DOI Artikel:
Gilman, Benjamin Ives: Goode's formula
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.69284#0075
Gilman, Goode’s Formula
67
GOODE’S FORMULA
BY
BENJAMIN IVES GILMAN
The late Dr. G. Brown Goode of the United States National Museum once
wrote, “Mzz efficient educational museum may be described as a collection of
descriptive labels, each illustrated by a well selected specimen". (‘;The Museums of
the Future”, Annual Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1897, part II, p. 249.)
This striking formulation of the instructive efficiency of collections of speci-
mens has often since been quoted as a pithy Statement of the true functions of
public exhibitions in general, museums of art as well as museums of science.
That the extension of the formula to museums of art is nevertheless a Capital
error appears at once from the consideration that a work of art is not primarily
specimen, but unicum. Its chief value is not illustrative, but individual. It was
not made to reveal an artistic method or to bear witness of its time, but to
express an artistic intention. It is its own best excuse for being, though it may
have others, and good ones.
This distinction between object of science and object of art is radical and
in its application to collections of the two kinds of object permits of many forms
of Statement. Museums of science aim first at abstract knowledge, museums of
art first at concrete satisfaction. A museum of science is a place of pleasant
thought; a museum of art a place of thoughtful pleasure. The first purpose of
a scientific museum is to make scholars by its contents; that of an art museum,
to make friends for them. In the former we learn; in the latter we admire. A
museum of science is in essence a school; a museum of art in essence a temple.
Minerva presides over the ohne, dedicated to the reason; Apollo over the other,
dedicated to the Imagination. A scientific museum is devoted to observations;
an art museum to valuations. A collection of science is gathered primarily in
the interest of the real; a collection of art primarily in the interest of the ideal.
The former is a panorama of fact; the latter a paradise of fancy. A museum of
science exists primarily for the few, for students and specialists; a museum of
art primarily for the many, for all who can behold an see, for humanity generally.
An object of science being specimen, and an object of art unicum, it
follows that in a museum of science the printed information given is more im-
portant than the objects; in an art museum, less. For while both are collections
exemplifying human Creative power, in the museum of science the creation is the
general law zr/r^ented by the description — in the art museum, it is the
single fact /r^ented by the object. Thus, as Dr. Goode well said, in a museum
67
GOODE’S FORMULA
BY
BENJAMIN IVES GILMAN
The late Dr. G. Brown Goode of the United States National Museum once
wrote, “Mzz efficient educational museum may be described as a collection of
descriptive labels, each illustrated by a well selected specimen". (‘;The Museums of
the Future”, Annual Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1897, part II, p. 249.)
This striking formulation of the instructive efficiency of collections of speci-
mens has often since been quoted as a pithy Statement of the true functions of
public exhibitions in general, museums of art as well as museums of science.
That the extension of the formula to museums of art is nevertheless a Capital
error appears at once from the consideration that a work of art is not primarily
specimen, but unicum. Its chief value is not illustrative, but individual. It was
not made to reveal an artistic method or to bear witness of its time, but to
express an artistic intention. It is its own best excuse for being, though it may
have others, and good ones.
This distinction between object of science and object of art is radical and
in its application to collections of the two kinds of object permits of many forms
of Statement. Museums of science aim first at abstract knowledge, museums of
art first at concrete satisfaction. A museum of science is a place of pleasant
thought; a museum of art a place of thoughtful pleasure. The first purpose of
a scientific museum is to make scholars by its contents; that of an art museum,
to make friends for them. In the former we learn; in the latter we admire. A
museum of science is in essence a school; a museum of art in essence a temple.
Minerva presides over the ohne, dedicated to the reason; Apollo over the other,
dedicated to the Imagination. A scientific museum is devoted to observations;
an art museum to valuations. A collection of science is gathered primarily in
the interest of the real; a collection of art primarily in the interest of the ideal.
The former is a panorama of fact; the latter a paradise of fancy. A museum of
science exists primarily for the few, for students and specialists; a museum of
art primarily for the many, for all who can behold an see, for humanity generally.
An object of science being specimen, and an object of art unicum, it
follows that in a museum of science the printed information given is more im-
portant than the objects; in an art museum, less. For while both are collections
exemplifying human Creative power, in the museum of science the creation is the
general law zr/r^ented by the description — in the art museum, it is the
single fact /r^ented by the object. Thus, as Dr. Goode well said, in a museum