I think that this subject is one that we all face every day in museums-- what is
our purpose?  Are we working toward the preservation of objects, art, history,
etc. only or are we also interested in teaching our public about these things?
I know that the answer is not a clear cut and dry explanation, and that the way
that I (personally) see the future of museums, is taking in all accounts, and
ways of looking, presenting, preserving.

In graduate school I was taught that it was our responsibility as art historians
to interpret the art for the visitor (who do not know as much as we do, as we
were the experts), but there are flaws in that argument. I know that there are
many ways to look at the subject of our exhibitions, as contemporary museum
professionals, it is important that we recognize these varied points of view. If
I am presenting a subject as a curator, I can only assume that I will try to
teach the viewer about all I know, for which there limits.  That is when I would
look at my subject and make sure that I have covered all of the bases, looked at
the subject in relation to history and perhaps found other experts or
individuals who may be more directly related to the subject.  It is only when we
have tried to present the many layers of a story that we can truly represent our
subjects, and even then we will never be done.

The question of who are our exhibits for, our visitor or the curators who visit
our museums, is a tough one.  I would love to think that everyone out there is
as interested in our exhibition subjects as a curator/ teacher/ etc.  We are
responsible for teaching our viewers what we know, whether they know a little or
a great deal about the subject.  We must remember that depending on our museum
mission, many of us are required to educate our viewers.  I only hope that we as
museum professionals do not loose sight of our visitors, as they are paying
(with tax $$$, admission fees, or even their time), and we have an obligation to
enlighten them.  How we teach them depends on the presentation. The fact that
Air and Space presents something like part of the Enola Gay we can hope that the
viewer will begin to question what part of history that plane was part of.  In
reality though, when we place something in a public sphere and do not explain
it, then we are not serving our public if they still have questions.

LIZ Laitman
Washington, DC



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: For whom do we do our work?
Author:  Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]> at INETGATE
Date:    2/17/96 10:09 AM


I have become increasingly troubled this past year by the high-profile
controversies involving history museums and their interpretations of the
past.

The Enola Gay controversy is only one of the most recent examples.  I have
also read about some other problems at places like the Library of Congress,
and the National Museum of American History (Science in Society?).  It
would seem that some curatorial staffs have gotten carried away with
current scholarship while misunderstanding that historical understanding
in the public lags by at least 15 years, and possibly as much as 50!  I am
wondering if the defense that "this represents current historical scholar-
ship" is adequate to the bill-paying public.

Please do not mistake my position:  I never read the script for the
original Enola Gay exhibit and so cannot comment in any rational way on
what the exhibit was to contain or say.  Likewise, it seems to me that just
because Freud's theories on personality have largely been discredited by
the psychiatric community, that is no reason not to present him and his
works as important to the development of the treatment of mental disorders.

However, I am wondering if it is possible that many of us have forgotten
our audiences when we prepare exhibits.  Is it possible that we are doing
our work to impress our colleagues?  At my own institution (the South
Dakota State Historical Society), we opened an exhibit on Sioux culture
(Oyate Tawicoh'an, see History News, Autumn 1995) which we believe breaks
a little bit of new ground in the presentation of living cultures.  I must
admit, though, that what you all would think of this exhibit was as much
on my mind as how the public would react to it.  Professional admiration
is as important to me as whether or not the public "gets it" or even likes
it.

I am worried that if we do our work to impress our colleagues (academic
historians OR museum professionals) that the public gets left out of the
equation and the resulting controversy, a la Enola Gay, is inevitable.  Do
we do a good enough job of explaining the position of the exhibit to the
public. . . is it transparent enough?

I am interested in what any of you have to say about this issue.

Claudia Nicholson
Curator of Collections
South Dakota State Historical Society, Pierre

[log in to unmask]