I provoke their thoughts, I guess.

I continue to be amazed by the fact that professionals in the museum field partially (if not completely) reject the methods used in the attraction experiences. I have learned from studying various theatrical and attraction experiences that their designs can easily translate to the museum context. I have said it before and will say it again: museums have a unique opportunity to combine spectacular design with their core - the authentic stories, activities and objects they possess - to create truly extraordinary exhibitions.

I recently received feedback on my article "Spectacular Design in Museum Exhibitions," which I submitted for publication. The tendency to associate negative images and meanings to "spectacle" is the reason I feel the need to share one of my reviewer's comments, who brought up the conspiracy theory around spectacle (in the same way that Guy Debord does in Society of the Spectacle):

"Of course the major “problem” with spectacle is that its point is to leave a strong emotional impression. In order to do this in a way that feels meaningful, the experience has to be about something suitably “large,” such as death, power, injustice, etc. In addition, because immersion in spectacle is about letting go of critical thought and even individuality (spectacles tend to be group activities), it has a strange and potentially dangerous power. Is it an accident that so much spectacle is in support of totalitarian structures (China in the cultural revolution, North Korea, Hitler, etc.) and associated with propaganda and the dropping of critical faculties? That same state of mind works well in separating audiences from their dollars, as it does people from their freedoms. But is this what people come to museums for?"

I admit in my article that "spectacle 'erases the dividing line between self and world' (Debord 1995). Debord lists this as a the problem with spectacle - that this distance from reality created by spectacle is what allows evil people like Hitler to impress their ideals upon, well, impressionable subjects.

... but so can good food, right? I mean I could probably convince YOU to do something silly by dangling homemade oatmeal chocolate chip cookies in your face. Not unlike "the force" in Star Wars or weapons in the hands of kids, spectacle can be used for evil if it is in the hands of someone who is deeply disturbed. Hitler could have used cookies. And the problem isn't the cookies - it's Hitler.

And, after listening to visitors in Dinosphere at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis, I'll say that the desire to be whisked away to a different time or place exists. That exhibit wouldn't be as effective without that feeling... that feeling of no longer being in the reality you were once in. I think visitors look to museums for memorable experiences... and sometimes spectacle helps us achieve that in ways that we might not otherwise be able to.

I just found it funny that I tried my best to steer clear of this discussion in the 6,000 word article... and here I am, writing about it.

Anyway, as it turns out, the reviewer thought that more people should read what I wrote and strongly encouraged the publication of the article. So, here I am, like a star on The Daily Show, promoting myself:

For a thought-provoking read, please catch the July 2009 edition of Curator: The Museum Journal!!


References:
Debord, Guy (1995). The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.