the decade. He made it very clear that their mandate and their vision was to create a musem that told the story and did not limit itself to just the artifacts. To that end, I think they did a great job of it.
On the matter of controversial paintings... I dont know that I have developed an opinion of that yet. I can see both sides of the argument there.
I had the pleasure of speaking with Tim Cook last week (First World War Historian at the National War Museam) and got to hear his take on all of this. He was involved in the museam overhaul in the early part of the decade. He made it very clear that their mandate and their vision was to create a musem that told the story and did not limit itself to just the artifacts. To that end, I think they did a great job of it.
On the matter of controversial paintings... I dont know that I have developed an opinion of that yet. I can see both sides of the argument there.