156 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 



Many of our own museums might follow this example with advantage. 

 A recent Government Commission, as you are aware, has published its 

 reports on the museums in England. Amongst other things it remarks 

 on the discouraging truth that the public does not seem to want museums. 

 The same might be said of many places on the Continent. Now as 

 conditions are at present, I must confess to having a good deal of sneaking 

 sympathy with the public. If a few institutions, like the British Museum 

 and South Kensington, as well as a small number of enlightened provincial 

 museums up and down the country, have published admirable hand- 

 books, instituted popular lectures, and encouraged popular demonstrations 

 by expert guides, yet these are only a very small minority. Whether in 

 Great Britain or on the Continent the visitor to a museum, other than 

 a gallery of pictures or sculpture, is merely left to drown in an uncharted 

 sea of unintelligible cases. We can scarcely blame him if he objects to 

 being drowned and rushes out into the fresh air. It is not the public 

 but the management of the museum which is to blame. In America it 

 would be quite untrue to say that the public does not want museums. 

 On any holiday the Metropolitan in New York is crowded to overflowing 

 by thousands of people, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, who 

 show the most intelligent interest. 



In order to popularise museums, however, a totally false start has been 

 made in many places. With the mistaken idea that the ordinary man 

 can appreciate art but cannot appreciate science, a number of institutions 

 have been founded which are called Museums of Art and Science. The 

 title might be allowed if it did not dictate the policy. But the policy has 

 generally been to subordinate science, and presently almost to thrust it 

 out of doors. The local magnate who has bought a few pictures for his 

 own home, together with copies of the Apollo Belvedere and similar works 

 which are supposed to be above criticism, declares to the committee of 

 which he is chairman that the museum must not be filled up with old 

 stones and pots and pans. And in the hope, very often unrealised, of 

 a substantial legacy the committee obsequiously follows his lead. And 

 very probably the director of the museum, who has been chosen for his 

 talent as an art connoisseur, is very content with the policy of his com- 

 mittee. Now as far as the general public is concerned this is a sheer error 

 of psychology. The ordinary man has no training and little aptitude for 

 fine art, but he can understand workmanship, and he is interested in the 

 things which come near either to his daily life, or to a life that he might 

 have led some centuries ago. A well- illustrated and well-explained 

 collection of ethnographical or archaeological objects makes a definite 

 appeal to him, and he responds wonderfully to the romance of ancient 

 history or of primitive life. 



This supposed union of science and art is simply hypocritical, and when 

 science has insinuated itself into a collection under the disguise of art it 

 is high time that the disguise should be thrown off. A scientific collection 

 is not made for aesthetic purposes ; it need not be ugly, and if capably 

 handled it will not be ugly, but its primary purpose is not aesthetic. The 

 attempt to asstheticise an archaeological collection is constantly being 

 made, and always results in much damage to scientific interests and very 



