Criticism: Judy Garland Museum (yes, really!)

Oh, my gosh, I HAD to stop at this museum! Actually, I only live a couple of hours away and had been meaning to go there forever. All I had heard of it before was that it once displayed a pair of the original ruby slippers from the Wizard of Oz (I guess there are 4 or 5???) and they were stolen maybe a year or two ago. Sad!

Anyway, the Judy Garland Museum is located in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, off of Hwy 169. You have to watch carefully to find it - the area is kind of full of strip malls and Targets and whatnot. I missed it at first and had to turn around to find it. The museum is fairly new and consists of 3 parts: The home in which the Gumm family lived in Grand Rapids, where Frances Gumm (JudyGarland) was born, two galleries of Garland exhibits, and several large galleries of a children's museum. The museum's website is: http://www.judygarlandmuseum.com/ On the day I visited there were several other visitors, mainly adult couples in their 50s and 60s. The museum staff were present, dragging boxes around and cutting up boxes, which was a little distracting.

At present you enter the museum in the center of the complex, then either go left to see the Judy Garland displays or right for the children's museum galleries. It is important to note this, because it seems from the vague chronology of the exhibits as though the visitor was originally intended to start in the house and then flow through the Garland galleries then into the children's museum. Maybe they changed this flow for security reasons after the ruby slippers were taken? Am not sure.

Anyway, the house was rather bare. It was supposed to represent the period 1922 - 1926 when Judy Garland lived there. There were labels that explained that none of the furnishings were original to the Gumm family. There were also signs that a specific "interior designer" had helped to furnish the historic house display. I am in doubt about the accuracy of the furnishings - there were several pieces which pre-date the 20s (which is fine, I know) but there were also some textiles which I KNOW due to designs dated as late as the 1950s. Someone could quibble with me on this, as I'm not an absolute textile expert - but I would have to see proof of dating! The labels on the materials in the house were very odd, and kind of tie into my primary criticism of the entire museum - there was no clear chronology or storyline. For example, on the bed which was meant to represent the bed on which baby Judy slept in her parents' room, there was labelling about her death and funeral. Since there was the rest of the museum in which to address her later life, I would have been more impressed if the house really focused on the 1923 - 1926 period in Judy's life, her parents' lives, and in Grand Rapids history.

From the house there was a kind of connecting hallway which had some Garland displays, including a dress which either WAS or represented Garland's screen test dress for the Wizard of Oz. Pretty cool if it was the original! WOZ is such an iconic movie for many of us! But again, there was a problem of unclear labeling, lack of lableing, and no clear chronology or storyline.

From the hall way the visitor enters the Garland gallery. The gallery consisted of a large television playing an ongoing video about Gumm/Garland's life, and several wall displays, vitrines, and enclosed room displays. This gallery seemed a little flat, as the majority of materials were posters, original photographs, and song sheets. There was, however, the carriage in which Dorothy et al rode in the Emerald City (drawn by the horse of a different color.) It did seem clearest here that the visitor was intended to come from the house then go out through this gallery into the central hall, but at present the visitor flow is reversed. Even though I think I could tell what the intended flow was, many of the exhibits contained materials from a mix of periods, and there was no clear storyline. The video was interesting, but the staff said it was an hour and a half long! I wonder if it was originally made for television? At any rate, no museum visitor is going to sit and watch a video for a full hour and a half. I take that back - maybe some Garland crazies do.

I'm not going to criticize the children's museum portion because I don't feel qualified to do so. It seemed fairly big, and there was one room which had lots of nice tables, drawers, and a sink area for arts and crafts (wouldn't most of us just love this?). The part I most enjoyed was "Treesa", a giant plastic tree that talked - it had eyes that open and closed! I want one of my own. Kind of tackycool.

There is also a nice small garden next to the house, with a grove of apple trees and a gazebo.

Were the exhibits object oriented? Yes. I think because Garland is such an icon herself, objects from the icon become icons themselves. Were the displays accurate? Well, I have some quibbles about mixing periods together, but in general I think they were fairly accurate. Were objects displayed in such a way that they were not harmed? Yes, I think so. Most items in the gallery were behind plex. The objects in the house were open to being touched, though, and there was no human security. There may have been video security, though, I don't know. So security may have still been an issue there. Were the exhibits propagandistic? No, but they didn't cause me to think, either. The museum in general, as you could tell from above, needs to have a much clearer storyline and labels which directly relate to the objects with which they are displayed. I would say that this museum is not innovative.

Would you enjoy visiting this museum? Yes, I think so, if you're not a stickler for a clear storyline. My grade: B.

Criticism: Traverse des Sioux Historic Site

Well, here goes the first one! Bear in mind, all, that nothing is personal. For the most part I don't know the people who created anything I discuss in this blog.

I visited the Traverse des Sioux Historic Site (Minnesota Historical Society/Nicollet County Historical Society) right after I attended a session on outdoor exhibit signage at the 2007 annual Minnesota Association of Museums meeting.

The site is located just north of St. Peter, MN beside a 2 lane highway (169) not far from a medium sized town. Cars and traffic noise are clearly visible and audible from the site. I visited in the Spring - it was lovely walking weather. I wasn't in a hurry and had plenty of time to explore. There were no other visitors at the time. There is an adjacent exhibit center which was closed when I was there.

The site consists of a looped walking trail which begins and ends at the site's parking lot. Along the route of the trail are several signs, which look fairly new. I believe they represent the MHS's current signage philosophy of 1/3 text, 1/3 graphics, and 1/3 blank space. The graphics were paintings representing what happened at the site. There are no longer any above ground structures, and I don't know if any of the natural features were there at the time of the treaty.

This is what the MHS website says about the site: "On the self-guided tour, the trail signs introduce you a portion of the 10,000-year-old Minnesota River Valley. While enjoying a quiet walk through the site, learn more about Dakota Indian culture, the 1851 Treaty and its effects on people, transportation, the fur trade, and the town site of Traverse des Sioux."

Here's my experience - I had a nice walk and saw some pretty pictures.

I have no clue in the world what happened at that site. In fact, I completely forgot the name of the site, and had to look it up by looking up St. Peter.

I found the signage very hard to read - the signs were low (good for picture takers, supposedly) and the text font was too small for this 50ish lady. Because the text wasn't a standard length or in a standard place, my eyes just didn't want to read the text. The pictures were too small to really study and see what was in them. And since I was outside, I didn't want to be looking at pictures. I wanted to be walking, touching the prairie grass, and looking at the river. In fact, I wanted to stick my toe in the river, but the path didn't go there, so I didn't.

In short, there was a complete disconnect, for me, between the signage and the landscape - the place itself.

So, following my criteria from the post above, was it a good exhibit?

- Object oriented. NO, not at all. Granted, there were no structures or historic features left, but couldn't I have been directed to look at something (the river, for example, or "in prairie grass such as this) that would have connected my current experience with the historic story?

- Does no damage. Well, there isn't anything left to damage, so I guess they're clear here. Although I'm sure some of you purists out there would have issues with trails (I think this one was paved but don't remember for sure) and parking lots.

- Accurate. Probably, but because I found reading the labels such a pain I don't know.

- Causes people to think, but not propagandistic. Not really. Maybe if the signage really functioned the way it was intended. All I really thought about was oooo, I wish I could get down to the river. And, no, don't think I'm sposed to.

- Innovative. NOPE. Is an outdoor exhbit like this really an improvement on the old highway signs? The trail probably is, but the signage wasn't. And whatabout other sorts of exhibit tools to make me interact with the environment?

Should you visit it? Sure, on a nice day, get out of your car and get some exercise. If the adjacent exhibit center is open, you'll probably get alot out of the site.

Grade for the site alone (oh dear, am I really going to do this?) C

And, in explanation of why I was probably so picky about the site, here's some info about the Outdoor Exhibits session I attended at the conference: It was mostly about the best way to do signage at a historic site. The workshop leader taught the 3/30/3 rule: signage has 3 seconds to catch a visitor's attention, 30 seconds for them to make the decision to read the sign, and 3 minutes for reading and understanding the message.

They taught that good signage should be low ( so it doesn't get in the way of the camera), it should make the story come to life and come to the point quickly without giving too much information, and it have something in it for all age groups.

As the workshop conductor continued to discuss good outdoor signage (and he gave great practical advice re construction), I began to think: he's not talking at all about the signage as an integral part of a landscape. What makes an outdoor site, with explanatory signage, an exhibit? I would think that it would be the place/landscape/environment itself (we're talking about places which no longer have structures). So, shouldn't good signage draw attention to the place itself, and not just tell a story of something that once happened there? Shouldn't there be a way to help the visitor connect with the place itself, and not just travel from sign to sign?

The workshop leader did suggest starting the signage with wording such as "In front of you" or "you are standing". That's a good idea. But is it enough?

Does the act of reading cause a disconnect from experiencing the environment?

And, how do outdoor sites reach non-readers at outdoor sites? Could there be a way to provide focus on the visitor's senses other than sight (reading)? I would think that a place, especially an outdoor environment, would be ideal for experimenting with ways to encourage visitors to really use their senses - to hear, to smell, and above all, to touch (no artifacts, remember?)

An outdoor site should be experienced more than just visually. I got to thinking . . . here would be my suggestion for interpretation of an outdoor site:

- A master label at the beginning of a pathway. For example, "On this site X happened blah blah" (SHORT, but the longest label in the exhibit.) Conclude the label with - "walk ahead as the X did to learn more about what happened"

- Next, several physical things to cause action on the part of the visitors -

* concrete footprints in the ground at a point where something important happened (not my idea, the workshop presenter said he did this somewhere)

* a telescope (or some cheap version of such, depends on the site - and mounted permantly)

* Something raised to stand on - depends on the story. A table?

* A chair, or two, to represent where people sat, if they did

* Something to hold or grasp (mounted permanently)

* A metal wire sculpture giving an impression of the structure of a store.

* Anything else someone can think of that works with a site's interpretation

- And or something that marks natural speciments, such as a distant mountain, or grove of trees, or bog, or whatever.

The signage for each of the above should be very short - just one sentence, for ex: at station 1 "here they stood" station 2 "see the grove of trees? There they hid" station 3 "look at the distant mountain. They were expecting reinforcements" station 4 "seated here they signed away their rights " Station 5 - listen to the rustle of the prairie grass. Would you have heard people hiding.?" And etc.

And then, at the end of the exhibit, a longer conclusion label, which ends with suggestions about books to read about the subject (websites change, but books last for at least the life of outdoor signage).

Yes, this would be more expensive than just sticking signs all over the place. But - shouldn't we try?

What do you think. Am I expecting too much from a outdoor sites which are, for the most part, iconic rather than artifactual?