Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 30 Jan 1995 10:25:39 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I also read the article about AMNH with some interest, as
the New York Botanical Garden and AMNH are, in many ways,
analagous institutions. Both from the same era, both with
significant research collections and research programs in
addition to their public programs. We are also embarked on a
major expansion and rebuilding initiative, almost twice the
size of what AMNH announced. The major difference, and this
struck me forcefully, is that all of the announced
improvements to the Museum are focused on the public
experience, not their research or collections.
It is a wonderful museum, one that I've known and visited
all my life, and they are really doing their level best to
bring it into the 21st century. Exhibition by exhibition,
they have replaced "dreary" rooms with the latest in
information-age displays. It is entirely possible to have
mixed feelings about all of these changes, but my personal
reaction has been that, so far, they've all been for the
best.
I have a feeling that "dreary" was used by the Times
reporter based upon AMNH staff descriptions. I've heard that
word used by AMNH staffers as the ultimate adjective to be
avoided.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|