As I read through Letting Go I do not think the authors of any of these articles would consider that they are advocating for the removal of professional historical analysis from public venues. Instead they are encouraging participation from the community in a way that is controlled and carefully vetted for content quality. Rather than opening the door and giving over completely to whatever user content is created they want to start a dialogue with the community instead, in order to present information that is more likely to get people to come and view their products. This is less of a case of letting go, and more a case of selective invitation to others to come in to the world presented by the historical venue. It makes a lot of sense to do this, particularly from the perspective of the museum as a business, as it ensures their media will always be consumed as well as preventing their idea pool from stagnating.
I find the idea of an “unsuggester” intriguing for multiple reasons, the least of which is its ability to promote expanded experiences among those who might use it. By showing someone a book or exhibit that is the opposite to their favorite thing, such a function would give a person access to the ability to see that different does not necessarily mean bad and that many thought processes and ideologies can coexist comfortably. Small institutions would have difficulty implementing such a tool, as they likely do not have the space or scope to provide such a disparate amount of material, but large institutions like presidential libraries or museums that cover more than local history would certainly be able to use such a tool, and would encourage patrons to explore exhibits that they may have never considered to be relevant to their lives.
I honestly had never given much thought to how the directors of public history institutions might need to change how their projects are designed in order to maintain public interest. Certainly I can see that how the current lack of emphasis on education and the dismissal of the liberal arts as worthless would harm places who seek to preserve and interpret the past. I am interested to see if and how these new approaches breathe new life into public history installations. I hope they do, as I have always loved museums and interpretive centers, and would hate to see them become obsolete.
The unsuggester idea is a pretty cool one. Yay for opening minds!
I took a workshop on curating museums and she took a lot of time to talk about maintaining interest, and how places like Boise (which doesn’t get a lot of tourism and therefore relies on locals, compared to say, museums in NYC) have to take special care to update and take new approaches to the exhibits in order to keep collecting revenue. It’s unfortunate that institutions with local influence don’t take kindly to the liberal arts, and subsequently don’t take advantage of partnerships with local museums to help them not only stay relevant and exciting, but even to just stay afloat.
Absolutely! I think the part about not going like the web 2.0 was actually relevant in this as well. It showed that rather than simply allowing content from any/everywhere, ideas from all over can be funneled down based on interest and relevancy to overall create a great idea for exhibits that people would actually look forward to come and see. With this and a balance between interactive and non-interactive exhibits I think you could draw new people while maintaining the old patrons.
First of all, bravo on the title of this reflection (Let the Right One In is my favorite horror film). Also, I completely agree with your beginning statement. To me, the book was all about letting selective people into the process of public history in a way that enriches the experience and the overall product of a museum or public history material. Since we all experience history and have a voice, museums should be opening their doors to new and provocative perspectives that enhance the experience for everyone.
New ideas are wonderful and a necessity if we are to keep museums both relevant and funded. But I believe that a history museum needs to present history in a manner conducive for learning, not just entertaining. For me, “Public Curation” offered the best hope for accessing our successes and failures as we move from being presenters of history to facilitators of learning.