Showing posts with label Historic Site. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historic Site. Show all posts

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Criticism: Historic Forestville





Historic Forestville is one of several sites operated by the Minnesota Historical Society.




It is located between Preston and Spring Valley Minnesota, about 30 miles south of Rochester in the middle of farming country. OK, in the middle of Hog Confinement (not pig farm) country. It really is a beautiful, bucolic part of the world, and not stinky in Forestville, anyway. I visited about a year and a half ago (OK, I interviewed for an interpreter position and didn't get it, which was just as well as I already had a job, but they should have WANTED to hire me anyway) and just fell in love - it seemed like Shangri-La to me. I visited again last week.


The site interprets a town created in the 1850s. MHS says "Forestville was once a rural trade center. Area farmers came to Forestville to trade their produce for goods and services. However, when the railroad by-passed the town in 1868, it struggled to survive. By 1890, Thomas Meighen, son of one of the town's founders, owned the entire village. The town's 50 residents made their living on his farm, working for housing and credit in the Meighen store. " The site does first person interpretation of the year 1899 in this unique community.


I drove into Forestville/Mystery Cave State Park. The signage is incredibly poor. You would have to know that you want to go to the state park or Forestville - I doubt people just travelling around would find this place. Had to stop at the park entrance building to pay a $5 parking fee. Not a bad deal! Forestville State Park is one of the few that allows horse camping and has lots of riding trails, and I did see several riders and lovely horses. That adds something wonderful to the experience!


Visitors to Historic Forestville proceed into the park, then park in a lot and walk over a bridge into the historic town. Even though I had been there before I was completely confused as to where to start - where to pay admission. I saw a boy and his father (visitors) playing checkers with an interpreter on the porch of the general store, then stopped and asked directions of two other costumed interpreters who were sitting on a bench, and they kindly directed me to follow a sign with an arrow up ahead. Still, signage was pretty sucky. I went on into what functions as the site store, offices and staff workspace to pay. A woman with a child was happily conversing with the constumed woman at the cash register, who was showing her a map of the community. Apparently there was some kind of scavenger hunt the mother and daughter were going to go on? After I paid (well, after flashing my MHS membership card) the woman at the cash register directed me to start my tour by going back to the benches where the interpreters had been sitting.

I should interject here that I, as a visitor, HATE tours, and would always rather wander around at will. I also am very wary of first person interpretation (it just embarasses me as a visitor), and I knew that was the primary method of interpretation here. But the first person interpetation at Forestville pleasantly surprised me. I'll explain as I go along.


I sat down on a wooden bench next to a woman costumed in a late 19th century green skirt and dark red blouse with apron. Looked period correct to me! Her fingernails bothered the heck out of me, though. Long and pointy, although no modern polish. I do know that women filed and buffed their nails at the time. Was long and pointy correct for 1899?

She gave a great third person introduction to the site. If you're going to do 1st person, this is the way to do it - a 3rd person introduction with not only an explanation of the site's history but also an explanation of 1st person interpretation. Good job, interpreter!

Unfortunately, a tour group showed up at this time. I was gracious (!) and said that I would not ask for a seperate tour but would go around with the group. But boy oh boy is this a good example of the reason for letting people tour at will rather than in groups. The site has interpreters stationed in each building - in fact several in one building. They should be able to handle random visitors!!!! (I should say that I've worked at both the Living History Farms in Iowa and Old World Wisconsin, both of which operate with at-will visitors. If you have enough interpreters, there's no security problem with that method).

Actually, though, the tour group was a nice friendly cheerful bunch of folks from the Mankato, MN area. There were enough people that the staff split the group into two groups of about 20, and started each group in different areas.

The woman doing the third person introduction passed my group along to a man portraying an employee of the Meighens, who showed us a small barn full of implements and a large barn. He talked us through each individual artifact in the barn, and I did get bored. In a small group (or by myself) I could have asked more questions, or moved along more quickly. His first person was very unobtrusive - just explaining what things were. He showed 3 kids in the group how to feed the chickens. It always seems a little forced when the poor kids are watched by about 15 strangers. Very well behaved, nice children, though! My evaluation of his interpretation - should have watched his visitor's body language and talked a little less - there wasn't time for any explanation of the big barn, and I wanted to ask alot of questions.

That interpreter passed us along to the General Store, where we were met by a cheerful older male interpreter. He did the traditional stale first person jokes about how we women were dressed in britches like men and not wearing hats, but this tour group found it funny. I really enjoyed the interior of the store - around the sides were original artifacts left behind in the store when it was abandoned, then closer in (and touchable by visitors) were repro artifacts. A nice way of handling things! This interpreter did a good job of asking questions of specific tour participants - lots of mouldy jokes about the behavior of wives (and husbands) - but this group took it well. Again, the first person wasn't too officious, but really limited the questions I would have liked to ask.

He passed us along to the family's house (part of the same structure) where we were met by an older female interpreter. She talked about being a spinster, and showed the two downstairs rooms. To tell you the truth I don't really have a clue what she said - at this point I was bored spitless because of being stuck in a group and not being able to move at my own speed. Again, the group I was with seemed to have a good time, although the mom with the kids took the youngest outside where he could roam.

This interpreter passed us along to another part of the house where a younger female interpreter played the role of a hired girl. At this point I just couldn't stand being stuck inside so I escaped outside where an older man, playing the part of a hired man, was interpreting the garden. The mom with the kid hung with him too. The group in the kitchen apparently got to eat some freshly baked bread, so that's always nice!

The man in the garden broke character without much issue and told me they got some of their garden seeds from Seedsavers in Decorah, IA and some from another place in Northern California. The group came out and he went back into first person and told the group about the plants, letting people pick tomatoes and taste some of the herbs. This was very, very nice! The mosquitos were awful, though. What a nice tour group - it started to rain a little and nobody whined or left.

After viewing a shed, end of tour. I tried to go back to the museum store buildlng, but it was closed. The other interpreters were already coming out, dressed in modern clothes!

One thing I didn't mention earlier: there were modern cars/trucks continually driving through the road that passes through the historic town. I asked the interpreters about this as they left - apparently it is an active county road, although dirt/gravel. Pretty funny in the first person context! Pretty distracting, too. Come on, Minnesota! Is it necessary to keep that road open? I'll bet the traffic drives the staff crazy, although they seemed to completely ignore it.

Well, anyway. Let's apply the criteria.

Accurate? Yes! All of the buildings except the admissions/store/office are period, the interpreter's clothing seemed fine (men's overalls of this period SO look like they're wearing diapers!), and many of the artifacts were original. Accurate as to period speech patterns and behavior? I don't know. This is one of the major problems I have with first person - do we know that the interpreters were behaving/speaking appropriately? Just by virtue of having to interact with 21st century people they are not behaving as people in 1899 would. Their story was accurate, but do the visitors get a true 1899 experience? Not with the cars going through. Hmmmmm.

Interpretive methodology causes no damage? I would say so, probably. I know that the staff justify the required tour visitation pattern because they think they can't control security of the original artifacts otherwise. I just doubt it. An interpreter with a group of 20 in the room can pay no more attention to each individual than can an interpreter who handles visitors coming and going. Just station the interpreter at a place with good visual access to the whole room when there are lots of people in a building. I know others would debate with me about this, but that's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it! If anyone actually reads this, you can argue.

Causes visitors to think but not propagandistic. Well, a little bit. But wouldn't they think a little more if the directed inquiry method was used (interpreter presents his/her information in the form of questions to the visitors)? I believe so. And that's another problem with first person - directed inquiry is much easier in 3rd person. And a visitor is much more free to ask any question under the sun if the interpreter is free to answer any question in any way. I genuinely believe a visitor can learn more interacting with 3rd person interpreters. But these visitors surely did have a good time. Several tried to interact with the interpreters as people in 1899 might have done.

Innovative. Well, not so much. But the interpreters didn't stick to script, which was excellent, and I think that with a smaller group there might have been more opportunity for visitor participation (playing checkers, scavenger hunt).

Object/landscape focused? Yep - although the modern traffic was distracting.

All in all - I still love Historic Forestville. It is a tiny unexpected little gem. I love the horses, I love the happy interpreters, I love the buildings, and I love that it exists in the middle of cornfields. It could use much better signage, and MN should shut the county road down at the site. And I really wish they would try handling roving visitors and more 3rd person interpretation. I was a little bored because by chance I got stuck travelling through with a big tour group. But I'm giving the place an A- anyway. Go visit Historic Forestville!

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

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?