Yes, I could rootle around in my various files and books and notes and come up with more fabulous people's ideas about the criteria for criticising exhibits and intepretive programming at history museums and historic sites. And no, I am NOT discussing web exhibits or podcasts, which are wonderful learning tools for reaching the public. I am specifically addressing exhibits and interpretive programming which really exist in real small history museums and historic sites. And, since this is MY blog, here are MY criteria:
1. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation MUST be object focused.
This means that there absolutely must be actual or reproduction artifacts or specimens in good museum exhibits, and interpretation at historic sites must focus on a built or natural environment. Unfortunately, visitors more an more often these days visit museums and see what I call "Giant Magazine Articles". These are displays that only include text and images. These are NOT exhibits. That style is fine for brochures, magazines, or web exhibits - but they simply do not count as successful museum exhibits or interpretive programming. You might just as well give the visitors a handout or tell them to visit a website and turn them away at the door - what's the point of them being at the museum or site at all? Just because text and images are big and printed on the wall - or even are on raised panels - does NOT mean that a true exhibit has been created. The issue of labelling is a serious one - how much is too much? People want to know what they are viewing but too many labels can get in the way of the artifacts.
2. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation causes no damage to the artifacts and specimens displayed.
This is probably one of the biggest problems for small museums and sites. Good exhibit mounts and exhibit furniture and proper lighting can be very expensive, and too many small museums still use old store mannequins or wire hangers or just let dirt accumulate. Still, there are several opportunities for those who work at small museums and sites to learn about the proper care and special needs of artifacts, and those who work at small museums and sites can come up with wonderful solutions to this issue.
3. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation is accurate.
One would think that this would be obvious - but even the largest museums can and do err. I once worked for a federal site which had a permanent exhibit in which several artifacts were misdated. Artifacts are our "facts". We need to be careful about researching them properly when we create exhibits. Small museums and sites are often guilty of problems with inaccurate context (objects and specimens displayed together which would never have existed together in a particular period, or interpreters wandering all over the map in dress and behavior).
4. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation causes visitors to think but is not propagandistic.
Actually, I'm pretty open on the issue of the ways in which exhibits can make visitors think. At this point it is a giant DUH that visitors create their own meanings when they view and interact with exhibits, isn't it? Don't we all understand that now? For that reason, I have less of a problem with the pile-o-stuff exhibits than with exhibits which are so concept oriented and which force such specific behavior paths that the visitors don't have room to use their own contexts or imagination. That said, pile-o-stuff exhibits by themselves are not great exhibits - a focus does help visitors to make sense of what they see. This is probably the most subjective area in exhibit criticism, and we all can have our own points of view and argue them.
5. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation is innovative in design or concept.
Let's all push one another forward. I've seen some great exhibits in small museums. Unfortunately, I'm also beginning to see more and more exhibits that look exactly like one another. I think that this may be because more and more smaller museums and sites rely on hiring outside design firms, and these firms don't vary their techniques enough. Yes, there are very obvious styles that are typical in exhibits created during specific periods (we all can probably identify a 40's exhibit, a 70's exhibit and a 00's exhibit, can't we?) But even though this is 2007, let's all try not to make our exhibits all look like one another. I am really excited when I see something new.
Well, there you have it. From now on my posts (and eventually, I hope your posts) will focus on specific exhibits or interpetive programing at real small history museums or historic sites.
1. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation MUST be object focused.
This means that there absolutely must be actual or reproduction artifacts or specimens in good museum exhibits, and interpretation at historic sites must focus on a built or natural environment. Unfortunately, visitors more an more often these days visit museums and see what I call "Giant Magazine Articles". These are displays that only include text and images. These are NOT exhibits. That style is fine for brochures, magazines, or web exhibits - but they simply do not count as successful museum exhibits or interpretive programming. You might just as well give the visitors a handout or tell them to visit a website and turn them away at the door - what's the point of them being at the museum or site at all? Just because text and images are big and printed on the wall - or even are on raised panels - does NOT mean that a true exhibit has been created. The issue of labelling is a serious one - how much is too much? People want to know what they are viewing but too many labels can get in the way of the artifacts.
2. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation causes no damage to the artifacts and specimens displayed.
This is probably one of the biggest problems for small museums and sites. Good exhibit mounts and exhibit furniture and proper lighting can be very expensive, and too many small museums still use old store mannequins or wire hangers or just let dirt accumulate. Still, there are several opportunities for those who work at small museums and sites to learn about the proper care and special needs of artifacts, and those who work at small museums and sites can come up with wonderful solutions to this issue.
3. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation is accurate.
One would think that this would be obvious - but even the largest museums can and do err. I once worked for a federal site which had a permanent exhibit in which several artifacts were misdated. Artifacts are our "facts". We need to be careful about researching them properly when we create exhibits. Small museums and sites are often guilty of problems with inaccurate context (objects and specimens displayed together which would never have existed together in a particular period, or interpreters wandering all over the map in dress and behavior).
4. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation causes visitors to think but is not propagandistic.
Actually, I'm pretty open on the issue of the ways in which exhibits can make visitors think. At this point it is a giant DUH that visitors create their own meanings when they view and interact with exhibits, isn't it? Don't we all understand that now? For that reason, I have less of a problem with the pile-o-stuff exhibits than with exhibits which are so concept oriented and which force such specific behavior paths that the visitors don't have room to use their own contexts or imagination. That said, pile-o-stuff exhibits by themselves are not great exhibits - a focus does help visitors to make sense of what they see. This is probably the most subjective area in exhibit criticism, and we all can have our own points of view and argue them.
5. A good museum exhibit or site interpretation is innovative in design or concept.
Let's all push one another forward. I've seen some great exhibits in small museums. Unfortunately, I'm also beginning to see more and more exhibits that look exactly like one another. I think that this may be because more and more smaller museums and sites rely on hiring outside design firms, and these firms don't vary their techniques enough. Yes, there are very obvious styles that are typical in exhibits created during specific periods (we all can probably identify a 40's exhibit, a 70's exhibit and a 00's exhibit, can't we?) But even though this is 2007, let's all try not to make our exhibits all look like one another. I am really excited when I see something new.
Well, there you have it. From now on my posts (and eventually, I hope your posts) will focus on specific exhibits or interpetive programing at real small history museums or historic sites.
