> I remember that exhibit very well. However, I don't remember
> any of the content, which is the precise problem with technical wizardry.
> It often overshadows the personal discovery of the artifact or specicimen or
> skill to the point where all one remembers is the cleverness of the talking
> projection on the blank white head. Best Regards, Bob Bridgeford, Director,
> Portland Children's Museum <[log in to unmask]>
 
I often can recall the artifacts or photographs of an exhibit quite
clearly, the description of each object somewhat less, and the long
descriptions even less.  When it comes to technology, I do remember the
effect more than the content, unless I am looking at it in some critical
way.  Usually, I try to look at an exhibit as an outsider who is trying
to learn about the subject.
 
Many times, I know things about the exhibit that are not mentioned,
including the exhibition "controversies" or changes in exhibition
philosophies.  Recently, the Seattle Art Museum had a exhibition of
Plains Indian artifacts.   Among those artifacts, were items with sacred
bundles attached.  No mention was made of those bundles and any care in
presenting or maintaining them in the collection.  Too often, I would
like additional information, which a computer information kiosk could
provide, on the exhibtion, the items in the exhibit, and maybe such
information about how the museum has dealt with such items as those with
the sacred bundles.  Isn't the mission of museums to educate?  Where does
one decide to draw the line between too much and enough information?  How
does technology such as computers "fit" into an exhibition (and how is
that information directed towards the different age groups)?
 
Dave Wells