Leaving aside for the moment the question of how well the creation of
the gallery script for the Enola Gay exhibit ("The Last Act") was
handled (and I understand that few critics have seen the actual
gallery script, and that most of the copies of the script in circulation
are obsolete), there is an interesting larger question here for
museum professionals.
 
Given that you own a really "hot" artifact -- the Enola Gay, for
instance -- around which controversy still gathers, how do you as
a museum handle it?  Do you 1) leave it in deep storage accessible
only to researchers, 2) mount it without contextual information (as
I understand "Boxcar", the Nagasaki bomber, is displayed,) or 3)
provide interpretive material to put the object in its historical
context?
 
And if you choose to interpret, do you try to present all possible
points of view equally, or do you adopt an institutional viewpoint?
Who decides what that viewpoint should be?  What kinds of community
input and review do you solicit while planning the exhibit?  How do
you present viewpoints that differ from the one you choose to present
as the institutional perspective?
 
"Enola" is an especially tricky artifact because there *are* opposing
viewpoints regarding it, and emotions are still hot after fifty years.
Most infamous objects one might display have only one currently
acceptable viewpoint -- one would not, for instance, present a
"balanced" interpretation of Nazi memorabilia or a slave ship,
because these things, though once approved by many, are no longer
acceptable in our society.  But the horrors of Hiroshima, as well
as the horrors of Japanese aggression that led to the destruction
of Hiroshima, are still painful parts of living memory.  Anyone who
doubts this should talk to the survivors, and the children and
grandchildren of the survivors, of both sets of horrors.
 
"Enola" presents us with the problem of representing moral ambiguity --
the idea that something can be simultaneously horrible and necessary --
in a museum exhibit.  This is not a comfortable concept for most people,
who would rather have all things be right or wrong.  And it's an
especially difficult concept to represent in an exhibit space, where
people steer their own course among artifacts and explanatory text.
I frankly doubt that most people can make the necessary moral synthesis
after an hour or less in an exhibit, however well designed and presented.
 
Reading the articles in the papers, I find myself wondering how other
museums have faced this kind of challenge, and how successful their
efforts have been.
 
The above are my own opinions, despite my institutional affiliation.
My colleagues, and NASM administration, will have their own points
of view.
 
       +------------------------------+------------------------+
       |  Barbara Weitbrecht          |  [log in to unmask]  |
       |  National Air & Space Museum |  [log in to unmask]       |
       |  Smithsonian Institution     |  (202) 357-4162        |
       +------------------------------+------------------------+