> I've always thought that history and science museums should interpret the
> exhibits they display.  Without interpretation, the gallery becomes a room
> full of antiques (minerals, etc.) gathered in one place.  I can see how art
> in museums can stand on their own, though it's always nice to learn about the
> artists. Or historic homes and arboritums can be appreciated just by being
> there.  But with the Air and Space Museum - just a gathering of old aircraft
> without any explanation?  How DO others feel about this?
>
> Deb Baroff, Museum of the Great Plains  Lawton  OK

I think most, if not all, museum exhibits can benefit from having some
interpretation present.  An historic home may be pretty, but information about
who lived there, what they did and how they did it, and why the governing
organization has chosen to display these particular artifacts/furnishings
always enriches my visit.  Who is in that portrait over the fireplace?  The
owner?  An ancestor?  Someone admired?  Something bought at a garage sale?

An arboretum, too, can be enjoyed more (at least by me) with some information
about the plants beyond the name and country of origin.  Plants are generally
grouped into themes--why is this plant included in this thematic area?  If this
portion is an herb garden, what is this herb used for?  Why have the powers
that be decided to propagate and display this species?

Many modern art installations were created with a message in the artist's mind,
but the message can often be obtuse.  While I appreciate the chance to find my
own meaning in a work, I also appreciate the chance to know the artist's
meaning.  It may alter my perception of the work.  Representational art may not
need interpreting, per se, but my enjoyment is still enhanced by making a work
"personal", finding out about the artist, about the people or the location
portrayed, about any events surrounding that particular work's construction,
etc.

Any museum has particular items on exhibit for a reason--someone thinks this
item should be of interest to me, the visitor.  Is it an oddity?  Does it have
a special place in history?  Does it illustrate a biological principle, or some
universal truth?  What does it tell me about me, about the museum's personnel,
about humanity, about life?

Obviously, I feel that any and all museum exhibits should have "interpretation"
available to the visitor.  Anyone who doesn't wish to avail him/herself of that
information is free to just look, but those who want to learn why the item is
on display can do so.  The tricky part is in what interpretation is placed on
the objects.  Can we present a balanced view, particularly of controversial
issues?  Can we overcome our cultural biases to explain the context of an item
from another culture?  Can we stimulate thought and provide insight without
resorting to propaganda?  We need to provide "entertainment" in a broad sense;
if I didn't find your museum interesting, I won't bother coming back and will
tell my friends to go elsewhere.  Can we provide education at the same time?

Robin Panza
Section of Birds
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
[log in to unmask]