Methinks, Eric, you protest too much. The "dethroning" of the author is
not, as far as I'm concerned, a call against narrative.  I'm not convinced that
it even means the end to any voice of authority. I couldn't agree more, we do
all love a good story well told. We also like to know groovey facts about the
Blue Footed Boobey and that the teller knows what she/he is talking about. For
me, the issue is the construction of meaning, the synthesis of the information
into something useful.
    I'm thinking out loud here, but it's possible that it isn't a call to do
anything at all differenlty than we already do, necessarily. I take my daughter
to the Wagner Free Institute periodically (A. Mintz refered to it recently).
You can't get more retro than that, in terms of exhibitry. It has not changed
since the 19th century. It is among the most thrilling science museums I know,
and my 9 year old agrees. Case after case of cool things that constitute a
powerful ideology about a person's place in the natural world (clearly, we
could debate the merits of that ideology, but that's another discussion).
    What it does have to do with is the way we, who put these exhibits
together,
position the "Institutional voice" in the mix. Does it work against someone's
ability to truely play with the information (in the form of objects, animals,
plants, virtual or otherwise)? In children's museums, we know intimately the
connection between play and learning. I contend that adults learn in exactly
the same way. It is my experience that museums most often place that voice of
author-ity ("Mater/paternalistic", "weight of the state", whatever the hell you
want to call it)  smack in the way of any genuine play. There is rarely room
for us (as visitors) to take that piece of information and try it this way or
that, whithout the background noise of "expertise" crowding out creative
thought. It's as if we are collectively miserly with the creative process.
This is no call to fire all experts, just to widen the arena, share the blocks,
if you will.
    I confess a thoroughly unscientific method here. These are intuitive
assertions based on little hard data. I would love to hear the evaluators in
the group join the fray.
 
    Ken, yes you are certainly right. It makes a huge difference on the product
when you choose a process. But do you choose the process (tool) based on your
attraction to it rather than letting the needs of the project determine the
tool? It is perfectly clear that computer technology, in all its
manifestations, offers an unprecedented array of ways to communicate. It can
even give us wholly new ways to think about the act of communicating. But it is
still an array of tools. The decision making process should still be driven by
the fundamental goals established for the project.
 
Aaron Goldblatt
Please Touch Museum
[log in to unmask]