Books are far too important to leave in the care of libraries - they should be a central feature in museums, attracting policies and inspiring displays. But why should museums be bothered about books - traditionally the library has been the institution that has dealt with them.
Throughout the 20th century, libraries and museums have argued about keeping books; libraries say that their function is to lend and use books rather than display them, while museums argue that they retain and display objects - and books aren't objects.
Their logic is that as books are for reading and, when displayed, they can't be read - they are meaningless as exhibits. Yet museums often exhibit objects that cannot be used, such as dresses that can't be worn, chairs that can't be sat on, and knives that can't be used. It seems that text (which is also an object) has become more important than the book, the object, itself.
This lack of appreciation of the physicality of books is demonstrated by the fact that museums and art galleries regularly display unbound books or single pages, often framed or hung on the wall. Their argument is that since visitors can only ever see one or two pages of a book in a display, why not just show those.
However, a book and its pages are one and the same - if, in the past, people had wanted to read unbound sheets of paper on a wall, that is what they would have done.
Now, however, the distinction between books as things and books as objects is blurring and their objectification is beginning to gain credence in academic circles.
Not only should museums preserve books because they are fundamental to the creation and history of museums themselves, but also because library services rarely know what to do with rare book collections.
Rare book librarians, as their annual conference last autumn showed, are currently thinking about placing books within a pseudo-museum framework but without applying museology principles.
Rare books should have gone to museums after 1964, when their administration was separated from that of libraries in the Libraries and Museums Act. In some cases, libraries did return unwanted book collections but they were ignored by museums. This ultimately led to the lack of understanding about rare books by curators, which still exists today.
Museums will probably groan at the thought of accepting a new role, one they may feel does not belong to them, but the reality is that the book has been an integral part of society for centuries. It is not a case of dealing with library cast-offs, it's about museums taking responsibility for reinstating books in the eyes of the public - as cultural icons.
Jeremy Knight is the curator of Horsham Museum. The piece is based on research undertaken for an MA in Museum Studies dissertation at UCL
Throughout the 20th century, libraries and museums have argued about keeping books; libraries say that their function is to lend and use books rather than display them, while museums argue that they retain and display objects - and books aren't objects.
Their logic is that as books are for reading and, when displayed, they can't be read - they are meaningless as exhibits. Yet museums often exhibit objects that cannot be used, such as dresses that can't be worn, chairs that can't be sat on, and knives that can't be used. It seems that text (which is also an object) has become more important than the book, the object, itself.
This lack of appreciation of the physicality of books is demonstrated by the fact that museums and art galleries regularly display unbound books or single pages, often framed or hung on the wall. Their argument is that since visitors can only ever see one or two pages of a book in a display, why not just show those.
However, a book and its pages are one and the same - if, in the past, people had wanted to read unbound sheets of paper on a wall, that is what they would have done.
Now, however, the distinction between books as things and books as objects is blurring and their objectification is beginning to gain credence in academic circles.
Not only should museums preserve books because they are fundamental to the creation and history of museums themselves, but also because library services rarely know what to do with rare book collections.
Rare book librarians, as their annual conference last autumn showed, are currently thinking about placing books within a pseudo-museum framework but without applying museology principles.
Rare books should have gone to museums after 1964, when their administration was separated from that of libraries in the Libraries and Museums Act. In some cases, libraries did return unwanted book collections but they were ignored by museums. This ultimately led to the lack of understanding about rare books by curators, which still exists today.
Museums will probably groan at the thought of accepting a new role, one they may feel does not belong to them, but the reality is that the book has been an integral part of society for centuries. It is not a case of dealing with library cast-offs, it's about museums taking responsibility for reinstating books in the eyes of the public - as cultural icons.
Jeremy Knight is the curator of Horsham Museum. The piece is based on research undertaken for an MA in Museum Studies dissertation at UCL
