Clueless Museums (was: Final Xerox Star demo)

From: William Donzelli <william_at_ans.net>
Date: Wed Jun 3 22:13:42 1998

> Then the museum rules are broken IMHO.

The rules vary in each field. I think for computers, the rules are still
forming.

> Preserving a computer or technological artifact is rather different IMHO
> from preserving a piece of art. In the latter case the visual appearance
> is what matters, in the former case it's the function.

But function is not everything. The history behind the function of a
machine is also very important - how it was designed, how it was
manufactured, who had their hand in it. Details like that can be lost
sometimes.

The ultimate rule is a preserve an object at a specific point in time,
almost always when the thing is taken out of service. Additionally, the
object must never be comprimised. Officially restorations are not by the
book, as they are almost always non-reverseable.

I think this is a BIT extreme, but those are the rules, so if the curator
was a "by the book" type, he is justified. Adding cards to the PDP-8, I
would think, are completely reversable.

> Art, in general, is not 'repaired' when it's in use (yes, it's restored,
> but people with paintings do not, say, replace the red paint every few
> years :-)). Machinery is repaired. And it's modified.

Very much part of the history.
 
> I would claim that there's not a single DEC machine that's been in real
> use that still has all the original cards. Defective cards have been
> replaced. The machine has been reconfigured, peripherals have been added,
> etc.

Up until recently (and it may still be running the shop) in Milwaukee, a
PDP-8/e was running everyday doing CNC work and it never had a part
replaced. Once a light bulb blew, but apparently was not a very important
one, so the shop never replaced it. So theres at least one.

> To me it seems crazy that if the cards had been replaced just before it
> had been donated there would have been no problem, but they'll not do so
> afterwards, even though they'd have _more_ information on the history in
> the latter case.

True, sort of. See above rule.

> Please remember I wouldn't have minded if the new cards had been marked
> (say with an engraving tool) 'Unoriginal card, fitted <date>' or
> whatever. It was not my intention to 'fake' anything, rather to help them
> get a historic machine operational again.

Just a tag would do. In fact engraving the replacement cards would hurt
_them_ as artifacts.
 
> There are still some excellent museums in the UK. But it appears that the
> more 'official' funding it gets, the less interesting it is. The best
> museums for me are almost private collections.

Same in the U.S.

> Needless to say, we're all still preserving computers. I'd hoped that
> 'official' museums were doing it as well, but it appears not to be the case.

In defence of the museums, I must say that running such an establishment
is _expensive_. Sure, some collectors maybe spend a bit for storage (like
me - I spent extra for a house with a big shop), but that is peanuts
compared to the everyday expenses of even a small museum. RCS/RI is
getting a taste of the real world - every month we have to cough up real
rent money. Then there is the phone bill. After that electricity, and a
service upgrade. Then maybe we can buy supplies.

> If I ever come across the Pond and end up in that area, you can be sure I'd
> love to see it.

Just say when.
 
William Donzelli
william_at_ans.net
Received on Wed Jun 03 1998 - 22:13:42 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:31:03 BST