In your question about the Plains Indian exhibition at Seattle, and the complex questions of curatorship and museum philosophy entailed in exhibiting sacred objects, you seemed to wish that an interactive computer kiosk or station would provide you with more information. I have two responses to that: the first is one word: "catalog." The book is a time tested, portable, rich medium of information. I have even heard of a study conducted in Cornell that implies that the book has been shaped by the natural ways that people learn. I'm afraid that all the money and attention being paid to computer interpretation is dramatically shortchanging the value of the catalog. There are obviously all kinds of reasons for this, but I think that a major one is "glitz". I'm sorry if I'm coming across as a Luddite. I'm certainly not, but I do wonder about the mass rush to video screens on the exhibition floor. The second response I have is the question about whether exhibitions *ever* raise the really troubling questions about themselves. For example, in the Hall of Human Evolution at the American Museum of Natural History, there was a widely publicized controversy, about which I've forgotten the details, concerning the appearance of various hominids. The exhibit label makes some kind of reference to the uncertainty involved in things such as hair (kinky or straight). But there is no reference to what the meat of the controversy is. I mention this because, in a current site interpretation program we're planning at the New York Botanical Garden, we've identified some really interesting controversies which continue to shape the landscape. However, they are politically too hot to handle for us. I assume that similar things to this happen all the time, and the public misses some of the *really* interesting meat that goes into making exhibitions. Eric NYBG