Hello all!

I'm repeating a general inquiry about exhibit research that I buried in
another posting last week, so many people may have missed it--either
that or others don't find it as interesting as I do!   :-)

I'm interested in knowing what kind of research most curators do for
exhibits.  I know the amount of time one has to mount a show has
everything to do with the amount of research that gets done, but I'm also
curious to know if it's mostly secondary or primary research.  Do you 1.
do research (including primary research) and writing worthy of an
academic treatise? 2. mostly stick to secondary research and write for
the general public?  3. or some other combination?

I've done primary research for some exhibits that would be similar to
research for an academic paper, but it isn't always possible because of
time and even subject matter and availability of sources to do primary
research for every exhibit.

What is our responsibility as curators to the general public?  Must we be
presenting as much evidence as possible to support a position with text
and objects (and does every exhibit even need a "thesis?") or are we to
provide general information that will give our visitors an understanding of
a topic and perhaps inspire them to look further into the topic?  To put it in
academic terms:  should we be teaching a general high school course,
or a college seminar?

Just thoughts for the weekend.

Christine Mouw
Assistant Curator
Herbert Hoover Presidential Library-Museum
West Branch, Iowa  52358
[log in to unmask]