I’ve been sent a copy of the article in the New York Times which explains the now long-running controversy over ICOM’s definition as to what a museum is, and should be, which might seem a tiny bit arcane to those outside the profession, but which encapsulates the generational divide between those who still feel that they are pre-eminently about a collection of objects or works of art however interpreted – what in the 1970s was described as ‘the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity’ – and those who feel their their social mission should come first and be stated more radically. I have paid less attention to the dispute than I maybe should, but suspect that donors are not quite as enthusiastic about their social mission as is assumed:-
| Charles | Saumarez | Smith | 