I heartily agree that the creative voices in an exhibit should be
represented in a visible way, and every American History Workshop
contract includes a clause that says that we (and others) will be so
credited.  But credit panels, it has to be said honestly, can be
deceptive.  Several of the scholars, for example, who "consulted" on the
Ken Burns Civil War series were quite critical of what had been done with
their advice (when it wasn't ignored) and with the over the overall
interpretive cast of the series.  It's hard to see much relation between
the extraordinarily innovative work collected by Virginia Yans-McLoughlin
in her volume called Immigration Reconsidered (the product of the
scholars officially enlisted to advise the Ellis Island restoration and
exhibit development) with the rewarmed and tired history that is
presented in the galleries.

Frequently it is really
hard to locate who's actually taken intellectual responsibility for the
authorship of a collaborative project like an exhibit or a video
project.  I've taken to writing historical summaries that document, at
least to my satisfaction, where the key decisions were taken.  The
writing of the exhibit text is not invariably the locus of creative
responsibility, except in the reviews of history exhibits prepared by
professors of history, for the design may have strong influence on the
interpretation, as does the curatorship, etc.

Suggestions for dealing with this are warmly welcomed.



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Richard Rabinowitz              <> American History Workshop
[log in to unmask]                  <> 588 Seventh Street
718/499-6500 fax: 718/499-6575  <> Brooklyn, New York 11215-3707



On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Hank Burchard wrote:

>      As a museum and gallery reviewer, I think that it would be
> appropriate to post a modest list of whodunits in every major exhibit. My
> reviews often concern themselves as much or more with how and why material
> has been presented as with the contents. I frequently am at pains to point
> out things such as outstanding or substandard lighting and limpid or lousy
> texts, and usually have to search out the name of the person or persons to
> whom credit or blame should be attached.
>      Exhibition is a theater art, and viewers should be aware of the cast.
> Personifying an exhibit also might tend to result in somewhat more freedom
> for curators by allowing the institution implicitly to distance itself
> from the opinions and judgment calls involved.
>      In the case of Smithsonian exhibitions, of course, it would be
> necessary to cut off the credits below the committee level.
>
>      Hank Burchard * <[log in to unmask]> * Washington DC USA
>