I just LOVE it whenever people ask listmembers to define words. It
often represents an exercise in futility which nevertheless can be very
amusing. This particular request has more legitimacy than most, since
"blockbuster," in the sense of major events, is not yet in some of the
dictionaries to which we have ready access (has anyone tried looking up
the word in a recently published dictionary in their local Borders or
what have you?). My Webster's has only two meanings, viz.: (1) a huge
bomb, and (2) someone who scares homeowners into selling by suggesting
that minorities are moving into the neighborhood. I would humbly suggest
that the first definition (not the second) has been used in a
metaphorical sense to describe certain events, such as museum
exhibitions. Before inventing some half-baked personal definition, it
might be instructive to examine what a "blockbuster" bomb does. First,
it's relative. A blockbuster is simply much bigger than other bombs--but
last year's blockbuster might be this year's lame firecracker. HOW is a
blockbuster bigger than other bombs--how is it measured? I'd suggest
that impact is the criterion. A megaton, really big bomb could be a
laughable fizzler if it's improperly designed or doesn't have the right
ingredients to produce a major impact.

I think a blockbuster exhibition is simply one that has a major
impact--period. I suggest that the relevant impact is on an
audience--i.e., it obtains a large audience during its term (exhibitions
with deep historical impact, fondly remembered as "pivotal,"
"influential," or "crucial," seldom are called "blockbusters" if no one
came to see them). I therefore think that audience size is the way you
measure blockbuster exhibition impact.

Lengthy lists of alleged characteristics of "blockbuster" exhibitions
are tedious and reveal more about the writer's agenda or personal
interests than the nature of exhibitions. Why does a "blockbuster" have
to use innovative, cutting-edge technology? That might be one way to
achieve a blockbuster, but I'm not aware that the Van Gogh blockbuster
was noteworthy for technology. The fact that most blockbusters are
expensive is not germane to define the term, either, even if 99% are
expensive. Do you think people come to see a show merely because it was
expensive to produce? Talk of money arouses interest, but it doesn't
ensure an audience. Since "blockbuster" is also used to describe movies,
you must be aware that some very expensive movies have been box-office
duds, while an occasional low-budget film gets a huge audience and
becomes known as a blockbuster.


Blockbuster bombs have a big impact (probably measured in terms of
devastation--people killed, real estate levelled, landscape destroyed).
How that was achieved is irrelevant. I'm sure someday some mad scientist
will devise a simple, low-tech, inexpensive blockbuster. And there's no
reason a museum exhibition which strikes a chord with enough people
can't be low-tech, inexpensive, and perhaps even small in size to become
a blockbuster. It would be measured and defined in terms of audience.
Period.

--David Haberstich