In a message dated 96-06-17 14:35:57 EDT, [log in to unmask] (David
Haberstich) writes:

<< Adrienne, I'm not sure I understand the difference between admitting
 that "no exhibit is going to attract everyone," vs. NOT adopting the
 attitude that "not everyone is going to like it anyway." Please clarify.

It's in the attitude, really. The former is merely positive and the latter
negative. The former implies that the curator will maintain their vision
knowing that it will matter to some and not to others. The latter is an
attitude that the curator can put up schlock or area specific intellectual
jargon and ideas and it does not matter either way. I agree that my earlier
statement was confusing.

<< There seems to be some difficulty over verbs such as "like," "interest,"
 and "attract," which I suppose I have muddled myself. Basically, I think
 we're concentrating on attracting visitors to museums, not necessarily
 getting them to "like" the subject matter of a specific exhibit--or are
 we?

I agree with you were - always it's semantics! When you say "we're
concentrating" - do you mean this thread or the museum world or your
institution? I personally don't think that "like" plays a part in exhibit
success. If the exhibit is entertaining or challenging or thought provoking
or aesthetically pleasing, etc. etc. - all of these terms can create a
feeling of "like" but like is contextless. Why do people like it? As for
interest - my example of the Kimono exhibit is one where I was not
"interested" in the topic (I went b/c I knew the curator). I had no idea what
it was about, but I had an interest in something associated with the exhibit.
Much to my surprise, I was moved beyond words. As for attracting people there
in the first place, every institution has a gimick to get people in the door
(NMNH's Hope diamond, dinosaurs the elephant). But, how many times have you
stumbled onto an exhibit within an institution by accident that had that je
ne sais quois - that magic that caught and held your attention? That is the
successful exhibit. It may have been the story, the graphics or simply your
own personal experience - but it attracted you (how?), you became interested
and you liked it (why, why?). We need to dig deeper, here.

<< Are you saying that controversy is the way to attract visitors who have
 little or no interest in certain subject matter?

Yes, yes, yes! It's rubbernecker theory - people love car accidents.

<<Should controversy be deliberately staged and encouraged to arouse
interest? <snip>Of course, there are people who are repelled by
 controversy and will stay away at any hint of unpleasantness; perhaps
 every exhibit should have both a controversial half and a sanitized,
 pleasant, universally inoffensive side.

Be careful, here. Controversy does not have to be offensive, and deliberate
"staging" is not always synonomous with the Ripley's Believe It Or Not or
Barnum and Bailey's intent to fool. We associate controversy with Enola Gay
(politics) and Mapplethorpe (morals, puritanism, etc), but controversy can be
positive - challenging people to examine their beliefs and either reaffirm
them or choose to explore other new options. Controversy promotes mental
growth in some, mental shutdown in others (the parachute analogy works well
here). As for sanitized, I hate sanitary conditions - let's get dirty! ;-)
Recently I challenged a gallery title called "taming the west" - my objection
was that it was in a contemporary context, as if we still believed that we
were actually taming the west as opposed to raping and pillaging. Put the
phrase in the context of the thoughts and attitudes of certain individuals of
that time period and it is appropriate.

<< Let's ask Jay ("relevance is my business") Smith his secret. That great
 sucking sound you hear when you're near Hutchinson, Kansas is people
 being attracted to the Reno County Museum--whether they like it or not.

Tell me more, I've only been to Kansas via television....

- Adrienne