I was going through a few of my father's Smithsonian magazines now that I'm home for Thanksgiving. I found the issue for November 2013 and it was a little different from most. The Smithsonian Institute is attempting to tell all of America's history in 101 objects. The editors of the magazines worked with curators of each of the 19 museums and research centers to choose just 101 objects out of the 137 million the institution currently owns. They then published a "special collections issue" of the magazine to showcase these 101 objects and describe their importance in United States history.
For such a huge section of history, 101 doesn't seem like a lot of objects to get the entire view of American history. From the notes in the articles, it also sounded like there was a great deal of debate amongst all the collaborators as what items should be included and why. What I really like about this undertaking is that the Smithsonian understood this debate and decided to do something about it. As soon as the magazine was released, the institution published a branch on its website that carried on the discussion of American history. They allowed the public to contribute their own articles to the website that pointed out a particular item in the Smithsonian's collections and why they think it should have been one of the 101 objects. One author even went so far as to include 50 new pieces.
I think this is a great idea for museums, even smaller museums, to get community involvement. Maybe they can publish their holdings on a particular collection and start a debate. Did the exhibition include everything that the public thought it should? It's a way to not only serve as a basis for expanding or changing current exhibits, but also to get people involved in the process of exhibition. By opening a public discourse, museums can keep exhibits relevant and interesting to the community as a whole.
If you want to take part in the Smithsonian debate the website is: smithsonian.com/101objects
In Ottawa, it stirred controversy. The traveling museum show “Sex: A Tell-all Exhibition” was too provocative, said critics last year. Even the heritage minister’s office got involved.
In Vancouver, it
wasn’t the show — renamed “Science of Sexuality” — that raised eyebrows
this summer, but the ads for it. They were deemed too risqué for city
bus shelters.
Next up? Kitchener.
“It’s bold and frank and very well done,” says David Marskell, CEO of The Museum, about the exhibit. “We are delighted we acquired it.” The exhibit opens at the Kitchener museum January 25.
The exhibit, created
by the Montreal Science Centre for youngsters 12 and up, is a chance for
teens to learn scientific facts about sexuality, rather than
misinformation from hearsay or the Internet, says Marskell, who attended
the show in Vancouver.
Photos
View photos
-
zoom
And how will
Kitchener respond? “It will be interesting,” says Marskell, who has
already met with the board of education and the local newspaper about
the show.
“I’m comfortable that
as long as we handle it respectfully, people here will respond in a
positive way,” he adds. “This community is very science- and
technology-based.”
The exhibit answers
100 common questions teens ask, such as “Is this normal?” and “Who am I
attracted to?” explains Montreal Science Centre’s Louise Julie Bertrand,
manager of development and production.
Computer-generated
images tell the story of conception. A humourous video describes
puberty. A multimedia presentation explains the phases of sex:
excitement, plateau, orgasm and resolution.
The erogenous zones of
reclining male and female mannequins light up when someone approaches.
The mannequins are equipped with motion detectors that turn on
ultraviolet lights.
One hundred and fifty
life-sized photos of naked males and females from the neck to the thighs
display the wide range of human shapes and sizes. “Teens told us they
wanted to see the real thing, not photo-shopped models,” says Bertrand.
An open call for participants had gone out.
From that open call,
average citizens talk on video about aspects of their sexual lives, such
as how their first sexual encounters happened, how they knew they were
gay.
Exhibit planners had
worked closely with teens as well as scientific advisers, doctors,
nurses, sexologists. One boy told planners that while everyone says wear
condoms, nobody explains how to use them. So a short animated how-to
video was made.
“It was important to give precise information, to be explicit, but not vulgar or pornographic,” says Bertrand.
“Sex: A Tell-all Exhibition” won the Canadian Association of Science Centres’
award for a large institution’s best exhibit in 2011. Shown at the
Montreal Science Centre, the exhibit received positive feedback, says
Bertrand, and went to the Saskatchewan Science Centre in Regina without
causing disputes.
Then it hit Ottawa.
During previews at Canada’s Science and Technology Museum, some teachers
and parents found parts of the exhibit too provocative. The museum,
mostly funded by the federal government, received calls from the office
of the Heritage Minister, James Moore.
In a letter to the
minister, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada described the
exhibit as “soft pornography” and objected to its promotion of sex
without emotional commitment.
“The concerns we heard
were about both the nature of the exhibit and the role of the national
museum,” says Yves St-Onge, the museum’s vice-president of public
affairs.
“Never in our wildest dreams did we think it would cause such a stir.”
The museum raised the age limit for unaccompanied children from 12 to 16, and it removed an animated video about masturbation.
Vancouverites reacted
totally differently. In previews, some found the exhibit too
hetero-centric, not representative of the transgendered, says Science
World’s Joann Coggan, manager of community engagement.
But it was the ads
that kicked up trouble. Before the exhibit opened, two ads were rejected
as too racy for use at city bus stops. One of them showed a woman’s
legs in casts with a man’s legs over hers. The caption read: Orgasms can kill pain.
The rejected ads,
however, turned up on social media and then on mainstream television,
causing controversy. “The ads had originally been created to attract
attention,” says Coggan, “and they did.”
The Vancouver
exhibit’s name was changed to “Science of Sexuality” prior to the Ottawa
flap because it better represented the show, explains Coggan.
In Toronto, the
Ontario Science Centre passed on the show, but not because of the Ottawa
ordeal. “That exhibition did not fit into our planning. Nothing against
it. We have every intention of dealing with the subject fully in the
future,” says chief science officer Hooley McLaughlin, pointing out that
the Ontario Science Centre often develops its own exhibits.
At Science North in
Sudbury, CEO Guy Labine might consider it for a fall or winter slot
eventually. The Ottawa publicity doesn’t colour his view of the exhibit,
he says, but rather how it needs to be presented to the community to
prevent a similar flare-up.
In Kitchener, Marskell
is planning accompanying programs, perhaps a play and speakers, to
attract seniors to the exhibit. The science centres that already hosted
the exhibit all reported interest from senior citizens. Marskell has
been expanding the demographic reach of the museum, which originally
started for children 10 years ago.
“We’re a young, bold organization doing great things,” he says of the private, non-profit museum.
Youth, however, are
still its core audience. He points out the exhibit’s timeliness: Some
educators are pushing the province to update the sex education
curriculum.
He doesn’t have an ad
campaign yet for the exhibit. But he knows one thing for sure: “It’s not
going to be, ‘For a good time, call…’”
