I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment to try to
          get a bead on the difference between say, EPCOT and the
          Liberty Science Center, or the Metropolitan Museum. Let's
          assume for a moment that the difference is more in
          perception than in any objective circumstance. Obviously,
          the Met has collections, but the Liberty Science Center
          doesn't, so that terminates that line of consideration.
 
          Is what the Met provides more "accurate" than EPCOT?
          Accurate about what?  It can be argued that all that the Met
          is accurate about is what it has produced. In other words,
          it accurately reflects art history, but it is also the
          principal maker and product of art history.  EPCOT or Disney
          World accurately reflects the world of Disney, which has
          alot more currency (in both senses of the term) than the art
          history world, for better or worse. But, still, I would say
          that museums place a higher premium on historical or
          contextual accuracy.
 
          Real museums are more "educational?" Not necessarily, though
          I've never been to EPCOT or Disney World, I understand that
          they have alot of content, and other posters have mentioned
          that these places are focusing on education programs for
          school groups, etc.
 
          I know what the difference is intuitively: its the
          difference between King Lear and ER. One is real tragedy,
          and the other is cheap melodrama. But, how do you define
          this so that the world at large realizes that its important
          to invest in the former for higher purposes?
 
          If you ask kids, as many have, about what they think happens
          in a museum, and what their feeling and perception is, they
          reply that its a place where there are alot of things you're
          not allowed to do. (We did just such a focus group, and got
          just such a reply.) Well, is that a useful distinction? At a
          museum, there is alot you can't do, whereas in Disney World,
          there is alot you *can* do?
 
          There was a great article in the NYT Magazine section five
          years ago or so about the development of exhibitions at the
          Field Museum. Apparently, and I paraphrase with the distance
          of five years since I read the article, the principal
          response that people had to the Field Museum, in surveys,
          was a feeling of inadequacy. "I don't know enough, and
          that's why I'm not really enjoying this visit." Maybe that's
          the distinction...museums are demanding and make people feel
          vaguely ill at ease, while Disney World is more like
          television, minimal demand, and maximum cheap emotional
          response.
 
          OK, devil's advocacy has gone on long enough, but I
          certainly see alot of fuzziness around the edges about the
          importance of the distinction between museums and
          edutainment parks.
 
          Sorry about the length of this post, once I get rolling...
 
          Eric Siegel
          [log in to unmask]