The Idea of the Teaching Museum

Let me start by stating that I find the fact that most museums spend a huge portion of their budget on taking care of a collection that is rarely if ever seen by the public that museum serves is a woeful travesty and should be one of our top priority issues in the museum field. This is a delicate subject for many reasons, and I do not argue that the objects sitting in collections storage departments across the world to not warrant care. What I do argue is that museums based on collections typically house 90% or more of their collections in storage, and that this is unacceptable. Museum budgets are stretched thin as it is, and it is unlikely that collections departments will continue to receive even the limited funding they are typically awarded given the tight economy and its effects on museums.

My argument is twofold. First, museums need the money used to care for the 90% of the collection in storage to build exhibits and education and evaluation staffs. Second, the objects being cared for by museums are sacred, priceless, and in many cases incredibly delicate and are often not cared for as well as they should be due to budgetary restraints of the museum. I can’t honestly say that I have come to a solution of any reasonable kind for this conundrum. John Dana, however, has something to say on the matter that does come with an interesting, if vague solution.

Dana proposes the teaching museum, which is an institution comprised of objects that are of the public and offered to the public (Dana, 1918). In the teaching museum, there are no restrictions on objects or object handling, and consequently visitors would be allowed to touch, play and use the objects as needed for study or research (Dana, 1918).

Given even my limited experience with collections care and management, I see many flaws with this plan. First and foremost I think that the mental health of registrars and collections managers the world over would be in serious danger were we to announce that some of these priceless objects be passed about by eight graders on a field trip. I also think that this would necessitate a selection process for which objects are important enough to be kept locked in the basement that would be drawn out and arduous. However, in the end I see the teaching museum being an incredibly useful element to any community.

Institutions like this already exist on most every major college campus. At IU Bloomington, for example, the Lily Fine Arts Library houses an impressive library of rare, antique books that are available to students by request for research. At the Indiana Historical Society most of their collection is available to any member of the public, also by request for research only. 

Dana seems to be taking this one step further, in taking away the exclusivity of the research museums and making all objects available to all people. I think the ideal is a happy medium. If museums were to donate even 5% of their collections to a teaching museum, the money saved would be staggering, and the potential benefit to the community immeasurable.