Hi Regan,

--- Regan Forrest <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You raise some interesting points, but some, I feel, are generalisations that
> need to be challenged. From the experience you describe it sounds like you
> have consistently encountered spectacularly displayed and interpreted
> objects, but substandard and uninspiring interactive exhibits. Not true for
> all of us, on both counts!

Well I've seen the whole spectrum from really good displays of objects as well
as interactives and really horrid static displays and interactives. But my main
point is that museums need to focus on artifacts as the starting point for
their exhibits, not interactives. (Granted, there will be exceptions but I can
never see how you'd be able to pull off an "art" exhibit with pieces of art or
a history exhibit without artifacts.)

I think the point of the contrast between the City Museum and the Dulles Annex
is that there aren't enough "things" in the City Museum for people to look at
and to keep coming back to see whereas the Dulles Annex is full of things to
see and then some. I think it's a bit unfair to compare the the Dulles Annex is
many times larger than the City Museum but the basic point holds. Why read
miles of text when you can look at things instead?

Take the Holocaust Museum in DC as another example. There's something like 19
hours of text in the museum which is a huge amount of text. But there are many
more objects to look at. I think the Wall of Shoes of the victims of Auschwitz
says more than any text pannel or interactive could ever do. Like the City
Museum, the Holocaust Museum tells a story but does it mainly through objects
and pictures using text as a secondary source of info, not the primary source.

> Hey, I doubt anyone here will question the power of objects. But how many of
> us have encountered poorly displayed objects, with lack of context and
> interpretation for the uninitiated (i.e. most of the public?). I am not of
> the school that believes objects can speak for themselves. To continue the
> metaphor, what if the visitor doesn't speak the object's language?
> Interpretation and context are essential.

Well I'd agree and disagree with that. I think some objects can speak for
themselves in any "language." You don't need to be Japanese to enjoy a walk
through a Japanese garden or know anything about dinosaurs to be awed by a
complete Tyranasaurus Rex skeleton. And then there's the flip side where no
amount of instruction or background will get me to understand some modern art.

> This assumes that all interactives are of the
> push-button-to-see-single-outcome variety, which anyone who works with
> interactives will consider to be a lower order of the species, if they class
> them as an interactive at all. For the sake of debate, I will counter your
> argument with an exhibit that many people on this list will be familar, the
> Tornado (and there may be better examples, but this is off the top of my
> head). I can touch it, disrupt the flow, set up turbulence patterns, feel the
> cool air on my hands, the list goes on. A cased artifact used to measure wind
> speeds, say, will not engage me in the same way. Place them together, and
> bingo! A new level of understanding, perhaps . . .

Good point and I think that interactives can inhance one's understanding of
objects. But you really can't understand the true destructive power of a
tornado through that interactive. You need to see one for yourself (hopefully
not!!) or look at pictures of tornadoes or the aftermath of one to really
understand it.

For example, I liked the "interactive fish tank" exhibit at the Boston Museum
of Science. It was a fun, instructive and entertaining interactive. But I spent
maybe half an hour at the video fish tank v. hours of wandering through aquaria
watching real fish. I might come back to the video fish every now and then to
play around with it for a couple of minutes but that's nothing compared to the
time I've spent looking at real fish.

> - I know of interactive exhibits in the UK that allow visitors to find both
> these things out first hand. Often they were intended for children, but are
> proving popular with adults too (e.g. the interactive exhibits at the V&A
> museum in London)

Don't know about those exhibits. Are they replicas of actual objects or like
computer simulations. If they are replicas of actual objects, I'd says that
even though they are technically interactives, you're still giving people the
experience of a "real" object as opposed to a simulated one.

> Some people may need
> something to chip off the ivory-tower veneer to feel that it's OK to ask
> these questions. Particularly people who may not be traditional museum goers
> and find them, frankly, terrifying. They might think they're supposed to know
> these things, and feel stupid when they don't.

I think that's a great idea! But again, after people learn about art through
these interactives, will they come back to them or the original objects? And
will people remember the interactives more or the objects? I would hope that
the idea of the interactives would be to make the object more memorable. In
fact, I would hope that interactives would be completely forgetable once people
experience the real object. So instead of hearing, "We did this cool experiment
with paints to see how Surratt made colors by placing little dots together,"
you'd hear, "We saw this neat painting by Surratt that was entirely made of
little dots. He did it this way....(which would be information learned through
the interactive but not necessarily a description of the interactive itself if
that makes any sense.)"

> To summarise, good examples and bad examples of interactives exist. There
> does seem to be a climate of seeing interactives as a magic device to make
> any subject instantly interesting, especially to kids, which is of course not
> true and probably the reason why people such as yourself are suspicious of
> them. However, as you would implore people to not underestimate the power of
> objects, I implore you to not underestimate the power of a good interactive
> exhibit.

Excellent summary and I think you've stated my point better than I did. :)

Deb



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).