The idea of a museum as “a place that would be a pleasure to visit on crowded days” (31) makes my skin crawl. I tend to turn away and resolve to come back another day if I see the parking lot full at places like museums, my anxiety heightened and my discomfort visible to everyone. It’s unfortunate that we’ve entered a reality where museums must be, as Joe mentioned in his response, “cheapened” by the flashy ability to connect to a social media platform, where your enjoyment requires cooperation between patrons, to have an app on your phone, or to speak face-to-face with an exhibit. Heaven forbid I have the desire to just wander through a museum and quietly experience it for myself.
Now, this isn’t to say that we should still be practicing the antiquated trend of separating expert from visitor (70-71). If anything is going to keep people from patronizing museums, it’s going to be that elitist environment in which you feel like you’re a part of the unwashed masses, wholly stupid and simply grateful to be allowed to tread on sacred ground. It is important, as well, to keep from petrifying a museum in one unchanging state, as people will only visit once, having already seen everything. (Two-headed calf, anyone?) So how can this be done without risking the alienation of those who don’t feel inclined to vocally or physically participate?
I think the balance comes from the integration of things like “dialogic museums” (83-95). Holy cow, do I love this idea. The style gives curators and historians the ability to shed old ways of presenting nothing but the facts, and, at the same time, also reject those old, exclusionary, historical narratives, by introducing new stories from those whose representation is often erased from the narrative altogether. They challenge visitors’ thinking, bring new ideas and faces into the museum, and, can still rely on technological advancements. By all means, encourage the public to submit their own voices, and suggest the stories that should be told. Solicit those untold stories via social media platforms, and engage in a dialogue about why exclusionary narratives are harmful. Make history accessible and worthy of a conversation. But most importantly, when it comes time to create a physical space to tell these stories, they can be curated in ways that allow visitors to enjoy exhibits and installations on their own terms. Now, obviously this isn’t the only solution, and not every museum can put something like this together or align this style with the primary goal of their establishment. But it’s a nice starting point to think about…
Although I agree that a “completely interactive” museum would probably be off putting to me personally, I feel that the majority of the up and coming generation would feel more comfortable with it. I do feel that a balance must be struck between “flashy” but wholly uninformative exhibits and the more factually based, but often criticized as stuffy, exhibits. Although there are many of us who would rather go somewhere that was less busy and more comfortable because of it, in the modernizing world it is important for revenue and therefore the actual continued existence for a number of museums to find ways to bring crowds, and more specifically those that wouldn’t normally attend. I think that some interactivity can be important to this but it must be balanced so as not to turn it from a historical authority figure into a place of educational/ historical video games.
Darn kids and their new-fangled history museums… 🙂
I know, I’m in the minority, and a balance must be found between the two. Revenue is obviously important, and the balance has to allow for both productivity and modernization. I guess I just worry about alienating certain types of patrons, and making sure that any and all can enjoy.. though I didn’t articulate it very well.