Comments on: Excellent article by Jacki Rand http://museumblogging.com/2007/07/12/excellent-article-by-jacki-rand/ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:54:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Nina Simon http://museumblogging.com/2007/07/12/excellent-article-by-jacki-rand/#comment-18 Nina Simon Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:11:00 +0000 http://museumblogging.com/?p=50#comment-18 A fascinating article. I've felt conflicted about NMAI for a long time, because it is one answer to the question: what happens when you seek to create a museum not just about but by a group of non-professionals? I'm constantly torn between enthusiasm for Web 2.0-like projects, in which visitors contribute content and curate, and highly narrative experiences that are the result of a single thematic design "story." To me as a (non-Native) visitor, NMAI is confusing and superficial--the polyphony of voices washes out, rather than amplifying, the experiences presented. And yet I know others who worked on or have visited the museum who believe that it represents a "success" in the telling of stories by the storytellers (and story owners) themselves.<br/><br/>There's a related question/problem here that comes up in Jacki's essay--who decides who owns a story? To Jacki, the stories that NMAI chose to tell were not sufficient to represent the Native American experience legitimately. To me, the stories did not create a sufficiently cohesive or impactful experience. And because they were not the work of a single designer, there's no one person for Jacki or me to point to and say "he/she got it wrong." Is the process wrong? Did they choose the wrong storytellers? How can this work--the museum "by" the people?<br/><br/>My guess is the fact that NMAI is a federal institution of a huge size makes it one of the most challenging places to embark on this kind of experiment. In this way, I see it as a useful, not entirely successful innovation. But that doesn't make it a great museum. I hope they'll keep trying. A fascinating article. I’ve felt conflicted about NMAI for a long time, because it is one answer to the question: what happens when you seek to create a museum not just about but by a group of non-professionals? I’m constantly torn between enthusiasm for Web 2.0-like projects, in which visitors contribute content and curate, and highly narrative experiences that are the result of a single thematic design “story.” To me as a (non-Native) visitor, NMAI is confusing and superficial–the polyphony of voices washes out, rather than amplifying, the experiences presented. And yet I know others who worked on or have visited the museum who believe that it represents a “success” in the telling of stories by the storytellers (and story owners) themselves.

There’s a related question/problem here that comes up in Jacki’s essay–who decides who owns a story? To Jacki, the stories that NMAI chose to tell were not sufficient to represent the Native American experience legitimately. To me, the stories did not create a sufficiently cohesive or impactful experience. And because they were not the work of a single designer, there’s no one person for Jacki or me to point to and say “he/she got it wrong.” Is the process wrong? Did they choose the wrong storytellers? How can this work–the museum “by” the people?

My guess is the fact that NMAI is a federal institution of a huge size makes it one of the most challenging places to embark on this kind of experiment. In this way, I see it as a useful, not entirely successful innovation. But that doesn’t make it a great museum. I hope they’ll keep trying.

]]>