Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 25 Jul 1994 10:30:30 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In your question about the Plains Indian exhibition at
Seattle, and the complex questions of curatorship and museum
philosophy entailed in exhibiting sacred objects, you seemed
to wish that an interactive computer kiosk or station would
provide you with more information.
I have two responses to that: the first is one word:
"catalog." The book is a time tested, portable, rich medium
of information. I have even heard of a study conducted in
Cornell that implies that the book has been shaped by the
natural ways that people learn. I'm afraid that all the
money and attention being paid to computer interpretation is
dramatically shortchanging the value of the catalog. There
are obviously all kinds of reasons for this, but I think
that a major one is "glitz". I'm sorry if I'm coming across
as a Luddite. I'm certainly not, but I do wonder about the
mass rush to video screens on the exhibition floor.
The second response I have is the question about whether
exhibitions *ever* raise the really troubling questions
about themselves. For example, in the Hall of Human
Evolution at the American Museum of Natural History, there
was a widely publicized controversy, about which I've
forgotten the details, concerning the appearance of various
hominids. The exhibit label makes some kind of reference to
the uncertainty involved in things such as hair (kinky or
straight). But there is no reference to what the meat of the
controversy is.
I mention this because, in a current site interpretation
program we're planning at the New York Botanical Garden,
we've identified some really interesting
controversies which continue to shape the landscape.
However, they are politically too hot to handle for us.
I assume that similar things to this happen all the time,
and the public misses some of the *really* interesting meat
that goes into making exhibitions.
Eric
NYBG
|
|
|