Via the Smithsonian Institution, an exploration of the growing
friction between the research and outreach functions of museums in the
21st century.
Describing participant observation and historical research at the
Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History as it prepared for its
largest-ever exhibit renovation, Deep Time, the author provides a
grounded perspective on the inner-workings of the world's largest
natural history museum and the social processes of communicating science
to the public.
From the introduction:
In exhibit projects, the tension plays out between curatorial
staff--academic, research, or scientific staff charged with content--and
exhibitions, public engagement, or educational staff--which I broadly
group together as "audience advocates" charged with translating content
for a broader public. I have heard Kirk Johnson, Sant Director of the
NMNH, say many times that if you look at dinosaur halls at different
museums across the country, you can see whether the curators or the
exhibits staff has "won." At the American Museum of Natural History in
New York, it was the curators. The hall is stark white and organized by
phylogeny--or the evolutionary relationships of species--with simple,
albeit long, text panels. At the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago, Johnson will tell you, it was the "exhibits people." The hall
is story driven and chronologically organized, full of big graphic
prints, bold fonts, immersive and interactive spaces, and touchscreens.
At the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, where Johnson had previously
been vice president and chief curator, "we actually fought to a draw."
That, he says, is the best outcome; a win on either side skews the final
product too extremely in one direction or the other. This creative
tension, when based on mutual respect, is often what makes good
exhibitions.
