ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

Cherry Picking Replies to Jonah:


> In the real vs. simulation scale, I'd say these documentaries fall
> closer to the real end.

I would respond that it is not real vs. simulation but real AND
simulation and each one in its place to serve stated goals and
missions tied to appropriate audiences.  My frustration comes when
too many people think their institution should  only do one or the
other and the other side of the coin is a sign of low standards,
commercialism, tedium , or lack of public engagement.

Maybe I have worked for the federal government too long. Maybe I have
been a science center person in the museum world too long. Maybe I
have been a museum person working with science center people too
long. But I am tired of listening to otherwise intelligent, creative
people tell me why things can't be done because that's not the way
people at their sliver of the continuum have historically done them.


> Yes, it's film of people/places/stuff, not
> actual people/places/stuff --- but it IS film of REAL people, places +
> events. "Everest" was filmed on the biggest mountain in the world, not
> on a soundstage or with CGI. [Insert your own wisecrack about fake
> moon
> landing conspiracy theorists here.] And frankly, that's as close as I
> ever want to get to the place known as "the death zone".

And the public agrees with you. Look at the popularity of Winged
Migration and Planet Earth. I agree with you too. I love all the
films you have noted. Again, you have stacked the deck a bit noting
the obviously wonderful examples of one of the kind, can't see it any
other way films. What about the less well done films, the ones that
are done on sound stages or with bad animation, or the ones that need
disclaimers saying they contain historical inaccuracies, or the
latest Dinosaur 3-D epic. I'd argue that some of these could easily
be replaced or enhanced with real stuff.

>
> And you wanna talk wise resource allocation? Sure, live people can be
> brought in for concerts, lectures etc... for one or two presentations.
> [How long do you plan to pay to keep paying appearance fees and room +
> board for these guests?] How about the folks who can't see that one
> presentation? An ongoing exhibit/exhibition and/or movie makes it
> easier.

Which of course brings up the discussion of quality versus quantity.
Yes you will serve more people with an ongoing presentation or
exhibition. A hands-on experience, trip, concert will certainly serve
less people, but those people that are served get a deeper
experience. (we're assuming quality product all the way around here.
A bad hands-on experience doesn't provide a deep experience, but then
just because you build an exhibition, doesn't mean people will come,
either) My museum does near 4 million people a year. My little Hands
On Center does only about 100k and of that less than 5 percent are
organized school groups. But as you march down that slope of
attendance you are marching up a slope of engagement. It's a
balancing act to be sure, but we do a disservice to our visitors if
we only and always look for serving the most people with the least
money. Otherwise we'd all just be websites.
>
> I don't doubt the power of seeing real stuff right in front of you (I
> went to Philly just to see King Tut's treasures). But I also don't
> doubt
> that these kinds of artifacts have their limits. I don't know at what
> age kids start to appreciate objects for their history/rarity and so
> on... but say you got one of the ultimate artifacts imaginable: a moon
> rock. I would think this was cool upon cool. Sadly, many kids (and
> more
> than a few adults) would look at it and see... just a rock. And not
> even
> an interesting looking rock.

But the beauty of it is, that those kids and adults who think of it
as "just a rock" will react just as excited for a different object
which they have vested with value. For me it may be the original
Kermit the Frog. (more of a lizard actually) For someone else it may
be Einstein's Pipe. For another it may be a moon rocks, and astronaut
suit,  the Wright Flyer, a Prairie Dog, an Edison Light-bulb, meeting
the inventor of the Seguey, or listening to the Bradenburg Concertos
on actual Strads. When you do it right and match message, mission,
medium, and audience with something (or someone, "real" can include
real people too) you can inspire a really moving experience. It
shouldn't be so easily dismissed
>
> Or say you did have a speech by someone who helped extinguish the oil
> well fires after the first gulf wars. Wouldn't the audience be
> infinitely more impressed if they first saw what this person had to
> deal
> with in the IMAX film "Fires of Kuwait".

Absolutely,  I agree. Allow me to quote from my original reply, " The
burning oil well fire would be difficult, but for the price of
airfare and a week's hotel you could bring in someone who has been
there and fought them for programming.

And it need not be to replace a film or exhibition, but enhance."

>
> I would never want to eliminate honest to goodness objects, and honest
> to goodness experiments. But I recall the gasps from the ASTC audience
> when astronaut Mike Melvill showed us footage of his craft going
> into an
> uncontrolled spin. Why would there be something wrong with showing
> folks
> a ginormous, panoramic film of stuff like that. KnowhudI'msaying?
>

And I never said there was  anything wrong with any  film,
exhibition, simulation, kinetic learning experience or reading
corner. Neither did John. John asked a simple question in his two
sentence  post, "What ever happened to artifacts and REAL things and
exhibits?" And the only reply I have seen is a long list of extreme
examples where "real objects" were thought by the poster to not
qualify as doable with real stuff. Which is an excellent argument FOR
films and other multi-media, but didn't address his question which
basically asked why do we see the films and exhibitions to the
exclusion of real stuff. (John, please correct me if I am wrong)

I like where the thread went with John's coining of the I-Min
concept. That's good stuff. More please.

MY answer to John's question is the same answer I would give to those
of you who might ask why museums aren't more dynamic and interesting
(though I disagree with the premises on both) and that is that it is
easy to act the same old way, balance the same old beach ball on the
same old blow dryer to demonstrate the Bernoulli effect, show the
same old Imax movies, show the same old microscopes, and exhibit the
same old gowns and guns. Predictability is comforting. Creativity is
risky.

Let the discussion continue,

Matt White

PS: I feel really bad my last post found fault with Jonah. Normally
he is one of my favorite posters on this list and one of the few I
open on spec in the middle of a busy  day. Oh well. Keep them coming
Jonah.

***********************************************************************
For information about the Association of Science-Technology Centers and the Informal Science Education Network please visit www.astc.org.

Check out the latest case studies and reviews on ExhibitFiles at www.exhibitfiles.org.

The ISEN-ASTC-L email list is powered by LISTSERVR software from L-Soft. To learn more, visit
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html.

To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]