Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary
Houghton, Mifflin: MA (1984):
ex.hib-it: 1. to show externally: DISPLAY 2. To present for public view
ex.hi.bi.tion 1. an act of exhibiting 2. something exhibited 3. a public
display
Paul Apodaca's observation that "civilization and culture are more
valuable than simple entertainment" seems patently true. But the
following sentance, "why do museums require educated people with degrees
to simply put on showbiz entertainment?" is a little more complex.
While it is certainly the case that many more museum employees are
"educated people with degrees" -- just ask any poor soul trying to locate
a position who does not have that fabled piece of paper, and even many
who do -- the question remains, are educated people those responsible for
the collection and management of things and ideas which comprise a
society's cultural heritage; those who study that same material to gleem
unique and power insights into history and human nature; or those who
distribute (note, not disseminate) information about the collections they
are priviledged for work with on a first-hand basis?
Mr. Apodaca brings up another valid point. Museum exhibitions that can
stretch the boundaries of the curator's knowledge have made tremendous
additions to the scholarly field of knowledge from which they originate.
Much like a groundbreaking study or publication that challenges
previously held conceptions and forces an academic field to recognize its
here-to-fore unrecognized potential.
But is the purpose of a museum to further research or to act as a
repository for education and illumination? I realize that I am setting
myself up for the obvious criticism "Can't they do both?" and I suppose
that I would have to admit, finally, that I believe they can.
The question is, which purpose leads and informs the other?
Elaine Gurian notes in "Noodling Around with Exhibition Opportunities" (a
chapter in Karp & Levine's Exhibiting Cultures) -- one of my favorite
titles for any exposition, that "exhibitions are places of free choice."
And this is where I think that mimicking the machinations of our academic
siblings may lead us awry. Academicians do not typically publish in
order to bring new knowledge to many outside their university enclaves.
Gurian also notes that "we have internalized certain cultural perferences
for some modes of learning over others." But too often, I think museums
try to incorporate different learning styles (when they incorporate
different learning styles) in the museum format rather that content. An
exhibition can account for as many of the five senses as it likes -- if
the content is still aimed as something other than its visitors, it can
be a lot of button pushing.
What is important for visitors to know? What constitutes learning? I
won't take too many more screens trying to answer these questions. But I
would like to recommend one relatively small publication for thought:
"Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" a report of a Task Force established
by the Board of Scientific Affairs and published last August by the
American Psychological Association. This relatively short pamphlet (50
pages) brings up some interesting questions about what we know about
intelligence, more importantly, what we don't know, and finally, various
definitions of the same.
Museums, while filling with ever more Ph.D's, should not have the same
agenda. Regardless of our ancestry, museums (ref. Buchard 2/21)
--particularly in this country -- were established as public
institutions. I do not see that the museum curator's job is any less
demanding than the academician's. In fact, it requires said curator to
move beyond his/her experience, training, and knowledge to try and see
the world as others might. Museums as "agents"of change? I would be
more comfortable with "forums" for change. We have a responsibility, not
a quest.
Michelle L. Craig
Education/Exhibitions Specialist
American Psychological Assoc.
[log in to unmask]
|
