I think that this debate is really an outgrowth of a larger cultural trend, and the Dalas Daily News article, though informative, misses some basic points.

At one time in our cultural history, there appears to have been something of a diveide between education, and entertainment. If it was educational, like school, it was almost necessarily boring. There was a negative connotation to little boys everywhere. If it's good for you, then it most taste bad.

Then along came a new generation. Madame Montessori developed an educational technique that encouraged creativity and personal interest. Study what you will. Though her technique has yet to enter the mainstream, it has had profound effects. No longer was school slate boards, and dry arithmetic lessons. (Though perhaps I myself could have benefitted from a few more typing or spelling lessons.)

Mr. Disney came from the other perspective. He was an entertainer with an agenda. (Hardly unusual really.) Disneyworld was so revolutionary not only because it was so big and so immersive, but because in the Epcot Centre, Mr. Disney attempted to create an entertainment venue that was also highly educational. (And I would nominate this as the first new museum.) Suddenly we found ourselves on Coney Island learning about transportation, or American History, or foreign culture. What, with a bit of cheese that spinach needn't taste bad?

Now, I'm not going to say that this is a perfect situation, but is there really anything inherently wrong with the idea that education needn't be merely drudgery but can be entertaining, and entertainment needn't be merely escapism, but can be eduactional?

Mr. Goldfeder is right on the mark when he says we need to mark our exhibits sufficiently that our guests know what they are, but so is IronDave when he says that our exhibits need to be engrossing, i.e. fun. The question to my mind is not whether our museums should be educational or entertaining, but what is the proper ballance between them. How do we keep our museums entertaining enough that the "civilians" want to learn, and educational enough that they get a meaningfull experience that somehow improves their quality of life, or our quality of society?

Obviously, Disneyworld isn't as educational as a good math class, but it is more deeply meaningfull than Coney Island, and it's still fun. Obviously a Montesorri School isn't as much fun as a glitzy matinee, but it is more educational and it's less mind numbing than memorizing a multiplication table.

Can we create a good ballance with a museum? The schools and amusement parks are getting there. We need to be more educational than Disneyworld, though we don't have to replace John Doe High. We need to be more fun than a statistics lecture to the average colleage freshman, but we needn't compete with the latest blockbuster.

Anyway, there's about all the valuable ideas that one can reasonably expect for free. Thank you for your patience, please keep your hands in the car, and your minds in the museum biz.

Oh, and I don't think the "old" museums are in any danger of going away anytime soon. Last I checked "old" art, history, and natural history museums were thriving all across the country. And as a student of music, the "Experience Music" project with its "Kansas City" aroma at the block party just sounded like a bad trip. We skipped it.

Sincerely,
David Ackerman

david_ackerman@yahoo.com

> > 1) The majority of such new museums (another
> that comes to mind is the
> "Newseum", featured prominently in
> an article in today's Washington Post,
> linked below) can, rightly or wrongly, be
> perceived as promoting a particular social
> or political agenda

Alexander, thanks for your post. I was beginning to think that I was the only one on here that saw a noxious, politically correct bent to them.



superheater@beer.com

At ARM I presented an "in your face" discussion of how tourists and other visitors see our museums and tourist train operations. Whether we like it or not, our visitors today expect a higher level of presentation and entertainment. This trend is only going to continue. Therefore if we expect to have a critical mass of visitors into our facilities, we need to make them attractive.

I do not believe that we need to spend Disney's money, but we should learn from Disney's policies and focus. They spend more effort determining what will stop a person from wanting to visit. They have found that the negatives do more to stop visitors than do just a mediocre presentation.

We need visitors to create the positive cash flow needed to do restoration and continue the other museum functions. If we do not keep raising our standards of presentation we will become invisible to the public.

Gary

Stone Consulting & Design
garyland@stoneconsulting.com

> At ARM I presented an "in your
> face" discussion of how tourists and
> other visitors see our museums and tourist
> train operations. Whether we like it or not,
> our visitors today expect a higher level of
> presentation and entertainment. This trend
> is only going to continue. Therefore if we
> expect to have a critical mass of visitors
> into our facilities, we need to make them
> attractive.

> I do not believe that we need to spend
> Disney's money, but we should learn from
> Disney's policies and focus. They spend more
> effort determining what will stop a person
> from wanting to visit. They have found that
> the negatives do more to stop visitors than
> do just a mediocre presentation.

> We need visitors to create the positive cash
> flow needed to do restoration and continue
> the other museum functions. If we do not
> keep raising our standards of presentation
> we will become invisible to the public.

> Gary

Good points Gary. I wish I could have attended your session, but I was setting in on another one at that time.

Several years ago I was at a California Association of Museums meeting held at the then new Autry Museum of Western Heritage. Its initial displays were designed by the Disney design folks. Since then some of them have been changed or added to by the museum's own staff.

During this meeting the Disney folks made a presentation about their exhibit work at Epcott at the Florida park complex. As I recall, they called their product "edu-tainment." Their purpose was entertainment, entertainment. One of the Autry museum's professionals was asked what he would consider his purpose; his answer was entertain, educate, entertain, educate.

Brian Norden

bnorden49@earthlink.net

> Whether we like it or not,
> our visitors today expect a higher level of
> presentation and entertainment.

One of the best "static" exhibits I've seen is CSRM's sleeping car "Ste. Hyacinthe." It is rigged with rockers, sound, and lights to feel like it's in motion at night.
It is very popular with visitors who walk through it.
Great job those Calfornia folks did on that exhibit!

One thing about Disney's operation I don't think was mentioned here is the level of maintenance they achieve. I didn't get to Disney World until I was 50, and the oldest part of the park was over 25 years old, yet it couldn't have looked nicer. Walt Disney created Disneyland with that standard in mind, after visiting tired and dirty old amusement parks in the 1940s. It seems that if it requires 5000 people to go around and scrape up gum and papers, then they employ 5000 and no less. In these days of cost cutting corporate sleazeballs, that's a commendable policy. Certainly not everything Disney does is suited to our field, but their standard of maintenance and presentation is certainly a desirable goal.

ryarger@rypn.org

Running demonstration trains is a great way to engage the public. The "ride" is probably the strongest draw of the operating museums in this country, but the ride is just an entertaining simulation unless it is accompanied with some form of storytelling to give the experience relevance. It is amusing to hear people warn of the evils of disneydom when in most cases, the actual experience of riding the train at "XRM" is comparable to riding the train at Disneyland. The obvious (to us) differences are authenticity and budget.

Sadly, the latter of those two differences makes it difficult for railroad museums to hire the professional designers, and construct the buildings and exhibits that all of the museums listed above have benefited from. I respect the difficulties RR museums face. I understand that it is difficult to take on new projects, but as a professional designer, and a visitor to many railroad museums I feel that there are at least two things that I wish every railroad museum was doing to engage the public.

The first is to develop a docent program that emphasizes a narrative approach to interpreting the preserved artifacts. The CSRM has well designed and fabricated exhibits, but some of their most effective storytelling relies upon enthusiastic and knowledgeable docent volunteers. They give well scripted tours of the museum every hour, and they have one person each in a Pullman, an RPO, a diner, and the cab of a steam locomotive. These people know their stuff, and seem to be happy giving their visitors as much (or as little) information as they want. A well written tour can tell some of the great stories of railroad history and place the museum's artifacts in that story.

The second is to think about design. The entire visitor experience could be designed to assist in telling the stories of railroading. Buildings, signage, displays, and landscaping all contribute to this experience. I am not suggesting that "XRM" hire Frank Gerhy. I am suggesting that we look at how the museum in organized and how facilities are to be developed. An organization's mission statement should be translated into a master plan for the museum's facilities and displays. I think that a study of other kinds of museums could offer important lessons about chronological narrative, theming, and areas of special interest. Good design does not have to be expensive or difficult to maintain. It also does not have to be tidy and sterile (disney-like). There are many young creative designers that may be willing to provide time and expertise on the cheap, or for free. Students from local universities may also be a source of creative and practical ideas.


randy@jonespartners.com

Amen to that. When I was there about ten or fifteen years ago, one thing that my mother noticed and pointed out to us was that she saw a visitor throw a piece of litter on the ground, and no sooner was it there than a conveniently handy groundskeeper had scooped it up. It's a shame that such fastidiousness is necessary, but they really get the job done, and their park showed their care and attention to detail on every level. (We also watched them paint the grass, as it wasn't green enough. When did we end up in Wonderland Mr. Rabit?)

Sincerely,
David Ackerman

david_ackerman@yahoo.com

> One of the best "static" exhibits
> I've seen is CSRM's sleeping car "Ste.
> Hyacinthe." It is rigged with rockers,
> sound, and lights to feel like it's in
> motion at night.
> It is very popular with visitors who walk
> through it.
> Great job those Calfornia folks did on that
> exhibit!

They also have a docent in the car who adds to the experience by explaining the functioning of the berths and how the seats converted. There are also docents in the dining car display who point out different things of interest.

It is the added human element at CSRM that makes it so successful.


East Troy Electric Railroad
jftrolley@aol.com

Right you are about the docents!
On my last visit to CSRM--I've gone several times since its 1981 opening--there was a docent in the cab forward locomotive. He was actually someone who worked for SP in these type of locomotives. He made the experience of being in the cab so much more memorable.
Likewise, the docent in the dining car was able to sound the dining car chimes and the docent in the RPO explained sorting mail on the go.
*****
> It is the added human element at CSRM that
> makes it so successful.

Dave - well put.

The Museum should engage the visitor at a variety of levels. That can be done with fancy exhibits or simple laminated placards.

The big question to answer for the visitor is WHY? The fact that Car #2002 was built in 1922 by St. Louis Car. and it has 995E2 Trucks with Blah Blah brakes, etc. means nothing to the average visitor. Why did the company buy the car in the first place? Faster? Cheaper operating costs? Where did the car travel - what routes? Who rode the car? Where were they going? Compare this vehicle with (blank), etc.

In an exhibit panel on the Chevy Chase Railway (Washington, DC) I included brief notes from people that rode the line: My grandparents first date, a member's recollections about Saturday matinees at the local theatre, a former resident's recall of riding the cars to school.

Just some thoughts.

Wesley

> Are descriptives that we need to bear in
> mind when designing our displays. Relevant
> in that we form some emotional and
> intellectual connection with the viewer -
> engrossing in that we attract and retain the
> viewers attention through the duration of
> the display experience.

> Hi tech approaches are one way - hands on
> living an experience is another. Our
> demonstration train rides are the most
> obvious example. How many of us allow
> visitors to try driving a spike? Key a
> message on the Morse Telegraph? Throw a
> track switch?

> Do we let visitors know that that long coal
> train is actually delivering electricity to
> their TV set? That the railroads agents sold
> their great grandparents boat and train
> tickets to ove to the USA and occupy vacant
> railroad land which allowed them to escape
> crowded Europe and prosper?

> It occirred to me the other day when I was
> involvled in a long and probably tedious
> explaination of hydrostatic lubricators to a
> "civilian" that I probably wasn't
> doing the industry any favors. We need to
> widen our technology based inerpretation to
> a more social and personal one.

> Dave

Another point about Disney's maintenance. When I was in the Park Service, we were told that at some point a branch had fallen out of a tree, and struck and injured a visitor, who, of course, sued. Disney pulled out their records of the regular tree inspections and removal of dead/dying branches, which showed due diligence, and the case was dismissed.

I, too, have been impressed by CSRM, although it's been many years since my last visit. Does anyone know what's their "secret" for getting such good docents and, evidently, a good number of them? Are any of them paid? And does the museum get any state funding?

Does anyone know what's their
> "secret" for getting such good
> docents and, evidently, a good number of
> them?

Don't know that there is a "secret" other than a continuing and well-planned program of recruitment and training. A quick check of the Museum's website at http://www.csrmf.org/ shows a "volunteer opportunities" link right on the main menu, which takes you to information about opportunities, explains the training program, etc--well-organized and professional stuff. They make it easy to get involved.

Are any of them paid? And does the
> museum get any state funding?

I don't think any CSRM docents are paid.

CSRM is a unit of the Calfornia State Parks, a state government agency. However, it receives substantial additional funding and support from the California State Railroad Museum Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to supporting the operations of the CSRM state park. The Foundation conducts major fundraising, operates some museum operations like the gift shop, and conducts activities which the museum itself cannot (some lobbying and advertising for example).

In practice, the staff you meet when you visit the museum are a well-integrated mix of state-paid employees of the Park system, and Foundation-paid employees of the nonprofit foundation.

However, the docents you meet are volunteers to the best of my knowledge.


eledbetter@rypn.org