I completely agree with the Purposiveness/Capability/Effectiveness/Efficiency argument in chapter one, however I do have a problem with the percentages. Instead of the 35/30/25/10 ratio, I would suggest 10/35/30/25 at least for historical museums (art museums it seems to me have to be more open and flexible in terms of purposiveness.) Lets use the Wagner as an example: they have no doubt that their "purpose" (to provide free scientific education to the public) but they do have serious questions about their "capabilities" - and its their "effectiveness" and "efficiency" that drive their capabilities. The Wagner, I think, is a great example of a museum that is "for something" but striving to be "for somebody."
Weil expands on effectiveness and efficiency in chapter three when he talks about LeslieRedford's training for museum administrators. The training he describes is essentially an MBA.Which makes me wonder how many Museum Administrators/Public Historians have an MBA? Many graduate schools offer programs that allow students to get their JD and MBA at the same time. Could schools also offer a joint MBA/MA for Public History?
As for the issue of what and how to display in our museums that both Weil and Tyson raise, It seems to me the answer is "everything" and with as much detail as possible. How to pay for it is another issue altogether but "everything" should be the goal (or should I say purposiveness?) Tyson's article is good because she raises the issue of emotional comfort but I think we would be more comfortable with our history if we faced the uncomfortable aspects of it head on and with as much objectivity as possible. The instructors at the Connor Prairie site who told the teenagers to be quiet - and more respectful - had the right idea and attitude.
No comments:
Post a Comment