Adrienne, I'm not sure I understand the difference between admitting
that "no exhibit is going to attract everyone," vs. NOT adopting the
attitude that "not everyone is going to like it anyway." Please clarify.
There seems to be some difficulty over verbs such as "like," "interest,"
and "attract," which I suppose I have muddled myself. Basically, I think
we're concentrating on attracting visitors to museums, not necessarily
getting them to "like" the subject matter of a specific exhibit--or are
we? Or do we assume that a sufficiently interesting presentation will
encourage a visitor to "like" the subject content? If I do a smashing
exhibit on the history and aesthetics of liver and onions, will it
attract people who hate liver & onions, or will it cause them to like
liver & onions in some way as a side effect of the educational process
(or is mere appreciation enough?)

Are you saying that controversy is the way to attract visitors who have
little or no interest in certain subject matter? Should controversy be
deliberately staged and encouraged to arouse interest? (Perhaps this
could be a new job for volunteers: make signs objecting to an exhibit
and picket the museum in order to attract people curious to see what the
fuss is about.) Of course, there are people who are repelled by
controversy and will stay away at any hint of unpleasantness; perhaps
every exhibit should have both a controversial half and a sanitized,
pleasant, universally inoffensive side.

Let's ask Jay ("relevance is my business") Smith his secret. That great
sucking sound you hear when you're near Hutchinson, Kansas is people
being attracted to the Reno County Museum--whether they like it or not.
:-) --David Haberstich