If the information is presented in the form of QUESTIONS as opposed to
STATEMENTS, a lot of 'controversy' could be avoided.


On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Hank Burchard wrote:

>         On 16 Feb 1996, Claudia Nicholson wrote:
>
> > I have become increasingly troubled this past year by the high-profile
> > controversies involving history museums and their interpretations of the
> > past.
> >
> > The Enola Gay controversy is only one of the most recent examples.  I have
> > also read about some other problems at places like the Library of Congress,
> > and the National Museum of American History (Science in Society?).  It
> > would seem that some curatorial staffs have gotten carried away with
> > current scholarship while misunderstanding that historical understanding
> > in the public lags by at least 15 years, and possibly as much as 50!  I am
> > wondering if the defense that "this represents current historical scholar-
> > ship" is adequate to the bill-paying public.
> >
> > Please do not mistake my position:  I never read the script for the
> > original Enola Gay exhibit and so cannot comment in any rational way on
> > what the exhibit was to contain or say.  Likewise, it seems to me that just
> > because Freud's theories on personality have largely been discredited by
> > the psychiatric community, that is no reason not to present him and his
> > works as important to the development of the treatment of mental disorders.
> >
> > However, I am wondering if it is possible that many of us have forgotten
> > our audiences when we prepare exhibits.  Is it possible that we are doing
> > our work to impress our colleagues?  At my own institution (the South
> > Dakota State Historical Society), we opened an exhibit on Sioux culture
> > (Oyate Tawicoh'an, see History News, Autumn 1995) which we believe breaks
> > a little bit of new ground in the presentation of living cultures.  I must
> > admit, though, that what you all would think of this exhibit was as much
> > on my mind as how the public would react to it.  Professional admiration
> > is as important to me as whether or not the public "gets it" or even likes
> > it.
> >
> > I am worried that if we do our work to impress our colleagues (academic
> > historians OR museum professionals) that the public gets left out of the
> > equation and the resulting controversy, a la Enola Gay, is inevitable.  Do
> > we do a good enough job of explaining the position of the exhibit to the
> > public. . . is it transparent enough?
>
>      As a fulltime museum reviewer (Washington Post), I find this to be
> one of the most thoughtful and pertinent postings I've ever seen on
> museum-l. There are some very weird epistemological systems in operation
> in academia these days. Many of their adherents are so committed to a
> given methodology or point of view that they disregard, or even openly
> despise, conventional wisdom. They tend to demonize those who hold
> opposing, or simply noncongruent, views. As a white male of prewar (WWII)
> vintage, I often see the eyes of young curators glaze over when I ask
> basic questions about the presentation of an exhibition. And I often see
> their brains fuzz up when they try to answer--or avoid--the questions.
>     Museums are showbiz, folks, and if you want to sell the audience you
> have to bear in mind where the man (and woman and child) in the street is
> coming from.
>
>      Hank Burchard * [log in to unmask] * Washington DC
>