<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Museological empiricism &#8212; impressions from the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2008/11/04/museological-empiricism-impressions-from-the-hunterian-museum-in-glasgow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2008/11/04/museological-empiricism-impressions-from-the-hunterian-museum-in-glasgow/</link>
	<description>Medical Museion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:58:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Øystein Horgmo</title>
		<link>http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2008/11/04/museological-empiricism-impressions-from-the-hunterian-museum-in-glasgow/comment-page-1/#comment-246612</link>
		<dc:creator>Øystein Horgmo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:43:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.corporeality.net/museion/2008/11/05/museological-empiricism-impressions-from-the-hunterian-museum-in-glasgow/#comment-246612</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not familiar with museum theory, but I think I get the difference between the theories you mention. While the artifacts certainly were the focus of attention, the real substance of this exhibition was the stories surrounding them. The artifacts on display were clearly chosen for their &quot;part&quot; in the story of a development or breakthrough in medicine or as an example of the development, and not solely for their visual interest.

I guess a lot of the pathological specimen could have been displayed solely for their morbid interest in the &quot;old curatoral empirical tradition&quot;. Not so in this exhibition.

Other parts of the museum (A Healing Passion was only one of several exhibitions) were mopre like this though. With fascinating objects from the Hunterian Collection more or less heaped together. Beetles, stones and tribal weapons side by side with no other context than their labels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not familiar with museum theory, but I think I get the difference between the theories you mention. While the artifacts certainly were the focus of attention, the real substance of this exhibition was the stories surrounding them. The artifacts on display were clearly chosen for their &#8220;part&#8221; in the story of a development or breakthrough in medicine or as an example of the development, and not solely for their visual interest.</p>
<p>I guess a lot of the pathological specimen could have been displayed solely for their morbid interest in the &#8220;old curatoral empirical tradition&#8221;. Not so in this exhibition.</p>
<p>Other parts of the museum (A Healing Passion was only one of several exhibitions) were mopre like this though. With fascinating objects from the Hunterian Collection more or less heaped together. Beetles, stones and tribal weapons side by side with no other context than their labels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

