Dear Aaron,
 
Your posting of 8/19 has really got me thinking. In fact, it has made me
question what I do and how I approach it. Do I really "interpret"? I think
I do under the definition "to make understandable", but then comes the
definition "to explain the  meaning of" and that,  I think, is where I am
getting myself on rather skittery ground.
 
I keep thinking of these guys in white lab coats telling me what this
means, and I become immediately antagonistic.
 
In the old museum we had case upon case with specimen after specimen, each
with a small label, usually saying: what, where, when and leaving the
meaning up to us. This is now considered antiquated presentation, but is
it? I remember going through the marine museum in Monaco thirty years ago
and being absolutely fascinated by the strangeness and originality of life
from the depths without being told anything about what it means. I was left
to do that myself.
 
It seems to me that perhaps I need to re-evaluate my present thinking and
try to recapture what was best in old-fashioned techniques and be very
careful in attempting to interpret "meaning".
 
Please excuse the roughness of this note, but I've been writing as I think.
I would sure like to hear what suggestions you and others have for a fresh
approach to "Interpretation"
 
Regards,
        Robert
 
 
 
 
Robert O. Dahl
Interpretation and Conceptual Exhibit Design            Ph:(602) 797-4752
 
8421 N. Via Tioga
Tucson, AZ 85704
internetaddress:[log in to unmask]
              AOL: [log in to unmask]