Ten years ago Chicago's Field Museum unveiled the skeleton of "Sue," the most complete Tyrannosaurus rex yet discovered. She has been a sensation ever since.
According to the exhibit's website,
The new Sue experience certainly has a lot of flash to it—I can almost hear John Hammond, the tycoon behind Jurassic Park in the novel and films, saying "Spared no expense!"—but does it deliver on the science? Animatronic dinosaurs and 3D films can be a lot of fun (although, admittedly, they were more fun when I was seven years old), yet these forms of "edutainment" are often designed to be spectacles to draw in visitors with the secondary hope that they might learn something along the way. The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould lamented this practice of modern museums in his essay "Dinomania" for the New York Review of Books, asserting that, all too often, it dilutes the core of what museums are meant to be:
I may epitomize my argument in the following way: institutions have central purposes that define their integrity and being. Dinomania dramatizes a conflict between institutions with disparate purposes—museums and theme parks. Museums exist to display authentic objects of nature and culture—yes, they must teach; and yes, they may certainly include all manner of computer graphics and other virtual displays to aid in this worthy effort; but they must remain wed to authenticity. Theme parks are gala places of entertainment, committed to using the best displays and devices from the increasingly sophisticated arsenals of virtual reality to titillate, to scare, to thrill, even to teach.By bringing theme park attractions into museums, especially when they are not well-integrated with the natural wonders such institutions contain, museums may undermine their own core purpose—to educate. Special effects may get more people to shell out an extra five or ten dollars for the museum, but do they really do anything to help people feel a sense of wonder about the natural world? Is simply increasing the volume of visitors to a museum doing anything to better educate the public? The new Sue experience sounds like a fun gimmick, but it appears to be another collision between theme park and museum culture in which the spectacular details of nature take a back seat to (relatively) cheap thrills.
I happen to love theme parks, so I do not speak from a rarefied academic post in a dusty museum office. But theme parks are, in many ways, the antithesis of museums. If each institution respects the other’s essence and place, this opposition poses no problem. But theme parks belong to the realm of commerce, museums to the world of education—and the first is so much bigger than the second. Commerce will swallow museums if educators try to copy the norms of business for immediate financial reward.
Have you seen the new Sue exhibit? What did you think? Have your say in the comments.