Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 12 Feb 1995 20:06:29 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
All of this talk about the importance of the "real object" has me a bit
uneasy. This is one of museums' most sacred bits of lore, but it may not
hold the importance (to visitors) that it once did. Especially since so many
museum people assume that what is incredible and fascinating to them will
also be so to visitors. Visitors need to be told what's so great about (for
example) a historic aircraft (NOT the E.G.); otherwise, why shouldn't they
prefer the Omnimax presentation that actually takes them barnstorming through
the clouds? Isn't that experience also "real" if it produces the sensations
and visual field of flight? It may not tell you anything about that
aircraft's history, but if we expect visitors to be as turned on by the
"real" as we are, then we better do a better job conveying what we're so
turned on about.
Umberto Eco has a wonderful passage in his essay "Hyperrealities" talking
about why simulated reality can be preferable to actual (if you will)
reality: "When in the space of 24 hrs. you go. . .from the wild river of
Adventureland to a trip on the Mississippi, where the captain of the
paddlewheel steamer says it si possible to see alligators on the banks of the
river, and then you don't see any, you risk feeling homesick for Disneyland,
where the wild animals don't have to be coaxed. Disneyland tells us that
technology can give us more reality than nature can."
Food for thought.
Lisa Roberts
Chicago Botanic Garden
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|