On Thu, 2 Feb 1995, Patty McNamara wrote:
 
> As all of this is grinding to a halt (I hope), I fear that many of us in
> museum land haven't really learned the lessons of this unfortunate episode.
> As the editorial writer at the Washington Post points out, this is not
> about politicians dictating the content of museum exhibits, or what history
> really is, or who makes history, or who's history it is .... etc.  The
> staff at Air & Space (and perhaps all of us) have learned the *very* hard
> way that museums exist as institutions to serve a public audience that's
> wider than other historians, scientists, exhibit designers (i.e., the
> people who work in museums).  One of the things about this situation that
> interests me is that the staff at Air & Space simply approached this
> exhibition as they have countless others (and as many staff in other
> museums across the country approach exhibition projects) -- they decided
> which messages were important to them (and to other experts), they
> apparently sought feedback from key audiences, but paid little attention to
> it, and remained concerned (almost to the end) only with how this
> exhibition would play in the community of scholars to whom they feel their
> primary allegiance.  Most of us do pretty much the same thing -- luckily
> our exhibitions usually explore topics that most people (in the rest of the
> world) don't really care much about, so the worst that happens is that we
> just bore or confuse people (rather than really offend and insult them).
>
> Nina Jensen observed this morning that:
>
> >We have to understand that if the conversation begins with seeking and
getting
> >>approval for an existing script without first finding out what is important
> >to >different groups, audience constituencies will come to the table already
> >>feeling that their point of view is not being heard.
>
> Exactly.  And we've seen what happens when one takes that approach when
> dealing with highly sensitive and controversial subject matter.  I came to
> my career in museums because I was interested in how people learn in such a
> setting, and I can't imagine developing an exhibition without involving
> audiences (meaningfully) in the development process from the very
> beginning.  I know that exhibitions developed in this way are always better
> than they would have been otherwise, and they are better from *everyone's*
> perspective -- experts, kids, adults, museum staff, your grandmother, and
> the people who live next door.
>
> Thanks, Nina, for mentioning "Getting to Yes" -- it's a terrific and very
> helpful little book (it also comes in handy when dealing with argumentative
> co-workers).
 
     The pro-forma quality of the museum's invitation for input by
various interest groups about the Enola Gay exhibition is made manifest
by the brush-off replies and snide internal memos of the curators and
Director Harwit. The latter's last chance for editorial support from the
Washington Post (which had already printed an op-ed piece he wrote)
evaporated when he came to lunch with our editorial board and astounded
all present with a display of arrogance and contempt for the public
whose actual and intellectual property he holds in trust.
 
+ + + + +
 
Hank Burchard * Weekend Section * The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW * Washington DC USA 20071-0001
VoiceMail (202) 334-7243 * Email: [log in to unmask]