If the information is presented in the form of QUESTIONS as opposed to STATEMENTS, a lot of 'controversy' could be avoided. On Sun, 18 Feb 1996, Hank Burchard wrote: > On 16 Feb 1996, Claudia Nicholson wrote: > > > 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? > > As a fulltime museum reviewer (Washington Post), I find this to be > one of the most thoughtful and pertinent postings I've ever seen on > museum-l. There are some very weird epistemological systems in operation > in academia these days. Many of their adherents are so committed to a > given methodology or point of view that they disregard, or even openly > despise, conventional wisdom. They tend to demonize those who hold > opposing, or simply noncongruent, views. As a white male of prewar (WWII) > vintage, I often see the eyes of young curators glaze over when I ask > basic questions about the presentation of an exhibition. And I often see > their brains fuzz up when they try to answer--or avoid--the questions. > Museums are showbiz, folks, and if you want to sell the audience you > have to bear in mind where the man (and woman and child) in the street is > coming from. > > Hank Burchard * [log in to unmask] * Washington DC >