on visiting museums
Just on another flying visit to Princeton. I have visited a number of museums in the last couple of weeks. I went to the Constitution Centre in Philadelphia and overall found it quite interesting, although much of it aimed at children visiting it was not too basic. The exhibition for Ben Franklin's 300th birthday is certainly worth a visit, for the number of possessions of his, as well as printed material of the time that they have managed to bring together.
I had been looking forward to the Slavery exhibition at the New York Historical Society but it was a bit of a disappointment. The factual accounts, and things like church registers and shipping logs were great, but it did drift a bit too much towards what I call 'scratch and sniff' displays: those aimed at children with press-this-to-hear-the-lion type features. There was also far too much of that at the Smithsonian American History museum, but they did have Julia Child's kitchen which was fun to look at.
I always go through museums wanting more detailed information about what is on display. I don't object too strongly to having child-focused activities, but I am disappointed when this is clearly done at the expense of providing in-depth information. In the past, museums were seen as educational resources, but not just in the sense of destinations for class trips but for adults to educate themselves. Today the focus is so much on children, the idea that adults might want to really learn something seems to have been lost. In the race to avoid talking down to people, they have lost the goal of elevation. Personally if I found a museum's presentation intellectually challenging rather than patronising, I would be more likely to visit that museum in the future.
An interesting contrast is the Natural History Museum in Vienna. This is old-school. Glass cabinets, with a stuffed cheetah shot in 1892 and a card with the latin name on it. Plain facts. Not an 'interpretation'. (Where did this 'interpretation' nonsense come from anyway? Either it's a Zulu spear or it's not. Museums should trust their curatorial staff to know what this stuff is for a FACT instead of offering up some suggestion and calling it an 'interpretation', which is just ridiculous)
I had been looking forward to the Slavery exhibition at the New York Historical Society but it was a bit of a disappointment. The factual accounts, and things like church registers and shipping logs were great, but it did drift a bit too much towards what I call 'scratch and sniff' displays: those aimed at children with press-this-to-hear-the-lion type features. There was also far too much of that at the Smithsonian American History museum, but they did have Julia Child's kitchen which was fun to look at.
I always go through museums wanting more detailed information about what is on display. I don't object too strongly to having child-focused activities, but I am disappointed when this is clearly done at the expense of providing in-depth information. In the past, museums were seen as educational resources, but not just in the sense of destinations for class trips but for adults to educate themselves. Today the focus is so much on children, the idea that adults might want to really learn something seems to have been lost. In the race to avoid talking down to people, they have lost the goal of elevation. Personally if I found a museum's presentation intellectually challenging rather than patronising, I would be more likely to visit that museum in the future.
An interesting contrast is the Natural History Museum in Vienna. This is old-school. Glass cabinets, with a stuffed cheetah shot in 1892 and a card with the latin name on it. Plain facts. Not an 'interpretation'. (Where did this 'interpretation' nonsense come from anyway? Either it's a Zulu spear or it's not. Museums should trust their curatorial staff to know what this stuff is for a FACT instead of offering up some suggestion and calling it an 'interpretation', which is just ridiculous)
<< Home