Opening ExhibitFiles in April 2007 was like opening a public park. There was a vision and a setting—but until people began to arrive, this community website for the exhibition field was almost literally empty.

We had projected that perhaps 100 people would join and contribute 30 exhibition case studies. Five years later, membership exceeds 2,000 and continues to grow, with 390+ case studies and reviews posted to date. Instead of the projected 1,000 visits a month, the site regularly exceeds 5,000.

When we received National Science Foundation funding to develop ExhibitFiles in January 2006 (with ASTC as grantee organization, Ideum as designer/software developer), we conceived of the site as part archive and part community. It would be a place to preserve and share experiences and build reflective exhibition practice. The site—including its architecture, software, user interface, and what we came to think of as its human system—was designed to be a work in progress.

We have been able to extend a three-year grant to cover six years of work, three rounds of evaluation, and two major redesigns. Although the NSF grant ends in December, program officers have come to speak of ExhibitFiles as part of the “infrastructure” that supports work in informal science education, and we are grateful that ASTC remains committed to maintaining the site.

As with many other design experiments, along the way there have been insights and unexpected delights as well as some dilemmas still unresolved. With the benefit of evaluation findings and critical review by friends of the site, we share here some observations and reflections on what might happen next.

Delights
We have delighted in watching ExhibitFiles grow into an international and interdisciplinary community of practitioners who join together for inspiration, knowledge building, and critique. Members come from 57 countries and a wide variety of museums, academic institutions, and other organizations. Evaluation tells us that while some members post case studies and reviews to raise their professional visibility, more altruistic motivations—like contributing to their professional community—are at least as common.

Many case studies have been about science exhibitions, 26 of them NSF-funded, including classics like the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History’s Discovery Room in Washington, D.C. (Judith White), and more recent award-winners like the Huntington Botanical Garden’s Plants Are Up to Something in San Marino, California (Karina White). But over time, we have seen more posts about art galleries and offbeat museums like St. Louis’s City Museum (Jason Jay Stevens). The site provides us with both delightful and haunting glimpses of places near and far—from Austin, Minnesota’s Spam Museum (Dan Spock) to the Choeung Ek Genocide Museum near Phnom Penh, Cambodia (Mary Marcussen).

ExhibitFiles includes both thorough pieces by museum elders and first attempts at review by museum studies students on assignment. The sense of camaraderie, common purpose, devotion to the larger museum field, and sometimes even celebration is evident in contributions and comments. In addition, participants have told project evaluator Carey Tisdal why they value the site. “I love, love, love the case study forum,” said one participant. “That alone provides insight into design and exhibits that is invaluable to designers who don’t have large travel budgets. It is great for inspiration as well as critical reflection.”

Dilemmas
We have also identified some areas where ExhibitFiles could be improved. As content builds beyond original expectations, findability becomes more important. We have added open tagging and a browse page. But search functionality is still not what we wish it would be, and evaluation suggests this contributes to a sense that the site is slowly getting bogged down.

People want places to discuss issues and listen in on important conversations. But we wonder whether the current format of ExhibitFiles will be sufficiently adaptable given how much has changed since early 2006. Back then, Facebook wasn’t in general use and Twitter was just on the horizon. It’s now so easy to start a blog or create an online presence that the role of centralized gathering places is an open question. What happens, then, to a devotion not only to my online profile but also to our common field?

What now?
Although the media landscape has changed in recent years, the need for shared experience, reflection, and inspiration has not. The fact that people continue to join ExhibitFiles—even though some may hesitate to disclose details of their own experience or venture a review—seems to us evidence of a continuing thirst for what communities at their best have to offer.

What might help ExhibitFiles remain of service to the exhibition community? Here are some things we hope the site and its community will accomplish in the coming months and years:

• Welcome. Much of the richness of ExhibitFiles comes from its embrace of the whole museum exhibition community, not just science centers. Members of the site have recommended that ExhibitFiles be more explicit in its inclusion of all sectors of the museum field. We agree.
• Remember. From the beginning, we hoped ExhibitFiles would be hospitable to both new discoveries and old traditions. As the site has evolved, however, current reviews and recently completed projects have tended to take center stage. But there is much wisdom in past experience. We want to see more reviews and case studies of older, classic exhibitions. One of Kathy’s first posts on ExhibitFiles quotes Canadian designer Bruce Mau: “Growth is only possible as a product of history. Without memory, innovation is mere novelty. History gives growth a direction.”
• Take risks. Every exhibition is an opportunity to see the world in a different way and tempt people beyond their comfort zones. We want to see more criticism and deep reflection on ExhibitFiles—that’s what other members have told the evaluator, too. We wonder: What would have to happen to make ExhibitFiles more congenial for conversations that wake us up and shake us up?

We are grateful to NSF for taking a risk with this project and to our collaborators, the Ideum programming and design team led by Jim Spadaccini, and evaluators Randi Korn (front-end studies) and Carey Tisdal (remedial and summative studies). And we are grateful to our Core Contributors who were the first to venture into the new and empty public park—and to every one of you, for making it your own. We look forward to continuing our own participation—and to contributing our own pre-internet memories and provocations.

Wendy Pollock was director of research, publications, and exhibitions at ASTC until 2009 and principal investigator (PI) of the NSF grant that supported development of ExhibitFiles. Kathleen McLean, principal of the museum consulting firm Independent Exhibitions, was co-PI. Wendy now lives in Evanston, Illinois, mostly working these days with urban and community forestry projects.

This look back at the creation of ExhibitFiles also appears in the January/February issue of ASTC Dimensions. A report on the evaluation just completed by Carey Tisdal will also be shared here in early 2012.

To learn more about ExhibitFiles or for assistance in posting a case study or review, contact Wendy Hancock (whancock@astc.org).

• traveling exhibitions in the traditional sense – designed by an organization or consortium and sent on the road to a number of venues
• museum-sponsored vans or buses that extend a museum’s reach in its community or state
• “pop up” exhibitions- created by one or more designers or by visitors themselves – that appear in neighborhoods or other venues, not necessarily museums.

If you’re interested, send an abstract by August 1st to editor Gretchen Jennings. In 250 words maximum, briefly describe your article; how it relates to issue theme; your background/qualifications for writing the article. Abstracts will be vetted by our editorial advisory board, and you will be notified of acceptance or non/acceptance within several weeks.

For back issues of the journal, visit the NAME website.

Contact: Gretchen Jennings, Exhibitionist Editor, gretchenjennings[at]rcn.com.
Abstract deadline: August 1, 2011.

Thanks to Myriam Springuel of Springuel Consulting for this guest post. She is Vice-Chair of

Lewis Hyde challenges those working in the cultural arena to be more engaged in protecting the cultural commons – those inventions, discoveries, and creative works that are our common heritage. It is a tough challenge because this is not about joining a campaign based on a sound-bite slogan. Rather it is about understanding the complicated ways in which we create civil society based on the idealism of the founding fathers of the United States. Ultimately, it is about the ways in which the expression of culture, limited by enclosures or encroachments – like those that shut 18th-century English villagers out of the commons on which they had traditionally grazed their sheep – defines how we express ourselves as human beings. Part of what makes Lewis Hyde’s challenge so difficult is that we have to learn vocabulary and pay attention to history to talk about the subject.

The focus of Lewis Hyde’s presentation at the recent AAM conference was on questions raised in his latest book, Common as Air, around who owns the cultural commons, why that commons is being increasingly restricted, and ways in which various communities are organizing to challenge those restrictions to find new ways of working that are appropriate for the Internet age.

It was in order to encourage creativity and the “useful arts” that the founders in 1790 created the legal tools that protect the work of inventors, writers, and artists for a limited time. They believed democratic self-governance requires a free flow of ideas; copyright and patents allowed for a limited monopoly, giving the inventor or thinker remuneration as an incentive to work, with a limited time during which others could not profit from that work. Recently, the length of time for exclusion, originally about 14 years, has greatly increased; in many cases, the burden of proof has shifted, making it more expensive and complicated to defend fair use.

Property, whether tangible or intangible, is a right of action; those actions have limits. For example, I own my house and can keep people out. But I cannot turn that house into a factory or a parking lot, or do any number of other things with or from that house. The 18th century saw important arguments about property and ownership. Jefferson, for instance, argued that the only way to exclude someone from an idea is to keep it in your head. Non-rivalrous and non-excludable property was much discussed by the founders. It has long been understood that water, air, and fire are common goods. Public policy generally addresses the balance between property held in common and property held individually. The Internet had fundamentally challenged how we share ideas. In response, we are just starting to develop different ways of owning and sharing ideas.

Hyde was particularly provocative in reminding us that these questions are rooted in how we imagine the human self. For whom do we make works of art, explore science, or express creativity? Where do ideas come from? Hyde reminded us that the creative self is both individual and collective. He offered the term “dividual” – the many parts that make me including my self, my family, my community – as opposed to “individual.” Benjamin Franklin and Bob Dylan, for example, had remarkable gifts. But their talent is both an expression of the many influences on their work and their “dividual” self. Once I mix my labor with culture, how much can I take credit for?

In museums, Hyde suggested, I become myself. I become present. What is the self that comes to life? Is it a dividual or an individual self?

Practices around cultural property allow us to be certain kinds of selves. With them we enable or disable ways of being human. Hyde challenges us to participate in the debate about what it means to be a cultural citizen in the 21st century; knowing the history of the debate is critical to understanding its implications. Hyde did not provide pat answers but gave examples of how some fields are responding to these questions. For instance Creative Commons, the Bermuda Principles for the Human Genome, or the principles behind Cap and Trade are each grounded in “declaration”; academic scientists, French chefs, and comedians police each other, yet build on each others’ work through agreed-upon conventions.

During this AAM Thought Leader session, Lewis Hyde challenged museum professionals to be active participants in discussions about the philosophies and values that will guide the choices we make as a society – a discussion that is much broader than the museum field, but is at the heart of why so many of us are passionate about museum work.

If you’re thinking of visiting New York or Washington, D.C. any time soon, check out the exhibition reviews by all of the museum studies students from Bank Street College and George Washington University. They’ve been fanning out to museums throughout those cities over the last several weeks and together have posted nearly 50 reviews. Thanks to their observations and critiques, we have a record of some temporary exhibitions like the Whitney’s Glen Ligon: AMERICA and fresh takes on some exhibitions and experiences like the Tenement Museum. (At right is an image by Amanda Salles from MOMA’s Looking at Music 3.0.)

Thank you to all of the students for sharing your experiences and your thinking. With your newly honed critical skills, we hope you’ll continue to contribute even when your classes end. And thanks also to Paul Orselli, Kathy McLean, Dana Allen-Greil, and Carrie Kotcho, who encouraged their students to share their reviews with the ExhibitFiles community.

Editor Gretchen Jennings writes that the journal is particularly interested in through case studies and analyses of

• The emergence of museums and memorials in the United States and around the world that commemorate human suffering and injustice
• Challenges faced by museum professionals, particularly those in the exhibition development field, in creating effective exhibitions, public spaces, and programs.

Challenges might involve:

• History and geography: can this story be told at this time in this place? If not, why not; if so how?
• Point of view: from whose perspective(s) will the story be told?
• Audience: who is the intended/appropriate audience?
• Mission: is the institution for reflection; for raising social consciousness; for inspiring action; all or some of these?
• Design: Are there common design/programmatic features as well as new ideas for engaging visitors with these difficult topics?

Abstracts (maximum 250 words) are due by April 22. Briefly describe your article; how it relates to issue theme; your background/qualifications for writing the article. Abstracts are vetted by the NAME editorial advisory board and authors notified of acceptance or non/acceptance within several weeks. First drafts (maximum 2,400 words) are due June 24 and final drafts by July 31, 2011. Contact: Gretchen Jennings, Editor, NAME .

Peter was also instrumental in the Museum Impact and Evaluation Study, which resulted in a three-volume report published in 1993 on “Roles of Affect in the Museum Visit and Ways of Assessing Them.” The study group was interested in relationships repeat visitors form with what they called “icon exhibits,” like the Buhl Planetarium’s railroad layout and the Museum of Science and Industry’s Coal Mine.

Many of us also will remember Peter for his contributions in recent years to discussions on ISEN-ASTC-L, the Informal Science Education listserv, and his warm presence at ASTC and Ecsite conferences. He will be missed.

As usual, there are also exhibition sightings (in Exhibits Newsline, edited by Beth Redmond-Jones) and Nuts and Bolts articles, including one on writing labels for translation by Penny Jennings.

NAME generously posts back issues after a year, but even before then, some articles can be downloaded free here, including an article from the Spring 2010 issue by Donna Braden called “Your Personal Toolkit: Easing through Friction, Fracas, and Free-for-All.”

Since the beginning of the year, I have been meeting with fellow museum professionals from a variety of local museums to experiment with and learn from the use of Judging Exhibitions: A Framework for Assessing Excellence, by Beverly Serrell. Our group includes people from a variety of backgrounds and a spectrum of museum types. Each person in the group uses the Framework to review an exhibition on their own. Then we meet over sack lunches once every two months to follow up and discuss our findings. I try to capture the views of the entire group in a review, informed by their reviews and the discussion, which I post on Exhibitfiles. (Two have been posted—Destination Argentina and galleries at the John Hutchings Museum of Natural History—and two more will be posted in the next few weeks.)

We held our first meeting in February and reviewed how we would use the Framework. (See below for link to PDF.) It is exciting to talk about what makes a good exhibition, we agreed, and there would be differences of opinion. The Framework would help get us all on the same page, speaking the same language, and thinking more carefully and thoroughly about what we see as evidence of excellence. The process of thinking and discussing has increased our abilities to review, critique and evaluate for excellence—and to strive for exhibitions that have the most excellence possible.

When we visit an exhibition on our own, we complete the steps to come up with a rating. Beverly defines them this way:

• Call-outs: your experiences in the exhibition as a visitor
• Aspects: the evidence you found that supported each criterion (Comfortable? Engaging? Reinforcing? Meaningful?)

I really enjoy coming up with call-outs. I can wonder on paper about the things I see and hear. I can like things just because I like them. And I can note when I think something is stupid. There aren’t really any “rules” that I need to consider, I just need to experience the exhibition. When I “finish” my visit, it is time to assess the “aspects.” I am mostly considering questions that are laid out pretty explicitly in the Framework. Basically, I just ask myself if the exhibition “is” or “isn’t” comfortable, engaging, reinforcing, and meaningful, based on what I wrote in my call-outs.

After finishing these two steps, it is time to use my brain, to “rate the criteria”—then to identify the evidence to support those ratings. Rating the criteria requires that I 1) start using a different part of my brain, and keep using it until my brain adjusts to the shift and 2) make commitments. I love to analyze and think, but I still have to talk myself into assigning ratings, to be a judge. Once I get into it, it does get easier and more enjoyable.

I am reminded of the dreaded annual reviews with the boss: I love it when the review tells me I have exceeded expectations and done more than required, and a bit disappointed when told that I am doing the job I was hired for at the level it needs to be done. I think we find most exhibitions also to be a mixture of good, bad, and “acceptable.” But I am very confident that most, if not all, exhibitions have something in them that is excellent. One purpose for the Judging Exhibitions experiment is to find the ways that we can increase excellence and not always have to settle for “acceptable.”

The group discussions have lived up to all my expectations. One discussion stands out in my mind: during one of our reviews, each of us was able to identify ways that the exhibition could be improved. Some were pretty simple things like removing some of the artifacts to allow room for the artifacts that were on display. Some ideas were getting pretty elaborate, including knocking out walls and redesigning entire galleries to focus the storytelling and interpretation to provide increased context and relevance for multiple styles of visitors. Frankly, I think we batted around some pretty good ideas that would address missed opportunities, improve the visitors’ experiences, and increase the excellence of the exhibition, but we had to stop to notice a very important point: The purpose of reviewing an exhibition (formally or informally) is not to completely redesign the exhibition or to tear down the work of those who planned it, but to critically observe where the exhibit planners did well and not so well so that we can learn from their experience. These grand schemes of redesign were not for the existing exhibition—to be honest, we all rather enjoyed ourselves and found much to be impressed with. We were using the existing exhibition as a shared reference. The ideas and recommendations were for future exhibitions we would work on. This is how we build on the past and learn from each other.

So far, this has been an exhilarating experiment. Everyone involved has found opportunity to learn from the experiences and insight of our colleagues. But even more exciting has been the opportunity to be guided by the Framework to pull lessons about what makes a truly great exhibition from each and every exhibition we visit, review, and discuss.

I am enjoying the involvement of different perspectives, learning from colleagues, and stretching my own thinking. I recommend that others try it – develop your own group in your own city, and use the Framework to focus and direct your discussions. I would love to hear how it goes.

Framework: Assessing Excellence in Exhibitions from a Visitor-Centered Perspective, by Beverly Serrell (PDF)

Articles are generally 2,500-3,000 words in length. To propose an article, send one or two paragraphs about how you would approach the topic. Editorial advisors review proposals and notify prospective authors by late September or early October. First drafts are due November 19 and final versions January 15. Contact: Gretchen Jennings, Editor, NAME .