A museum, no doubts construct cultural identity by displaying artifacts with historical significance, however the existence as well has become significant. Kevin Moore suggest, that museums are no longer neutral in its existence politically, “It might be the one that many people in museums now espouse, but it is nonetheless a political one’ (Moore, 1997: 20) since it is government funded, the tremendous amount of politics that museums have to experience are evident. He also mentioned being a cultural institute within our contemporary society,its nature plays a vital component which makes it so powerful, that is, ‘the real thing, real place and real people’ (Moore, 1997: 135). Although each component  is powerful yet Moore mentioned that having the three components together in a museum will promote this triple power making the museum even more significant.

Political

MOS and PHM are government funded meaning at some level both museums have to deal with political issues. MOS is funded by the government and centrally managed by  Historic House Trust, MOS’s objective hence would become narrow, not only to take caution on what it is exhibiting but also perspective has to be kept a positive one as Virago revealed. The whole exhibition within the museum projects positive and strong interactions  in order to be consistent with its objective. The installation of the Edge of the Trees, Professor Julie Marcus critically argued that ‘The Museum of Sydney's concept brief places the space for the sculpture as intersecting with the entrance foyer of the museum. In the course of development, this intersection shifted further from the foyer until even this slight recognition of who owned the land was lost’ (Professor Julie Marcus, 1996). Rather then recognizing the owner of the lands, or the encounter with the Cardigal People, the podium is slightly off-proportioned by displaying the remainders of the government house, somehow indirectly illustrates their perspective rather then keeping the perspective dual. Without having to walk into the museum we can already sense that the museum is off its neutral boundaries which Moore suggested.

PHM happens to fall into the same tragedy, 1988, Sydney Morning Heralds reported that in one of the Indigenous Exhibition, artifacts were quoted ‘only few survived before the European Invasion’ (Sydney Morning Heralds, 21^st June 1988: 1). Using the word Invasion had led a tremendous up-roar by the Arts Ministry and the government, mentioning that the word projected a wrong dimension. Margaret Coaldrake, the acting director of PHM immediately had to react to this up-roar. This scenario truly demonstrated how politics are so powerful and influential amongst the institutions, such as PHM and it is almost impossible to debate or to illustrate a different dimension and perspective on exhibitions, other than a positive one.

‘Real Things and Real Place’

MOS in contrast to PHM is a very good example in how powerful it can get by merely representing real place. Real place with regards to historic places, in this case the government house. MOS, by exhibiting the remainder of the government house had led them put together fragmented evidence of the colonization creating a sense of cultural identity within the society. PHM on the other hand exhibit real things to construct an equivalent power, by displaying the real things, in this case, artifacts PHM constructed the historical significance that Moore mentioned on Sydney History, here again building a virtue relationship in the present with the past, making them just as powerful and meaningful as MOS.

The existence of the two museums is no accident, rather it is through a careful fabrication and creation under indirect pressures from its surrounding. It is important to realize that pressure will continue to take place until it truly becomes independent.