This may be beating a dead thread, but I have a real problem with the
assumption that people in general will not be entertained,
illuminated, moved, or enlightened by the best thinking and research
on a given topic. Of course, there will always be some people who
will object to the complexities raised in an exhibit such as the Enola
Gay exhibit, and many more who will be bored. But I do think that
in-depth, accurate, well-considered information is necessary for
museum exhibitions.
And, I would assume, the real challenge of museum
exhibition design is to present ideas in all of their complexity in a
way that is engaging for visitors of all types. Academy-style
learning will not work for the most part in museums, not because
visitors are ignorant, but because they are learning on their feet,
absorbing information in a busy, distracting, and social environment,
rather than in the classroom or the library. Though it seems to be a
given that visitors need two or three encapsulated take home messages,
that does not mean that information can't be layered, with more
in-depth content for those who have the time, stamina, inclination,
and interest.
To take it off of the controversial path, the Hall of Vertebrates and
their Extinct Ancestors (I think is the formal title of the "Dinosaur
Halls" currently being re-installed at the American Museum of Natural
History) is designed and built, as well as interpreted, around the
very modern understanding of cladistics. There may be some question
as to how well the largest groups of people follow this exhibition
story line, but I admire the museum for resisting the impulse to put
together a few dynamation-type dioramas, and for getting to the
scientific heart of the matter.
As for take home messages, I got two: 1) cladistics is the work of
scientists studying evolutionary relationships; 2) there is something
*really* important about whether a mammal had a hole in their jaw for
one of their nerves to pass through, and by extension, small
anatomical differences can be very diagnostic for determining
evolutionary relationships. Number 2 is probably not one of the
messages that the evaluators and designers intended, but it just goes
to show: that information was available, and somehow my mind,
distracted by my kids during the visit, grasped on to it. There is no
predicting how the distracted and uneducated mind will work...
Now, there are certainly those who would think that evolutionary
theories are controversial, and would prefer the word of the bible on
these matters. But the museum made a serious choice to cast their
vote with the scientific method, and to expose visitors to the process
and products of this method.
Moving back to the more controversial sphere of historical
interpretation, again, I think that a museum like the Holocaust Museum
has used serious scholarship to provoke the imaginations, intellects,
and emotions of visitors. I think that the Enola Gay exhibition would
have done the same, had they not been short-circuited by the adamant
voices of people representing a specific point of view.
Whether or not museums have their roots in show-biz, I think that the
most dangerous assumptions are those of the intellectual elite
assuming that people in general need simplified, inaccurate, or
propagandistic presentations to be engaged. This assumption reminds
me of the excesses of various social movements which pretended to
speak on the behalf of "the people" in matters such as urban planning,
politics, and social organization. The misperceptions of the elites
in some obvious cases, led to the assumption that the aspirations of
the masses were dramatically different than their own aspirations.
This assumption, in turn, led to the dismal failures of all kinds of
social engineering, from housing projects to Soviet communism.
There, have I generalized enough for one post?
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
