Banned Books Week

Tomorrow marks the start of Banned Books Week. This year I will be reading "The Golden Compass," which I cannot believe I haven't read yet. I'll also re-read "And Tango Makes Three," which is probably the most adorably innocuous book to top the list of banned books. 

So, what are you reading?

Let it be known

That I am terrible at "free writing." Has the world of education and work so destroyed me thus far that when faced with a blank page and free choice of topic, I cannot find a damn thing to write about in a coherent and skillful way? Or have I reached a point where I write like a damn politician, without ever making a statement, but rather arguing both sides until I am blue? Perhaps I am so used to research papers that I feel the need to present compelling evidence and cannot state a damned opinion.

And apparently this makes me angry, hence the use of "damn" throughout.

Perhaps I do need to start creative writing again. Maybe the activities will help build the atrophied muscles.

Next few blog postings will be attempts at "short essays...reflective of...ideas, thoughts, concerns, and interests around the idea of critical museum pedagogy." I swear I am trying.

Designing for Critical Thinking

A short bit on designing for critical thinking/dialogue. Some bits of this were originally part of an article I co-authored for the Fall 2007 issue of Museums and Social Issues. This bit was unfortunately cut, but I feel like revisiting it.

Museums are not classrooms. We hear it constantly; we repeat it constantly. Attempts to bring classroom methods to museums are often met with heavy resistance. Partly this is because many attempts to integrate classroom philosophies into museums fail to adapt to the unique environment of non-formal education. Partly this may be because museums pride themselves on being non-formal, and thus fail to see the value in philosophies based in formal education.

Whatever the reason, I find myself stuck trying to find real ways to effect the goals of critical pedagogy in the museum setting. True critical pedagogy, as championed by Friere and others, requires a skilled facilitator to help participants through the process of learning. In much of the reading so far, it seems that facilitation remains the best way to stimulate dialogue and critical learning. So how can we facilitate, through an exhibit, without a guide or docent?
Exhibits communicate in several ways: through objects, interpretive text and design. So, how can an exhibit, without a single person to facilitate, encourage dialogue and inspire visitors to think critically about their world? What elements of design and development encourage critical thought and dialogue? Conversely, what elements may inadvertently communicate hegemony and positions of power?

In the original incarnation of the article “Can You Do That?,” we included a section on designing for dialogue. I would like to further investigate this concept and find an avenue for publication. I think that exhibit design often gets overlooked in favor of programming, but many museums cannot support long term programming with professionally trained facilitators.

Objects:
• As indicated in the Hooper-Greenhill, “objects do not speak for themselves…objects are spoken.” Every exhibit displays curatorial choices in display. Linked objects, display context, use of images and object display style all communicate to the public. The choice of object displayed can communicate ideas about power and control as well.

Labels:
• Labels are generally the way that museums communicate through exhibits. Labels should strive against being overly didactic and should serve to stimulate critical thinking. As per Lindauer, labels can be used to disrupt hegemony and displace authority. Prompting questions can also serve to stimulate dialogue.

Design:
• Comfort! Critical thinking is uncomfortable. Dialogue is uncomfortable. If you try to combine these with an uncomfortable physical environment, you set yourself up to fail. Soft seating, pleasant lighting, protected spaces, etc, all can lead to enhanced opportunities for dialogue and thinking.
• Placement of exhibits and components is important. What message does it send if an exhibit about this history of communities of color is tucked back in a seldom visited corner? Or if an exhibit on migrant farm workers is displayed in a poorly organized hallway? Likewise, if hegemonic displays are given a place of prominence, it sends a similar message.

More on this to come.

Marketing and getting the joke

On the way in to work today, I heard on NPR a brief mention that Microsoft, hard hit by the brilliant "I'm a Mac" ad campaign, has enlisted comedian Jerry Seinfeld to help counter the ads and reestablish its "street cred."

A few things come to mind.

1) No one on NPR should ever use the term "street cred." Especially not as it concerns Jerry Seinfeld.

2) The ad geniuses at Microsoft just don't get it.

The "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" ads have been successful because they understand their audience and appeal specifically to it. Better than that, they know what audience they WANT to attract and have pointedly played to that group. The young, hip, artsy crowd immediately identifies with Justin Long's uber hipster/slacker. We (yes, I am totally counting myself in this crowd) laugh at his good natured ribbing of John Hodgman's PC. Long's Mac is the ad world's version of Jim Halpert. And, we get the joke. We see nice guy, cool guy, guy we want to hang out with. And, we think that we too should have Macs, to be cool and hip.

Trying to use Seinfeld to counter this image just proves that Microsoft doesn't get the joke. Jerry Seinfeld is a funny guy (so I hear, I never really cared for him), but his appeal is to the fans of his TV show - i.e. people who were 30somethings almost 20 years ago. Totally different audience, and if that is what Microsoft is after, great! However, if the goal is to reclaim the "youth vote" as it were, they need someone with ACTUAL "street cred."

How does this relate to museums (see, you knew I'd get there eventually)? Most museums are now marketing to younger audiences - either parents of young children (25-45) or young professionals (25-40). These audiences are increasingly responsive to a level of fun and humor that is not always present in museum marketing.

The IMA did it well with their campaign for "Roman Art from the Louvre," most notably with ads with the line "togas not required." Silly, simple, and clever. I'll be on the lookout for clever advertising for museums, as there isnt much out there.

Museum directors need to trust their marketing teams to come up with ideas that appeal to the target audience - which may not include the director! Too often I wonder if directors push for advertising that appeals to them personally, rather than what will appeal to the target audience. There is so much creativity in museums, it will be great to watch it go wild.

So, way to go Microsoft - you basically proved Apple's point for them.

Another semester begins

Classes start tomorrow for another semester in the long road to my master's degree. I see people who finish in 2 years and want to scream. I started this in fall 2006, and wont finish until spring of 2010. Which is INSANE, but ah well.

I'm looking forward to the semester, and to being academic again.

More updates on museum geekery soon.

Another article

This time from Time Out Chicago, bemoaning the current focus on kid-friendly exhibits. I am of two minds about this. On one hand, I can understand that adults, especially those without kids, might feel left out of current offerings at museums. But on the other hand, I think too often adults feel like they "should" learn a certain way. They forget that they can also learn by playing. Of course, maybe working so long in a children's museum has warped me. :)

Adult Education in Museums?

The venue’s current grown-up–geared exhibit is a beautiful melange of antique space trinkets called “Planetary Machines.” Mechanized 18th- and 19th- century models of space along with pages torn from ancient encyclopedias let you peek into the minds of Enlightenment-era elites. Difficult to dumb down, texts bestow large chunks of information... it’s refreshing to, quite simply, observe an artifact and read about it.

See? Why do we insist that all adults want to do is read big ole text panels about objects? I mean, I love the idea of this show, but I would want to play with the orrerys, maybe even try to make my own. I am not a child (although I am rather child-like) but that doesn't mean I don't want to play.

I think there has to be a middle ground here. We often refer to it as the "Looney Toon" ideal. Watch an old Bugs Bunny cartoon with a kid sometime. Or The Muppet Show. Or Shrek. The reason these programs are so successful is that they appeal on a broad level. There are jokes that a 3 year old can get. And there are jokes that are clearly targeted at adults. We should be striving to build our exhibits to suit everyone.

We are currently working on a refresh of our winter exhibit, Jolly Days. One thing the team is pushing for is something for the grown ups. Even something small, but something that makes them laugh, smile, or better yet, learn something! I think we generally do a good job of creating exhibits that have something for everyone, but we could always do better. Our "something for everyone" sometimes translates into "something for preschoolers, and elementary age, but probably not older." Given our audience, its understandable, but even something small can help make the experience better for everyone.

Blockbusters: Boom or Bust?

Charity (my awesome boss, though she hates me calling her that) and I were just discussing the sudden interest in our traveling exhibits. Not a bad thing, not by a long shot, but still, sudden. We produce traveling exhibits for children's museums. We currently have 2 on the road, and one more scheduled for 2009. And about 4 in the works - ish. And it seems, that we will continue to have them all booked up all the time! Which, is wonderful...but it does lead me to wonder what is happening to the industry that we are being so flooded with requests.

A few things come to mind, and none of them are any more than the ramblings of my own mind. So, don't quote me.

1) Museums are under pressure to maintain high levels of visitation and membership, and have seen that temporary/traveling exhibits can help with this.

There is always discussion on mailing lists and at conferences on the value of traveling exhibits. On one side of the argument, is it worth the money (sometimes LOTS of money) spent on a temporary show, when the same amount could build a gorgeous permanent exhibit? Decent large shows (5000 -8000 square feet) now regularly rent for $150K+ for 3 months. Add in shipping, labor, etc, and you've got a sizeable cost. Blockbuster shows can require a guarantee of millions of dollars - which means if you don't make that much, you owe them cash. It's a hefty investment and in a museum struggling with finances, can be a huge gamble.

On the other side, the argument is that visitors are fickle. They want something new every time they come. For a museum such as ours, over 50% of our visitation comes in the form of members - who often visit 3-4 times per year or more. Yes, they visit their favorite spaces, but if you never give them new, they will not come back as often. In a market like Indianapolis, it doesn't take long before you have maxed out your audience. Then you have to rely on repeat visitation to increase your numbers. Temporary shows help with this, as it gives people a call to action to come back. Add to this that changing exhibits are easier to market, and you have a strong argument in favor of hosting these shows.

2) There isn't anything out there

My job is to manage our temporary/special/changing exhibits. Whatever you want to call them. And let me tell you, pickin's are slim. Where once we hosted exhibits about toys, bears, or economics - we now almost exclusively host shows featuring cartoon characters, popular books, or grown up artifact shows. The name is driving selection as much as the content. Even at a children's museum, it has to be sexy. Nanotechnology? Love it, want it, would love to host it. Can we market it? Ehhhh, I don't know.

And, with the focus on licensed product for exhibits, that means there are fewer museums that can produce these exhibits and fewer museums that can host them. And, the well of IP may be limited, but the good stuff at the top goes fast. Sure, you can probably get a license agreement from the author and publisher of a marginally popular children's book, but you probably can't sell/market it.

2) The growth of the blockbuster exhibit world is slowly killing the little guy.

I'm not going to pull any punches here. I firmly believe that, no matter how cool they are, blockbuster exhibits are killing the industry. They are another step towards the corporatization of the museum world, and they are further separating the museum world into a sort of "haves" and "have nots". As mentioned above, blockbuster exhibits come with a hefty price, but not just financial.

Blockbuster exhibits, like Body Worlds, Tut, Vatican, and Titanic, came on the scene in the 70s, with the first Tut show. At the time, that show was groundbreaking, and the crowds were more than happy to stand in line and shove through like cattle. The term "blockbuster" came from the movie industry - a term meant to imply a double threat, a financially viable show that features amazing content and quality exhibitry. But, as we have seen with the film industry, just because something is a blockbuster, it doesn't mean it is good. I give you High School Musical, Speed Racer and The Mummy 3.

The blockbuster boom has led to a glut of exhibit copies (there are at least 3 Body Worlds on the road) and knock-offs (Bodies: The Exhibition - more on that in the next post). The simple supply/demand model kicks in, and as more exhibits become available, and visitors have more options, the exhibits become less financially sound. If you know you can see Body Worlds anywhere, why worry about driving to see it? There's no rush, no call to action. There is no longer a "limited time only."

Other issues:
* With the perceived success of exhibits like Tut and Body Worlds, everyone wants in on the game. When a museum proposes an exhibit to an IP holder or the owner of an artifact, they expect handsome compensation. After all, if Tut can rake in millions, why can't their pirate ship/costume collection/famous toy exhibit?
* With the drive to use licensed product, exhibit producers are bending more and more to the will of the IP holder. The museum or exhibit company is no longer in charge of the content or design of the exhibit. We are no longer trusted with our own expertise. And the exhibits suffer for it.
* The drive to create these shows leads to shorter development time. This leads to mixed messaging, mish-mashed content, and sloppy design.

Well, this became a rant on blockbuster shows, but so be it. I won't say that I didn't enjoy Body Worlds, or Titanic. I wont say I am not excited about Tut. But, like everything else, the bubble cannot hold. Soon, very soon, the blockbuster bubble will break, and museums will be left with empty schedules and a demanding public. So what then?

How can we as an industry return to creating strong exhibits that stand on their own, without a $15 ticket charge and a hard bound catalogue? Seriously, I'm asking.