Congratulations, David! Want to help my kids with their homework? At 11:38 AM 08/01/99 EST, you wrote: > 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 > > Jane Sproull Thomson