Kerridwen Harvey <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >I am interested in hearing points of view/experiences with various forms >of living history interpretation, specifically, costumed interpretation, >first-person, and third-person. What type(s) does your site or museum >use? Why have you chosen one over the other? What advantages do you >see in using costumed interpreters, first-person, or third-person? Do >you feel the use of costumed interpreters is declining or increasing? >How about first-person interpretation? >I have been doing a fair bit of reading in this area but would like some >human input in this research. >Thanks. >-- >Kerridwen Harvey >Harvey Heritage Services >(819) 827-0762 (tel) (819) 827-5613 (fax) >[log in to unmask] Kerridwen, et. al.; At Fort Langley National Historic Site in beautiful Fort Langley, British Columbia (near Vancouver), we continue to use costumed interpreters (Heritage Communicators) in a third person mode. We find that the visitors enjoy the colour of the costume while feeling comfortable talking with the staff and making correlations between old and new. The site is located next to the Canadian National Railroad mainline to Vancouver, a grass airstrip and float plane base, as well as waterways and roadways with lots of boat, car and truck traffic. There are MANY modern distractions located around the site so that suspending time and reality are quite difficult. Also, we feel that the one-on-one contact helps the visitor to understand the site messages of national significance. The costumed interpreter is easily identified as a site member (whether staff or volunteer) and visitors can ask them questions about what they see, participate in various activities, enquire about amenities, etc. In using a third-person approach, staff and volunteers still have to know the basic story, but they do not need to spend large amounts of time researching specific individuals, their intricate role in the site, or portray only one, unique character, but they can experience a variety of opportunities, occupations, and personages that have been identified with the historic site. True, certain people are better suited to certain roles (i.e. Native interpreters telling the Native story, etc.), however, more variety in work experience is available if one is not tied to being one individual. And the experience can be quite different from hour to hour. In the morning, one could be of the Gentleman class, while a little while later, be pounding iron in the blacksmith's shop. Early in the afternoon, you could be panning for gold and sharing the excitement of the goldrush and then end up making barrels in the cooperage or leaning on a hoe in the garden. In each location, telling the story of the site in third-person, and giving the messages of significance are more easily done, with less study and personal research (especially for short-time staff or anxious volunteers) than what is usually considered necessary for a similar presentation using the first-person mode. Personally, I love first-person interpretation, but have been strongly advised that that is not our method or mandate. I trust this has given you some material upon which to chew. Best wishes in your continuing search. Gerry Gerry Borden [log in to unmask] * http://users.uniserve.com/~gborden/welcome.htm Lead, Gentlemen of Fortune Barbershop Harmony Chorus Heritage Communicator, Fort Langley National Historic Site "If it ain't Harmony.. it's History!"