Showing posts with label storytelling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label storytelling. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Unpacking the Objects and their Stories. Takeaways from the 2013 AAM Conference.


I'm still buzzing a bit from the interplay of people and ideas (and crabcakes!) that I found in Baltimore during the 2013 American Alliance of Museums (AAM) Annual Meeting.

Normally I ignore the theme of most museum conferences, but this year's AAM theme, The Power of Story, resonated with me because of two particular sessions that bookended my experiences at the conference, and that have continued to make me think deeply about those two essential elements that great museum experiences provide: stories and stuff.

The first session, "Is it real? Who cares?" delved into the interplay between whether an object is perceived as "real" or "fake" and whether that notion has any impact whatsoever on whether a visitor's experience(s) with that object are successful or not.

During the session, different objects were described and projected onto a large screen at the front of the room.  Examples of objects included things like "Sue" the T Rex, the historic ship U.S.S. Constitution, or a recreation of a historic synagogue ceiling. 

At the same time, members of the audience were given smaller images of the same objects mounted on foamcore and were asked to weigh in on whether the object/story was more toward the "Fake" or "Real" end of the spectrum, and more toward the "Works" or "Doesn't Work" end of the spectrum, in terms of visitor engagement.  After each person holding an image weighed in on their impressions of the Fake/Real and Works/Doesn't Work continuum at the microphone, they went to stand at the front of the room and serve as a data point in a big 3D matrix.  (The front wall of the room was the Fake/Real axis, while the side walls were the Works/Doesn't Work axis.)

It was Uber Museum Geeky, but also lots of fun, especially once everyone was standing at the front holding their images and people from the audience could comment and move the human "data points" around to refine the big 3D matrix of stories and stuff.  (See image from the session at the top of this post --- that's me holding the U.S.S. Constitution firmly in the Real/Works quadrant.)

One thing that struck me was that at the beginning of filling in the matrix things were really clumped up toward the Fake/Doesn't Work part of the matrix, but after continued discussion, things spread more evenly between Fake and Real, and much more toward the Works for visitors end of the spectrum.

It really made me think how often in the museum world that we fetishize objects and their "authenticity" while sacrificing the primary visitor experience(s). 

The organizers of this session created a "Is it real? Who cares?" Tumblr site that they used while preparing their session, but which they have also opened up to continued conversation amongst colleagues on the topics that came out in the session discussion.

The other session that really stood out for me (and that connected in so many ways to the Is it real? session) was a dialogue between Elizabeth Merritt, founding director of the Center for the Future of Museums, and Rob Walker, one of the creators of the Significant Objects Project.  The session was entitled (unsurprisingly) "Significant Objects."

Walker started with a brief presentation about the idea behind Significant Objects, which I would summarize as a way to test the theory that an object (of fairly limited "value" like something you could buy at a garage sale) could be invested with significance by attaching a fictitious story to it.

Some of the stories for the first 100 Significant Objects were written by famous authors (like Jonathan Lethem and Bruce Sterling) while other "object stories" were written by less famous writers.  In the end, all of the objects + stories were put up for sale on EBay to determine whether people would pay more for these objects coupled to clearly fictional stories than they would for the objects by themselves.  It turns out that people did pay more for the objects with stories, but really you should check out the entire Significant Objects website to get a better sense of the entire scope of the project.

In the same way I usually don't pay attention to conference themes, I've rarely purchased recordings of conference sessions, but in this case I'm making an exception just because I found the conversations and references presented (especially by Merritt and Walker) so valuable and meaty.  Two in particular related to this thread of narrative and object include the book "Taking Things Seriously" written by Significant Objects co-creator Joshua Glenn, and the Museum of Broken Relationships.

You can go to this section of the AAM website to purchase recordings of conference sessions, including this "Significant Objects" session which happened at 10:15 a.m. on Tuesday, May 22nd.

As I departed Baltimore, I was left with the overwhelming feeling of the importance of objects in museums and visitor experiences, but only when coupled with strong narrative contexts, not as ends unto themselves. And that's really The Power of Story.



Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Sign up for Free ExhibiTricks Blog Updates" link on the upper right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email (or Facebook or LinkedIn) you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like videos!)

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Ghost In The Museum?


Although he could have lived anywhere in the world, Louis Armstrong lived in a modest brick house on 107th Street in Corona, Queens from 1943 until he died in his sleep there in 1971.  I could have ferreted out that information on the Web, but instead I learned about Louis Armstrong by actually visiting his house, which is now a museum and National Historic Landmark. With bar none, the coolest kitchen (below) I've ever seen.


There's something interesting in visiting a place and feeling, if not exactly the "ghosts" of the past, at least the "spirit" of the people who passed that way before you.  I have felt that way in visiting Graceland and the Mark Twain house, but also in very particular outdoor locations like The Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts, or the shiny, silvery "bean" in Millennium Park in Chicago.  There was something very evocative in all of those spots  --- almost as if each one of those spaces had a "personality."

One of the best things I've ever heard said about The Exploratorium was that it feels like you've walked into Frank Oppenheimer's workshop after he's just stepped outside for a minute.  The feeling that real people, with real interests and foibles, have created something for you to experience is one of the most powerful, and most authentic, of museum experiences.

This authentic museum "spirit" is not something that just casually occurs, or manifests itself through some sort of formulaic exhibit development process.  But when all the elements of such a museum experience come together, they form something that really cannot occur in any other medium.


Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Free Updates" link on the right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email (or Facebook or LinkedIn) you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like videos!)

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Design 101: What's Your Story?



What's Your Story?  If your answer involves some hand-waving and referring to some cool new technological gadget in your lobby, I'm afraid you've lost me (and probably a large portion of your audience.)

Gizmos are NOT a story, but merely one possible way to tell a story.  Simple right?  You would think so, but unfortunately the siren-song of shiny, techy goodness often has a way of getting people to forget about, or rationalize away, their core messages (The Story!) that they want to impart.

Recently,  I've been in Helena, Montana working with the fine folks at ExplorationWorks Museum and I also attended the excellent SMartCAMP conference in NYC.  As I look back at my activities in both of these disparate situations, it is interesting to think about how many times the notion of "telling your story" or "staying on message" recurred.

If the notion of "story" is central to thinking about the next steps in the evolution of a nascent museum in Montana, and the common thread in the discussions of the social media hipsters at SMartCAMP, then I ask again, "What's Your Story?"

And are you spending enough time honing and polishing it to engage your audience with it?

Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Free Updates" link on the right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email (or Facebook or LinkedIn) you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like videos!)

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Should Your Next Exhibit Be Designed Like The Web?


Should the loosely connected, surf anywhere you like approach that makes the Web so popular serve as the design model for your next exhibit?

What got me thinking about this was the review (and subsequent comments) over on the ExhibitFiles website concerning the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry's new human body exhibit entitled "YOU!" 

Many exhibit designers seem to feel that exhibitions need a clear storyline or narrative thread that helps visitors walk away with clear messages.  The folks involved in the YOU! exhibition seemed to be guided not only by the disjointed architecture of the spaces they had to fit the exhibition into, but also by an acknowledgment of the user-centered, Web-based manner that many members of their target audience gather their information these days.

While the Web is great for wading through vast oceans of information, it still seems that "sticky" narratives are the best way for acquiring  long-lasting knowledge.   Using the Web as a model for design criteria seems like it could easily lapse into the "let's just fill up the space with cool stuff and let the visitors sort it out..." school of exhibit (or museum) design. 

So, can a museum exhibition composed of free-standing units that can be viewed in any order, any more or less effective than the traditionally-styled exhibition hung on a clear narrative structure? The folks from Chicago involved with the YOU! project have indicated that they'll be releasing their summative evaluation reports, so stay tuned...

What do you think?  Are folks from the narrative thread school of exhibit design just old fuddy-duddies that aren't keeping up with the Web-savvy public?  Or can museums serve as an antidote from click-based info-surfing,  and provide real objects, experiences, and stories that people can dive more deeply into?  Share your own deep (or shallow!) thoughts in the "Comments" section below.


Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Free Updates" link on the right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email (or Facebook or LinkedIn) you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like videos!)

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Exploring The World: An Interview With Dan Spock


Dan Spock is the Director of the Minnesota History Center Museum (MHS). Over the course of his 26-year museum career, Dan has worked as an exhibit designer, an exhibit developer and a program administrator.

Exhibits developed by Dan and his team at MHS have ranged from multidisciplinary, high immersion, interactive and media-rich approaches designed for a general family audience, to intensive community-based collaborations, to site specific interpretive centers and trails, to art or photography shows.

Dan was kind enough to share some of his thoughts about exhibits and museums in this interview.



What’s your educational background?


I have a BA in art from Antioch College. I set out to be a painter and printmaker, though I was a dabbler in many other interests as well. My point of entry into the museum world was doing exhibit and marketing graphic design, which I imagined would be a way to support my art making. It took me four years to discover that I preferred working in creative exhibit teams to the solitude art required of me. I was learning so much from other people, more than I thought I could learn from any introspective artistic process.

I’m an administrator now, but I think one thing I’ve retained from art making is that sense that when you encounter something that makes you anxious, instead of avoiding it, you deal with it by engaging with it creatively. I want to be responsible, but I try not to make decisions based on fear.



What got you interested in Museums?


Well, I’m kind of dyed in the wool on this. My father was a museum professional of some repute, having been the director of the Boston Children’s Museum during its transformational time in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. I was a witness to that as a child and experienced very directly the excitement of each new development as that process was unfolding.

As a family we spent a fair proportion of our leisure time visiting museums, zoos, city, national and state parks, all sorts of cultural events and places. Virtually all of our family vacations included this kind of tourism. There was Sturbridge Village and Plimoth Plantation. We went to the 1964 New York World’s Fair and Expo ’67 in Montreal which were very memorable and had a profound impact on me. My grandparents were New Yorkers, so we did all of the biggies there. There were mind-blowing visits to the Exploratorium and the Ontario Science Center when those places were new. We weren’t too snobby either, we also went to Disneyland, Sea World, Universal Studios, wax museums, amusement parks and tourist traps.

The ethos was to get out and experience the world. I was encouraged to explore things on my own too, so I did a lot of stuff by taking public transportation with my posse and just knocking around the city, exploring the museums, sites and libraries. I liked old graveyards and abandoned industrial sites, all the little nooks and crannies around the Boston area. I began to develop a sense of pride of ownership for these places and the skills I’d developed by using them in my own ways. I also retained a sense of how pleasingly tantalizing and surprising the museum exploration and discovery process can be, but also how that isn’t that different from our experience of exploring the outside world.



Is your approach to exhibition development different in a Historical Museum context?


Yes and no. I got my early training at the Boston Children’s Museum and the mentors I had there had a huge impact on how I saw exhibit development as a process. For one thing, there was a highly participatory team approach and participation was not limited by seniority or roles in any strict sense, so everyone could contribute. The exhibit developer role was really being created there at the time. Designers, production and content people all worked closely together. It could be messy and contentious, but it was very instructive for someone with limited experience, a real apprenticeship. We did a tremendous volume of new exhibit work while I was there too, so the challenges came quickly which was good practice.

The other thing was how there was a culture of respect for our audience that was deeply suffused through everything we did. This wasn’t some kind of idealized kumbaya notion either, but a hard-headed pragmatism about what kids are really like, what they’re liable to attend to and how, what they’d do that you’d wish they wouldn’t, anticipating those things, but also checking your work through experiments, prototyping and the like. We lived with our work and learned from our failures and successes quickly because in a children’s museum these things become obvious right away. There was an acceptance of risk, but also a commitment to making things really good. Part of my job was to repair stuff, so you could see which things were “well-loved,” as we used to say. I learned the value of persistence and a tolerance for ambiguity. So I came out of BCM as an exhibit designer/developer with those values pretty deeply ingrained.

I was lucky to wind up at a history museum, the Minnesota History Center (MHC) which was already pretty far down the same road through the leadership of my predecessors Paul Martin, Barbara Franco and Maureen Otwell. In fact, that’s really why I wanted to come here. Though MHC didn’t have developers yet, it did have curators who were dedicated exclusively to exhibit development, not to collection specializations, and some of them came from the living history sites, not from museums. This tradition gave MHC a certain flexibility in thinking about the museum as an experience that could go beyond words and objects. MHC had a track record of prototyping interactive and media rich exhibit elements and already had a rep for innovation when I arrived. So I have to say that the process has been more similar than not, in spite of the discipline difference.

I think the one big difference I perceive with history as opposed to other subjects, is how powerful a story-driven approach can become. Because history is so much a matter of people and their stories, you can really use narrative in ways that are super engaging to the public. You can even let narrative form the backbone of the interpretive approach entirely. This is not to say that you can’t do that with science or natural history, I think this is something those disciplines should look at more seriously. But stories are history’s inherent superpower and history museums still don’t flex that muscle nearly enough in my view. History museums are often the victims of self-imposed limitations, assumptions about how history museums are supposed to be. I see that changing in many places now, but we’re still behind the curve, which is what makes working in history so much fun, there’s so much you can do that’s still fresh.

A last thought on this is to say that I think history museums, since so many of them are localized in subject matter, may be especially well suited to work with community groups in collaborative partnerships. We’ve made a practice of this at MHC, taking different approaches depending on the project. History will have to work especially hard in the future to be more inclusive and responsive, because it’s the right thing to do, but also because the public demographics are so fluid and dynamic right now. New populations will need to recognize themselves in what we do and to do this our processes will have to include them in ways that aren’t merely symbolic, but show the voice, the hand of their involvement in meaningful ways in the products we create together.



What advice would you have for fellow museum professionals, especially those from smaller museums, in developing better stories for their exhibitions?


I say go with authentic stories. Resist the temptation to make stuff up. Primary sources are where it’s at. Dig out diaries, letters, newspapers for material if it’s not possible to get living people who are always the best possible thing. I think even the most prosaic objects are always more interesting if there’s a first-person voice attached to them. The authoritative, third-person curatorial voice, especially if it’s too preachy or academic sounding, is part of what gives history museum visitors the hives, if they ever even make it in the door.

If you can figure out a way to say some of the same things with a real and illustrative story, people find it much more engrossing. Dilemmas and conflicts of one sort or another are interesting. Learning is an emotional process, not merely a logical one. More than the why, when and the how, people really want to imagine what it was like. The closer you can bring them to that feeling, the more interesting it is. Authentic voices help make that come across. With design, try to work with theater people. Their trade makes them accustomed to being flexible, they can scale according to budget and they are comfortable communicating stories visually. They’re also often underemployed.

Another tip is not to be too daunted by the cost of things. The idea is not to spend a lot, but to make what you do spend really count. Sometimes you can create a compelling effect with just the slightest gesture and people use their imagination to fill everything in. I was in a little museum once and they had created a full scale diorama of a tiny ship’s cabin. The cabin had a porthole with a view to the shore and the view bobbed up and down very slightly creating a powerful impression of being on the water. A few sound effects of creaking wood timbers and squawking gulls completed the sensation, it really put you there.

The Museum of Jurassic Technology in LA is another excellent example of what an imaginative person with extremely limited resources can do—I remember noticing how all of the spotlights were made from auto headlamps held up with lab clamps! Evocation is the name of the game. I think people really appreciate seeing things in context, so the more you can situate objects in their surroundings, the more evocative they become. A visual realization is also a storytelling act. It’s useful to think about the kinds of experiences we have all the time that trigger memories and conversations. These will translate well into exhibit experiences. It’s incredible what you can buy on Ebay now. It’s also exciting that the tools and equipment necessary to do stuff are becoming cheaper and more accessible. My daughter did a History Day project last year on iMovie that rivaled some of the stuff we’ve done at the museum. OK, I’m a little biased, but you get my point.



Tell us a little bit about the Mill City Museum, and how it got started?


It’s a long story. The Minnesota Historical Society operates about 26 historic sites and museums around the state. One of them was a storefront operation in downtown Minneapolis which was a jumping off point for guided heritage tours of the then dilapidated industrial riverfront. It had long been a dream that an industrial history museum could help anchor a process of riverfront redevelopment and the city had been making substantial incremental steps in that direction through partnerships with the city park board and redevelopment authority, the county, the National Park Service, real estate developers, preservation groups, some interested architects and MHS. Those relationships took years to cultivate.

As parts began to fall into place, especially the opening of the Stone Arch railroad bridge to pedestrian and bike traffic, which quickly became the money spot for skyline viewing, attention turned to the nearby ruins of the Washburn Crosby A Mill which had been gutted by fire about a decade earlier. The mill was on the National Register, it once housed the parent company of what’s now General Mills, and it was also once the largest flour mill in the world, flour milling being the industry that put Minneapolis on the map.



It was hard work, but basically a complex combination of civic vision, partnerships and a strong economy created the zeitgeist necessary to get the new museum funded. We imagined a program that would be built on experiential variety – immersive storytelling shows, a tasting kitchen, a hands-on waterpower lab and other areas with interactives, an outdoor view over the riverfront from on high, new architecture that was sensitive to the original fabric of the mill, along with plenty of both nostalgic, but also brawny, flour industry-related objects. Storytelling and interactivity in particular seemed to be golden opportunities that other industrial heritage sites had missed.

We wanted regional and global scope, so agriculture and global trade impact were in there. We had research suggesting that flour milling would be a loser topic from a promotional and attendance point of view, so we had to make sure the visitor experience compensated for that by being as compelling as we could make it. We had a branding and publicity campaign that helped project the idea that this would be an exciting place to visit. Since opening we’ve sustained annual attendance at around 120,000, our original goal being about 90,000. In the meantime we’ve also seen the rest of the riverfront redeveloped, including new parks and the new Guthrie Theater, which filled the last undeveloped lot downriver from us a few years ago, so MCM helped blaze a trail for development other than just luxury condos.



What are some of your favorite online (or offline!) resources for people interested in finding out more about exhibition development?


I read the Exhibitionist and Curator pretty religiously. Kathy McLean’s writings have been useful to me for many years and now she’s got her own blog which I will follow. I really like ExhibitFiles for its range and variety. I like your blog and Nina Simon’s Museum 2.0.

The Center for the Future of Museums has a blog now that’s always provocative, though less exhibit-specific. I don’t do the Museum-L listserve much; it’s not pictorial enough for me; I get lost in it. There also seem to be a lot people on it whining about things I think are progressive.

There’s a new blog called Museopunk that’s kind of fun. Never could quite click with Museum News for some reason even I don’t understand, though I think it’s getting a little better lately. I have Google pull me a bunch of topical museum stories every day which I comb for provocative or weird stuff. I follow a lot of museum people on Twitter now, including you!



What do you think is the “next frontier” for museums?


I resist the idea that there is one frontier. But I do think we know enough about how things are trending to talk about a framework within which museums will need to evolve. I just think that evolutionary process is liable to be very different from museum to museum and that’s a good thing. I take a biodiversity analogy. It’s better for the health of museums in aggregate if they stay resolutely differentiated, even if that means some don’t survive. The Center for the Future of Museums posted a good five point list recently: Green, Personalized, Comfortable, Interactive, Flexible, which neatly frames the areas of concern where innovation will need to occur.

To that list I would add what I said earlier about the increasing diversity of our potential audiences. In Minnesota our school age population is already more than 50% “minority.” Museums will need to ask themselves how they plan to respond to that reality. I also think there’s a lot of potential in doing interdisciplinary exhibits. The traditional academic categories around which museums were originally organized are beginning to prove inadequate for talking about the particular challenges we are now facing as a species on this planet—challenges people want to talk about. Exciting ways to understand these issues in relevant ways are going to be neglected if we insist on limiting our scope to one narrow discipline or another. I think designers could stand to think less about style and look more at communicating concepts visually through metaphor or juxtaposition—the way artists do!



What are some of your favorite museums or exhibitions?


I’m kind of polymorphously perverse, so it’s hard to pick even a few. I’ve already mentioned the Museum of Jurassic Technology and stuff that influenced me as a kid. I love the City Museum in St. Louis. The American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore is a favorite. I like all of these for the DIY ethos they represent.


I saw a museum in Budapest a few years ago called the House of Terror that just blew me away. There’s a group in Switzerland called Stapferhaus Lenzburg which doesn’t have a permanent museum, but stages temporary exhibits in various locations that provoke encounters between strangers around topical issues. The Lower East Side Tenement Museum was a revelation when I first visited there. Dialogues in the Dark is an inspired, transformative exhibit. Bruce Mau’s Massive Change broke a lot of rules, but succeeded in being provocative by having a strong point of view.

Chicago History Museum
has done some really cool exhibits recently, the one on teens and their recent fashion exhibits were real standouts for me. The USS Constitution Museum is really breaking out right now with a combo exhibit and research project devoted to family learning. Connor Prairie has methodically and imaginatively transformed what a living history site can be. The Museum at Bethel Woods, which is on the site of the Woodstock Festival, is really well done.

The Rosenbach Library was doing some very innovative programming when Bill Adair was there and the Eastern State Penitentiary, which is also in Philadelphia, does interesting stuff with artist installations and other programming. The Monterey Bay Aquarium is the best anywhere. Fred Wilson’s "Mining the Museum" was significant for me as was "Art/Artifact" at the Museum for African Art in New York; they really changed how I think about museum tradecraft. I like some of these not because they are models to imitate, but because they really can’t be imitated, they’re completely unique. I’ve admired the kind of risks the designer Francois Confino takes with exhibits; he doesn’t use artifacts or labels. The International Museum of Humor by Confino was appropriately hilarious.



Can you talk a little about some of your current projects?


We’ve got a bunch of cool things we’re working on now. One is a major traveling exhibit on the year 1968 which has proven extremely challenging to fund but it will be really worth the effort. It’ll be about the lasting impact of one year’s events on the memories of a generation of young people and we’re using some social media approaches to build the project up and out. We’re working on another major effort which we call “reinventing the field trip.” We’ll be looking at some novel ways for making an exhibit that’s more responsive to a school group audience. It’s still too speculative to talk much about it yet, but we did get some funding in place so it feels very feasible in what is otherwise a really icky economic environment.



If money were no object, what would your “dream” exhibit project be?


I’ve got tons of them in reserve, but the most impractical one I’ve always wanted to do is a combination museum and resort hotel where you’d get to live, sleep and eat in the museum. It would have guest rooms, lounges, restaurants, a pool, a bar, a day spa, all of which are a part of game-like exhibits you can party in around the clock with other guests. The museum could be about anything, but maybe it would be about a journey of self-realization. Something about the choices you make in life and where they lead you, a place where you can experiment with alternative paths and identities you’d never dare take in real life. Know anybody who’d like to fund it?



Thanks again to Dan for sharing his thoughts on the exhibit development process. (Feel free to forward his info to potential funders for the hotel/museum project!)



Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Free Updates" link on the right side of the blog.

P.S. If you receive ExhibiTricks via email (or facebook or LinkedIn) you will need to click HERE to go to the main ExhibiTricks page to make comments or view multimedia features (like videos!)

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Design Inspiration: Storytelling


During the recent "Creating Exhibitions" conference put on by the Mid-Atlantic Association of Museums (MAAM) several sessions, and a talk by author David Macaulay about his process, got me thinking again about the importance of stories and storytelling, especially in design projects and museums.

One thing I'm thinking about is whether it is better to start with the objects or to begin with the stories. I'm leaning towards objects first, since so many BAD exhibitions I've seen seem to have started with a fixed storyline that didn't really lead anywhere. What do you think? Stories or Stuff first?

Another thing I'm pondering is David Macaulay's statement in the Q&A session following his talk that (my paraphrase) "You can't draw on a computer, and you can only really understand something if you can draw it." While the computer is an incredibly powerful tool, one of its downsides is that it can almost effortlessly help us to produce things like renderings and label text (or blogs!) that may have a certain surface beauty without any true depth borne from hard-won understanding and experience. Mr. Macaulay spoke of a whole bookshelf full of failed experiments that he didn't want to publish because they weren't "good enough."

Some of my best encounters with museum exhibitions or art are those in which it was clear that there was something interesting going on underneath, rather than merely presenting a glittery, facile surface.

It's easy to talk about storytelling, but much more difficult to frame a proper story. With that in mind, here are two on-line resources that were suggested during the conference, each with slightly different points of view about storytelling, that can serve as springboards for your own storytelling and design efforts:

The Center for Digital Storytelling is an international not-for-profit community arts organization rooted in the craft of personal storytelling. The Center assists youth and adults around the world in using media tools to share, record, and value stories from their lives, in ways that promote artistic expression, health and well being, and justice.


Stories for Change is focused on the intertwined roles of community and place in storytelling. Their website has some especially good resources to draw upon.

So, what's your story? Or the story inside your exhibition trying to get out? I look forward to visiting the next set of museum exhibitions I see with a critical eye toward the stories inside.

Don't miss out on any ExhibiTricks posts! It's easy to get updates via email or your favorite news reader. Just click the "Free Updates" link on the right side of the blog.