I've been watching this thread with some humor, as I am monitoring the comment book in our newest temporary exhibit: Sinners ans Saints: Vice and Reform in Kansas.
While the topics themselves (prostitution, gambling, smoking, and drinking) might induce some to write offensive comments, I too find that it is young folks writing unrelated, "dirty" remarks in our book.
Generally, I (as the lead curator of the show) check the book every morning before we open and pull out those pages with unrelated, offensive comments. We are asking people to respond to speficic questions and so I am typing up the relevant comments and keeping them for our files. I put back the pages that have relevant, thought provoking responses in the hope that others will catch on.
As for those who would say that this is censorship or something, I can only say that I don't see the value in comments like "bunghole" and "cornhoolio" in an comment book!
Good luck!
Jill L. Brush
Jill Brush
Curator
Kansas State Historical Society
6425 SW 6th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66615-1099
Phone: 785.272.8681 x 425
Fax: 785.272.8682
[log in to unmask]
>>> "David E. Haberstich" <[log in to unmask]> 08/13/01 10:26PM >>>
In a message dated 01-08-13 10:58:27 EDT, Robert Gowty aka Bernadette Jones
wrote:
<< In considering the implications of overtly offensive material being left
in the comments book, my inclination would tend towards putting up a sign of
warning as opposed to ripping or cutting out pages or even blacking out
offensive content. Irrespective of whether or not I or
others interpret these comments as offensive, their worth as Ellen Cutler
pointed to in her email is one of anthropological interest. Its merit for me
is that it is a response to the museum experience. If the most the visitor
can make out of their excursion to a museum or arts
institution is to indulge in juvenile banter then perhaps we need to look at
different ways to reach these people so as to more involve them in the museum
experience.
>>
I'm sorry, but I think putting up a warning sign about the presence of
offensive material would just draw more attention to the comment book,
encouraging contributions of even more crude, offensive remarks, feeding off
each other. Monkey see, monkey do. Do you really want your comment book to
BE the exhibit, to distract the people you're supposedly trying to reach away
from the (original) exhibit? The higher the percentage of neo-Neanderthal
obscenities, juvenile remarks, and silliness in your comment book, the less
inspired anyone will be to contribute thoughtful reactions to the exhibit.
Yes, you'll compile an "anthropological" document of some value, but much of
it will have little to do with any "response to the museum experience". On
the other hand, a comment book filled with vulgarities and inanities might
serve as a useful wake-up call to museum folks who delude themselves into
thinking they're providing a relevant learning experience to rowdy kids who
just consider museum field trips great opportunities to cut loose under
minimal supervision and try to impress their buddies with how clever and cute
they are. I realize I'm likely to take some heat for such cynicism, but I
think the kind of nonsense which we're concerned about represents a response
to a situation, not "the museum experience." I would suggest that a comment
book can be a factor which can actually compete with an exhibit and prevent
people from having a positive museum experience.
Last week I attended an art gallery opening in which a comment book was
positioned prominently. I don't think some of the superficial, mostly
favorable remarks that I saw were particularly useful, but at least they
recorded responses to the show, with nary an obscenity or gratuitous
irrelevancy in sight. That's because the event was self-filtering and a high
percentage of the people there attended because they really wanted to be
there, either (a) to view the art, (b) have a good time in a particular
ambience, or (c) both. They weren't all adults, either. By contrast, I
think many kids herded together into museums on field trips are primarily
responding to each other in a new venue and not to the museum itself.
So I'm in favor of excising the irrelevant garbage from the comment book,
while preserving it for study by anthropologists, sociologists,
psychologists, zoologists, or other appropriate professionals. I'm not
convinced that museologists will get much out of it.
Hmm. Why is it beginning to feel so warm in here?
David Haberstich
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
========================================================Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
