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]