don't explain

(I again apologize for the lack of context for this Amsterdam-related post.)

Do you think the way the American Museum of Natural History evolved was a result of, in spite of, or irrelevant to the existence of the Met?
Much is made in the introduction, and in scattered references throughout, of the opposing juxtaposition of the AMNH and the Met due to their position in physical space across from each other, as well as due to their function in knowledge. The interesting point brought up is that the viewpoint of each museum on art and nature shapes the way in which art and nature are chosen and represented, as if the Met and the AMNH built off of each other in this fashion. However, is this truly a direct result of their relative positions in physical space, or more a function of their individual goals and processes?

Do traditions necessarily require eventual replacing?
Bal points out that traditions remain as a relic, reminding us of some point in our past or history, until they become too painful for our culture to bear, at which point they are rejected and replaced by some new tradition. Is this a necessary consequence of the nature of traditions, or is it rather a contextual result whose occurrence depends on the tradition and the culture?