Working exhibits and the destruction of evidence in the science museum

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to try to explain why it is that so many curators of technical artefacts, particularly transport artefacts, subscribe to the ethic of the museum profession that their duty is to preserve evidence, yet devote much of their professional lives to the destruction of that evidence. Why is it that a thoughtful and dedicated curator such as John Hallam, in his paper in the Museum Association's Manual of Curatorship, should accept that a museum is a ‘collection of artefacts assembled for preservation as evidence of man's material culture and environment’ and then devote 8000 words to exploring various ways in which artefacts may be restored, modified, worn out through operation and otherwise compromised, so that little uncorrupted evidence remains to be placed before the public? ¹ And all without a trace of irony. The paper is in fact excellent, and one with which few technical curators would take exception.

Are such curators dishonest, thoughtless and uncaring? Are they schizophrenic? Or is it that the dominant ethic of the profession is in fact inappropriate to technical artefacts and that they are intuitively acting out a more appropriate, though unexpressed, ethic which has yet to be defined?

The question of whether museum objects should be demonstrated is one which is a constant source of debate both inside and outside the museum profession. There are those who take a conservative view: since the purpose of a museum is the preservation of material evidence it must be wrong to compromise that evidence by wearing out artefacts through operation. At the other end of the spectrum are a few curators of car collections who insist that the best way to preserve a car is to maintain it in good working order and run it regularly. In the middle are the generality of technical museums all of which demonstrate artefacts to a greater or lesser extent. Such divergent views cannot be reconciled. An analysis of the arguments shows that the reason the debate is invariably fruitless is because the protagonists fail to recognize that they start from different assumptions and work towards different objectives. An historical survey of the policy and practice of sectioning and operating artefacts in the Science Museum, London, serves to clarify these issues. It shows how the sectioning and operating of artefacts can be justified, but only by rejecting the dominant ethic of the museum profession.