Dear David Haberstich,
I am glad that you responded with all force to my statements. It clarifies.
It is honest. And it can sharpen our (my) point of view.
I do agree that experts should review the texts. I do agree that overlooking
this task is downgrading the quality of the exhibition. I do agree that
there are scientists who can reach the lay audience. But that is not common,
and it is not their task and therefore, they are (mostly) not skilled,
schooled or experts in that.
If scientists are able to do and control everything, why do we need
restoration persons, why registrars, why security, why marketing experts,
why painters, scultpurers of dioramas, why script writers etc.
In principle, that's my opinion, an organisation should take care of
different experts for different tasks - as done in the whole industry. Once
in a while, some overlaps due to personal capacities and qualities will
happen. But, generally, a concert will only be able to play professionally,
when the violinist plays his instrument and does not temper with the horn or
the flute.
The main underlying question is: Why is it so complicated to get the
curators in a museum to share the work and the responsibility to create an
exhibition with experts for language, communication, colours, scripts,
psychology, all professions who are more experts in communicating to the
visitors as a scientist on frogs, oil paintings or Roman empire?
It would help to make museums more professional. It would help to bring more
information and joy to more visitors. And that is what exhibitions are all
about: FOR THE VISITORS and for the museum people. (As cars are for drivers
and not for the automobile workers.)
Greetings to you all,
Peter, the Rebernik

+---------------------------------------------------
 | PHAROS International - Bureau for Cultural Projects
 | Peter Rebernik, Dipl.-Ing.
 | Anton Baumgartnerstr. 44/C2/3/2; A-1230 Wien / AUSTRIA
 | Tel.: (... 43 1) 667 7375; Fax: (... 43 1) 667 2984
 | Mobiltel.: (... 43 664) 230 2767
 | E-Mail: [log in to unmask]; Web: http://www.rebernik.at
+------------------------------------------------------
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: David Haberstich <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
An: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Datum: Dienstag, 12. Mai 1998 18:02
Betreff: Re: Great History Exhibits


> I wish to register vigorous disagreement with Peter Rebernik's line,
>"It should not be the task of a museum scientist to write the
>inscriptions [labels?], not even to do the exhibition at all." In the
>first place, I reject that kind of didacticism. I get a little tired of
>having people placed in narrowly defined pigeonholes, and hearing rules
>that occupations shouldn't be allowed to deviate from predetermined
>roles. This flies in the face of the vaunted teamwork which is supposed
>to prevail in institutions such as museums nowadays. In the first place,
>there are "museum scientists," curators, and other specialists who are
>fine writers and communicators, and there is no reason they should be
>discouraged from writing exhibition labels. The simple expedient of
>review by a professional editor can ensure that exhibit text is
>reasonably comprehensible to anticipated audiences and of reasonably
>consistent style, no matter who writes the first draft. I have seen so
>much incorrect, inept writing about my field by non-experts--whether
>professional writers or scholars in other fields--that I am convinced
>specialists MUST be in on the writing of exhibit text, at some stage.
>Obvious, silly errors made by non-experts who don't even bother to
>consult specialists will undermine the credibility of a museum.
>Specialists MUST be involved in some stage of the exhibit text cycle.
>Why not give specialists the option--to write exhibit scripts or merely
>review them? But it is important for specialists to review final edits
>because of all the misunderstandings and misstatements which can creep
>in.
>
>I once was horrified to see an error made by my boss when he edited
>exhibit text I had written. The problem was not lack of expertise in the
>field, just unfamiliarity with the specific object I was describing. He
>misunderstood what I had written and changed it without consulting me.
>The resultant gaffe would have been laughable to most visitors, so the
>label had to be redone at the last minute. The moral is: consult
>specialists, even on minor issues, in preparing exhibition labels. I
>think it's a big mistake to separate subject experts from the task of
>writing exhibit scripts.
>
>I also object to the view that it should not be the task of a "museum
>scientist" to "do" an exhibition at all. This makes as much sense as to
>decree that a scholar or specialist should not "do" an article or book
>in his or her field. If this opinion rests on the assumption that a
>specialist has nothing to say--or doesn't know how to communicate it--to
>a museum audience, I call such an opinion bias and prejudice.
>
>And just because an exhibition takes an interdisciplinary approach is no
>reason to ignore specialists in favor of a professional exhibit label
>writer--it just means you have more experts to consult. --David
>Haberstich
>