In a message dated 96-05-29 22:52:30 EDT, [log in to unmask] (Robert A.
Baron) writes:

>Museums exist to make the
>unknown known; theme parks recreate a world in which we can verify and
>internalize our own values.

Robert's point is salient and eloquent. The problem with the discussion is
that it presupposes the need for comparison and contrasting the goals, aims,
and objectives of the, yes, very different institutions. What I, and I
believe others, are trying to say is that just because our goal etc. is more
nobler and our presentation and purpose involves reality does not mean we are
precluded from borrowing techniques which appeal and WORK to bring people in.
It's like the candy bar commercial (Milky Way, I think): the candy bar is now
lowfat and the guy hawking it says it tastes great. This woman (stereotyped
as being obsessed with fat and good flavor) walks on screen and says "you
think I'll like it??!! Give me that!!!" Now, I'll bet, although I have not
done the research, that Milky Way sells alot more candy than Hershey's
chocolate bar (not kisses) b/c Hershey's doesn't sell it in a way which is
relatable. The same can be applied to us. OK, so maybe we are "temples of
truth" and "bastions of academia" but who cares if no one comes in the door.
Using the techniques applied by Disney et al to entertain people can be done
with real objects and interpretation. Museums are doing it: the postal museum
lets you find the best way to get the mail from New Orleans to New York; the
Holocaust Museum gives you the opportunity to "be" someone who experienced
the Holocaust; Fernbank Science Center has a great swamp to walk thru. And so
on. Children's Museums do it and it's acceptable. Don't we want children
(more importantly teenagers) to be able to enjoy non-children's museums?

- Adrienne