To Peter, the Rebernik:

I thank you for your response to my statement, but it appears that we're
coming at this issue of "doing" exhibitions and writing exhibit scripts from
different tradtions or assumptions.  I'm unclear on your remarks about "museum
scientists" and exactly whom you mean.  I thought you meant "curators," but
perhaps not.  Apparently you are thinking of professionals in science museums,
and I confess that I'm not aware of the prevailing traditions in such
institutions in your country (or mine, for that matter), whereas I was talking
about what I know best, curators in history and art museums.  It may well be
that there are differences.

In my museum and other history and art museums with which I am familiar, one
of the functions of curators is to organize, direct, and write texts for
exhibitions.  Indeed, although I wouldn't call myself a professional writer,
writing for both "popular" and professional audiences is an integral part of
my job--it is in my job description and I'm evaluated on it, in fact, and I
wouldn't be interested in having it any other way.  I think that having a
separate professional writer and/or exhibition organizer to work with "my"
collections would be counterproductive.  On a couple of occasions I've had to
supply information to a separate writer, then had to correct and revise what
he had written, and found it tedious going, because not only did I have to
correct factual statements, I had to modify both nuances and general
impressions and tone: this simply was inefficient.  In my experience, it has
been more efficient to submit MY text to an editor who respected my writing
and ideas but could improve syntax, check style, and streamline it in
consultation with me.  Perhaps there is a higher percentage of scientists and
curators in the fields of natural science, physics, chemistry, and technology
who cannot make themselves intelligible to a general audience (although some
of my work has been in technical areas as well), but I feel that the majority
of curators in history and art are perfectly capable of writing exhibition
texts.

I certainly do not assert that scientists (or curators) are "able to do and
control everything," but I think that writing well for a variety of audiences
is often--not just sometimes--well within their capabilities and should be
expected and encouraged, not discouraged.  While there may be some analogies
between an exhibition and a musical performance, I do not think there's a very
direct correspondence between the curator and an individual musician.  If you
think in terms of the composer conducting his own work, perhaps the curator
comes close to that, but where do you put the exhibition designer, who usually
has more power than even the concertmaster?  It depends on the type of
exhibition you're doing, too.  The curator of an exhibition of three-
dimensional artifacts usually defers to the designer for arrangement and
placement of the objects, but in an exhibition involving flat works of art,
the curator often has considerable input in placement and graphic design; not
only does the greater simplicity of the design problem facilitate such input,
the art curator normally has some training and sensitivity--and frequently
very definite ideas--in this area.

Perhaps you have personal experiences which would lead you to contend that
there is some sort of problem in dividing up the tasks involved in an
exhibition according to the specialties and skills of the participants.  But I
find it difficult to relate to your question, "Why is it so complicated to get
the curators in a museum to share the work and responsibility...?"  In my
museum it isn't complicated at all.  Yes, we've had curators disputing with
designers over color schemes and designs that they felt conflicted with the
display of their objects, and I once had a designer who conveniently "forgot"
to include in her layout some artifacts that she thought were ugly!  But most
of the problems--and every exhibition has problems and headaches associated
with it--involved communication among all the participants, and getting the
job done on time and under budget, not people interfering in areas beyond
their expertise.

I have done small exhibits in which I was a jack-of-all-trades, devising the
theme, doing the research and selecting the objects, writing the script,
matting and framing, doing the installation by myself, even doing the
typography, and self-catering the opening reception--not because I refused to
share the work but because it was the only way to get the job done at the
time.  I undertook the job with the understanding that no one was available to
assist me due to other commitments.  I realize that not everyone can or should
do all phases of an exhibition.  But I do think that writing the script often
(not always) can and should be the normal province of a curator.

I appreciate your idealism and concern about ensuring a professional
exhibition with a cadre of specialists in a variety of areas.  I also have
some theatrical experience and am well aware of how important it is to divide
up the tasks according to the expertise available (in the  theater, like
museums, conflicting egos can undermine the work).  However, I simply am not
familiar with museums which have the kinds of problems you  describe.

David Haberstich